The Occasional Dissident

“And now we can see the value of the device of the Committee of the Whole.  If this had been the final vote on proportional representation, many if not most of the small-state delegates would have walked out of the Convention.  They did not because the Convention was still sitting as the Committee of the Whole, and the motions favoring proportional representation in both houses of Congress, which had just passed, were only ‘recommendations’ and would have to be debated and voted on again when the Convention cast off the fiction of the Committee.” 

- Christopher and James Lincoln Collier, Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787. 

 

 

Dear citizens, our great system of government, which we have loved and supported for over 220 years, is the evolutionary product of thousands of years of history and the product of giving ourselves more than one chance to succeed.  The Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in May 1787 owes its success to the great minds, to those who gathered their experiences and knowledge of mankind’s history of governments and Democracy into one hall.  However, differing opinions on the lessons to be learned from experience and history, as well as competing concerns between large and small states first and then between northern and southern states later, threatened at all times the collapse of the convention.  Success, then, also owes a lot to the organization of the convention.  The Colliers credit the Committee of the Whole for preserving the required unity.

 

A second wise decision made in the early days of the Convention was the adoption of a procedure under which questions that had been voted on could nonetheless be brought up again.  Without this rule the Convention would have collapsed in the first week.  Blocs of delegates who saw issues crucial to their states go against them, and who might otherwise have decided to walk out, could sit tight, in the knowledge that they could bring the matter up again when they thought they had a better chance.  As a consequence, throughout the Convention, Matters were undecided almost as frequently as they were decided.  Central issues were voted on again and again.

 

 

 

The Committee of the Whole would consider and debate these issues until they were worked out individually and until they fit together into the complicated mosaic that provided an adequately powerful government that could not infringe on individual liberties—to create a quilt that protected the interests of each from all while providing the unity necessary to protect all from factions and outside threats.  When the Committee had worked through this challenge it issued a report to the Convention, and the Convention then could meet as itself and approve the final version. 

 

Time and time again, proposals would be passed only to see later defeat.  Time and time again, elements of the Constitution that we employ to control our government and our elected representatives—elements we find unremarkable like proportional representation or somewhat odd like the electoral college—went down to defeat, only to rise, sometimes repeatedly, until they became hallmarks of the final document.  We citizens vote for our President—as opposed to a selection made by the Congress—because James Wilson tried repeatedly to put together a popular vote proposal that would pass muster.  After several defeats, he finally won. 

 

The Collier’s history has a unique organization as a result of this repeated visiting and revisiting of critical issues.  A purely chronological accounting would have been so convoluted and confusing that the history of important features of the Constitution would have been hopelessly obscured.  Instead, the authors divided the book by themes and traced the development of each, repeatedly covering the same dates and men and events to show the alternations of advances and retreats. We see that an advance or defeat in one area leads to advances or defeats elsewhere. This often caused the delegates to revisit and repair or refine or abandon previous agreements.  It is as if they are building a house without a blueprint.  As each room is built, say a dining room is agreed to and constructed, other rooms require adjustment.  The kitchen, for example, proves too small to feed the crowd that the dining room can accommodate.  Adding floor space to the kitchen may require reducing the living room.  Constructing, dismantling, and rebuilding agreements leads to the required compromises that produce a house that everyone can live in, a system of government that everyone can live under.   

 

The Committee of the Whole and the agreement to allow issues to be raised and debated over and over combined to create a crucial effect.  No one risked a serious loss.  Knowing that something surrendered for a moment could be demanded back later, allowed for compromise and experiment. This allowed for a long summer of experimentation necessary to settle an issue that had perplexed mankind for all its history—how people can govern themselves.  The result of just several months’ effort has been a 222-year-long success that is unique in human history.  The lesson may be that when risk is set aside and men (and women) are allowed to be daring they can achieve unimaginably worthwhile results.  It is an experience that I argue can and should be repeated. 

 

(This was not the first use of a Committee of the Whole.  It is our best example and one that yielded an unparalleled result—a Constitution that trumps all that have come before or since.)

 

Dear citizens, imagine being given the opportunity to star in a circus trapeze act.  No thanks?  Rather few people have the courage to defy the risk.  Suppose then, that I offer to “turn down” the gravity for the duration of your practice and your performance.  Still, I imagine your ascendance of the long ladder to the perilous platform above will be hesitant.  Once at the top, you may restrain your efforts to short swings out and quickly back to the platform to ensure you can regain your feet.  Finally, you might progress to swinging out and relinquishing your grasp of the trapeze in hand in favor for the trapeze swung toward you by your partner on the opposing platform.  You may stop at this level of risk despite repeated success until you finally fail to grasp the presented trapeze.  Panic will ensue.  Fear will consume you.  But, you will overcome this normal and understandable fright when the reduced gravity allows you to gently descend to land squarely and securely on your feet.  Now, you may race up the ladder, mindless of the risk—it has been removed, after all—and immediately swing forward to try new acrobatics that neither you nor anyone has attempted before.  Is it impossible to attempt an eight-and-a-half somersault, catching the incoming trapeze with your feet?  Why not try and see?  If you fail, you will settle on your feet once again, and you can try a different combination.  Perhaps someone hanging from the other trapeze can make the maneuver a success by grabbing your feet on the last rotation.  Perhaps if you both reach out as far as you can…  What other feats of derring-do might you attempt if risk was suspended? 

 

The long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is grounded by a number of weighty issues.  The “gravity” of the situation halts real progress.  Every movement, any concession, could be the last—could be a fatal, permanent mistake.  Exploration and experimentation are often considered too hazardous to attempt.  Steps forward are hesitant and small and quickly reversed.  We have a roadmap that is all but un-trod.  Meanwhile, innocents on both sides suffer.  We can do better.  We can do more.  We can turn down the gravity. 

 

I propose that a “Committee of the Outside” be formed to negotiate an agreement—a report in the Constitutional Convention model—for a permanent peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.  By “Outside” I mean former officials, academics, cultural leaders, and citizens from all walks of life who are outside of, and willing to remain unconnected to, their governments.  These two groups, one Israeli, one Palestinian, should self-elect their members, permitting anyone willing to engage in the process for the entire duration, say, up to three years, to add their name to a list of candidates.  Each candidate could then be offered three votes to cast for candidates other than themselves.  The top twenty-five candidates from each list would join the Committee.  These members would take an oath to remain removed from the political proceedings of their governments, would commit themselves to working solely within the proceedings of the Committee, and would swear to keep the proceedings secret until a final report is approved and released.

 

To permit the Committee to do its work, it will require an executive and a meeting place.  Would that we had George Washington to reprise his role.  In his absence, I suggest the United Nations Security Council or Secretary General carefully select six to ten candidates for this role.  These candidates should be respected world leaders who, like the members of the Committee, have no formal attachment to their governments.  Nobel Prize winners would be proper candidates as would former heads of states and senior retired diplomats.  The two candidate lists should each be given two votes to cast for the executive.  Each executive candidate receiving votes, two to four in all, will serve as the executive.  This council will then perform a number of roles.  It will schedule meetings, including calling for recess when tempers become heated.  It will, with great care and reluctance, remove Committee members who subvert the process or negotiate in bad faith.  The Executive will also solicit funds and other necessary resources from the international community to facilitate the operation of the Committee.  It will do whatever else it deems necessary to allow the Committee to move forward. 

 

A university in, for example, Turkey, Norway, or the United States, could serve as host to the Committee.  If multiple offers to host the proceedings are made, the Committee should vote to select the location.  The Executive will require a staff to assist its efforts.  A university of reasonable size and reputation should be able to attract or provide from its faculty sufficient support to the effort.  As with everyone involved with the Committee, these staff members should also be sworn to secrecy regarding the proceedings and subject to removal by the Executive. 

 

This Committee of the Outside should work for as long as it takes to construct a comprehensive solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.  It should be an agreement that the populations of the two sides can merely vote up or down although, as in the case of the Constitutional Convention, the governments representing the Palestinians and the Israelis should be allowed to debate and modify the agreement.  They should do this with the understanding that it is a complete agreement and that tampering with it poses real risks to real peace.  There is also the hazard that while this effort is underway the elected leaders of the Israelis and Palestinians will conclude a peace deal.  However, that risk seems remote.  If it was realized, we would celebrate.  There is a risk that the Committee of the Outside will fail to reach an agreement.  However, that risk is our reality each and every day.  It will be too bad if tomorrow is like today, but it will hardly be a new danger.

 

The third risk is that some portion of the Palestinian and Israeli societies will resist the process and try to subvert or destroy it.  They may fear an agreement will be reached that is too compelling to defeat.  They may adopt the role of the anti-Federalists—passionate but ineffective opponents to a constitutional agreement favored widely.  Like the anti-Federalists, they may dislike a process and a result that seems to intrude on the sovereignty of their nations.  They may dislike being pressured by other nations, organizations, and the will of humanity to accept an agreement they did not author.  But, their opposition must be overcome.  The World is entitled to insist upon peace.  A Committee of the Outside perhaps will be able to find that peace, a peace that will benefit all. 

 

- Alan Howe, August 2009