Want to keep up to date on Welsh politics? Sign up and get political news sent straight to your inbox Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

These are troubled political times. Partisan, polarised, toxic, angry, divided - these capture the ‘leitmotif’ of contemporary politics in our town halls, in Cardiff Bay and at Westminster.

I grew up in a political family at a time when being political was normal, with none of the curtain-twitching weirdness with which it is now associated.

My grandfather was a NUM lodge official at Coegnant Colliery in the Llynfi Valley and, as a child, I can dimly remember attending packed public meetings with him in Maesteg Town Hall, with what I assume were big-name Labour and trade union politicians. Ordinary people went to these gatherings and had their say.

Of course, it was a reflection of the simplicity of life and a real sense of community. Plus, most people didn’t have a telly and there were only three channels anyway! But that was then, this is now.

True, Jeremy Corbyn attracted large, US rally-style crowds towards the end of the 2017 General Election campaign, but that was less about what he was saying and more that he stood out as the first major party politician for a long while who felt ‘different’, a sliver of appealing authenticity in a dismal cast of election alternatives - a bit like the characters in The Archers’ Christmas Canterbury Tales - Lynda Snell as Theresa May, maybe?

A tiny positive from the Brexit debacle has been a very public rehearsal of what our representative democracy is all about - basically, one where we entrust our elected members to make decisions for us in what we hope is a muscular parliament unless, that is, a decision is too thorny and palming it off to the public is partisanly expedient.

No wonder we don’t trust our political leaders. After a truly historic week in our parliamentary history, the best the official Opposition can do is talk up its ability to do a slightly less disastrous job on Brexit than this shambolic government. Forgive us for not being filled with confidence.

We live in an essentially distrustful world where respect has to be earned, not given automatically as a result of rank or uniform. And I’m afraid politicians carry very little respect - only 17% of us trust them - but they’ve hardly helped themselves.

Aside from the expenses scandals and accusations of sexual harassment and bullying, it is their narrow singularity in background, profile and style that might prove politicians’ greatest undoing.

Little wonder it requires superhuman powers of persuasion to get anyone to stand as an election candidate unless they’ve taken the well-trodden path from university to political staffer to elected office. Never have politicians across the spectrum felt more removed from us and that isn’t just based on class, gender, colour and career. The divide is psychological and tragically deep.

To an extent, the notion of elite versus masses is something of an anachronism at a time when anyone can broadcast their views - political and otherwise - on social media or blogs. But the harsh truth is that the formal route to power and control of political resources still remains tightly within the grasp of an elite at a time when the public has discovered it is empowered.

What matters to most of us is that we are listened to. I suspect we could be persuaded to take a greater part in politics if we knew our contributions were likely to make a difference.

Then there’s Brexit - an unprecedented problem, spewing uncertainty and division unheard of outside wartime years. Unravelling our relationship with the EU is the single biggest task undertaken by government since World War II. But this column is not about Brexit, it’s about democracy, although they seem indivisible now.

The sequence of percentage turnout in Welsh Assembly elections resembles disappointing results from a GCSE maths class: 46, 38, 44, 42, 45. Little wonder when a quarter of us don’t know who the First Minister of Wales is. That’s why, if there is a second EU referendum, it had better be led completely differently, with a starkly altered tone and dramatically different messaging and evidence, if it is not to exacerbate an already deeply riven society.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of initiatives to encourage us to get involved - to vote, to respect politicians again, to step into the brave new world of standing for election. It’s all about political engagement, stupid. There are even lots of salaried people to make this happen.

Whilst there is merit in trying to make the democratic process more meaningful - hands up those prepared to publicly defend a voting system where a party can win the majority of seats with under a third of our votes?

Maybe we need to take the mountain to Mohammad. There’s a sense that this conversation has been rather one-way, in mono not stereo, never mind DAB. They say when in a hole, stop digging. There’s another saying that the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.

So here’s a suggestion - plenty of other models of representative democracies use innovations like citizens’ assemblies/panels/juries - the USA, Canada, Poland (on the environment), Ireland (on equal marriage), even a recent Select Committee citizens’ assembly on social care in England.

Unlike the EU referendum, where we were asked (with no sensible preparation, plus plenty of untrustworthy arguments and doctored ‘evidence’) to make a epoch-changing decision that our politicians didn’t themselves fancy, citizens’ juries or assemblies can drive a genuinely more participatory and deliberative politics.

It’s not complicated - a major issue needs consideration, proper information from a range of perspectives is provided (in my view, impartiality is over-rated - there’s nothing wrong with hearing a wide selection of partial opinions, surely?), an intense period of deliberation and discussion follows with this ‘mini-public’, our peers selected randomly or stratified randomly to prevent manipulation and to increase credibility.

This leads to a more evidenced, consensual conclusion with a real chance of being implemented and therefore satisfying the public that their voices have been properly heard.

Now, I appreciate this sounds counter-intuitive - against a declining enthusiasm for politics introduce a measure that requires even more intense involvement. But bear with, this is in line with modern habits and trends - contracting a peer to assist, advise and even do for us is commonplace. Think of style consultants, interior design advisors, online agony aunts, personal fitness trainers.

Supporters of citizens’ assemblies point to the precedent of jury service, championing them as an ancillary, additional, democratic mechanisms which complement and add legitimacy to our democratic tier.

I know this sounds like very radical change but, lord knows, we have to do something. Tinkering around the edges simply won’t hack it in the midst of the current deep democratic crisis.

We are in serious danger of losing another generation to the active apathy that currently dominates our politics. So, unless you are comfortable for it to remain a minority pursuit, we had better start thinking seriously about how to do politics differently.

ALSO BY LAURA: