Processes for Deliberative Democracy
Representative and
Participatory Democracy
Representative government
is great when we know and are agreed on what we want. Just tick the box every three years. The world though is neither infinite nor are we clones. Participatory democracy hasn’t been too
effective either. Our representatives and their administrators like to keep us
at arm’s length in the interests of efficiency and action, if not
effectiveness. So participation has
come to mean last minute consultation, a euphemism for decisions effectively
already taken. Such consultation is a
legal requirement. We may, for instance,
be offered three options for the annual plan, but they are essentially minor
variations of the same plan – a Clayton’s choice. True participation would begin with the strategic plan, continued
in the district plan and manifest in the annual plan. In consequence, the electorate is either disenchanted, apathetic
or content - it depends on your spin.
Whatever your spin, the
increasingly complex and precarious world we have
created requires us to become more
involved in deep exploration of the dilemmas if we are to
achieve just, sustainable and realistic solutions. We can no longer expect to
resolve issues satisfactorily as they arise.
Critical analysis of the underlying causes is required, where our own
expectations, the aspirations of others, and all the impacts are considered
too, whilst acknowledging there could be limitations to our demands.
Even so, participatory
democracy has been criticised
as increasing bureaucracy and undermining the authority of government. Yet there is evidence it has improved the
quality of decision making and of enhancing government (Forgie et al
1999). Through introducing the elements
of deliberation and reflection the discourse is removed from the pressure of
the immediate present. The underlying
causes of a seemingly insoluble issue can be identified, the interconnectedness
of issues can be explored and potentially emerging issues even nipped in the
bud. By distancing ourselves from the
passions of the present we arrive at deliberative democracy, a concept that is
attracting increasing interest.
The ideal of a public life
of deliberation has emerged as an alternative to the incivility, rancour, and meanness that characterise public talk today
(Boyte 1995). Those who do not wish to
partake in the name-calling and finger-pointing feel impotent and opt out. Public life seems barren and vacuous. Yet the art and practice of healthy and
vigorous public conversation is more essential today than it ever has
been. We champion the new liberalism,
but do not practice it.
The omens for deliberative
democracy are not encouraging.
Democracy has had a checkered career.
The case for democracy is essentially negative. It can only be defended with a sigh. We are better at retrospectively recognising
bad government than we are at foreseeing good government. The case for ‘market democracy’, where the
consumer takes the place of the citizen, is no better either. It is now clear that the utopia of a
stateless, global laissez-faire
market will not arrive (Hobsbawm 2001).
But do we have a choice? Have we
any option but to engage in collective exploration and decision-making as the
ancient Greeks were supposed to have done and many so-called primitive
societies still do?
Deliberative Democracy
Deliberative democracy rests on:
·
the core notion of citizens and their
representatives deliberating about public problems and solutions under
conditions that are conducive to reasoned reflection and refined public
judgment;
·
a mutual willingness to understand the values,
perspectives, and interests of others; and
·
the possibility of reframing their interests and
perspectives in light of a joint search for common interests and mutually
acceptable solutions (Sirianni and Friedland, in Boyte 1995).
Deliberative democracy
creates space, neutral space, where we can arrive at solutions independent of
those passions Boyte speaks of. It
forces us to engage with the probable future, to explore the consequences of
our actions and to wrestle with creating preferred and sustainable
futures. We thereby lessen the forces
of vested interest and enhance the synergy of foresight.
Deliberative democracy
releases us from reliance on experts.
The complexities of many of today’s problems are referred to technical
and legal experts, and thereby are removed from the public arena. They may well be expert in their particular
field but they can be oblivious to, or specifically not required to comment on,
the wider and moral aspects. The
public, when pressed, can become well informed on technical and legal matters.
Deliberative democracy recognises we are primarily motivated by self-interest. Our self-interest needs to be brought to the
discourse in order to produce public goods most closely attuned to our mutual
needs. In their exploration together we
elevate our self-interests into common interests, thus avoiding some of the
tensions that otherwise can result.
Deliberative democracy
stands back from local and regional government somewhat but involves them
too. It becomes an adjunct, a rich
resource, to the judgements of our elected representatives, who normally have
to make pragmatic decisions within the complex ever-changing present. Nevertheless there would need to be both the
belief and the practice that the deliberations of the public became evident
within the decision making.
Deliberative democracy has
the potential to be both more effective and more efficient than representative
or ‘consultative’ democracy.
Effectiveness is the prerequisite to efficiency. The costs of deliberative discourse could
well be offset by the savings in expert advice and repetitive consultation.
Deliberative democracy
reflects the trends implicit in social construction (eg. Gergen 1999). It has the capacity to shift the style of
politics from identity politics to relational politics, to rise above shame and
blame, polarised debates, interest group pressure, professional obfuscation,
majority decisions, and to find meaning in our shared futures. Social construction shifts the focus from principles
to participants, changes the discourse from ‘me versus you’ to ‘we’, escapes
the prison of language (particularly the written word) into relationships, and
seeks common ground rather than becoming ground down by our differences.
Deliberative Processes
The processes of
participatory democracy, viz. focus groups, stakeholder forums, citizens’
advisory panels, citizens’ juries, mediation, community planning, have
attributes that have not been fully explored.
Few however engage in critical, creative and constructive deliberation
and reflection. Since we need to think
and feel well ‘outside the square’, and to consider the future consequences of
our actions in the present, we need additional processes to facilitate and
legitimate lateral and alternative thought and a language to express them.
These deliberative
processes have many of the following characteristics:
·
they create an environment for the development of
mutual respect and trust
·
they recognise all perceptions
of reality, ways of knowing, and worldviews
but privilege none
·
they endeavour to attain a
deeper understanding of the past in order to make choices in the present to
achieve our preferred futures
·
they provide transformative space whereby we can
focus on the deeper dimensions, expose assumptions, contradictions and
prejudice, and create alternative and preferred futures
·
they facilitate a mutual willingness to understand
and the possibility that we can reframe our interests in the search for
mutually acceptable solutions that Sirianni and Friedland speak of.
These processes include futures scanning, imaging
the future, futures wheels (mind maps), and scenario analysis (eg. Slaughter
1997). Those most pertinent to
deliberative democracy are post normal science (Ravertz 1999), causal layered
analysis and emerging issue analysis (Inayatullah 1998) and backcasting. Many of these have counterparts in other
disciplines, particularly sociology.
They lend themselves well to local and regional government issues, such
as water supply and disposal, regional transport, and environmental
protection. They are appropriate for
complex social issues which need to be considered as a whole, such as the
interaction of crime, safety, unemployment, and meaningful livelihoods. National transboundary issues, such as
health and education, are more problematic.
References
Boyte,
Harry 1995: Beyond Deliberation:
Citizenship as Public Work, PEGS Conf. (www.ups.edu/scxt/325d/delib.htm)
Forgie,
Vicky, Christine Cheyne, and Philip McDermott 1999: Democracy in New Zealand Local Government: Purpose and Practice,
Massey School Research and Environmental Planning.
Gergen,
Kenneth 1999: An Invitation to Social
Construction, Sage. (see also Social Construction and the Transformation of
Identity Politics, www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergenl/text8.html)
Hobsbawm,
Eric 2001: Democracy can be bad for
you, New Statesman, 5 March, 25-27.
Inayatullah,
Sohail 1998: Causal layered analysis –
poststructuralism as method, Futures, 30, 8, Oct, 815-830.
Ravertz,
J R 1999: What is post normal
science?, Futures, 31, 7, 647-653.
Slaughter,
Richard 1996: The Knowledge Base of
Futures Studies, 3 vols, Futures Study Centre/DDM Media Group, Melbourne.
The Sustainable Futures
Trust is keen to be involved in incorporating these processes into initiatives
to engage in deliberative democracy.
Alan Fricker
Sustainable Futures Trust
Richmond Rd,
Pohara RD1,
Golden Bay
tel: (03)525 6288.
email: africa@actrix.gen.nz
August 2001
