Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

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

New Zealand

tel: (03)525 6288.

email: africa@actrix.gen.nz

 

August 2001