reclaiming deliberation: escaping the vortex of vox pop democracy
TRANSCRIPT
Outline
Vox Pop Democracy
Fond fallacies about democracy
Two ideas about democracy
Finding a new democracy
A South Australian case study
Online deliberation
What people think when they don’t think
4
We the people
5
Two ideas about democracy
1. The engine of democratic engagement
Expression: not deliberation Affect: not reason or calculation
[Between political campaigning and modern advertising] we find the same attempts to contact the subconscious of creating favourable and unfavourable associations which are the more effective the less rational they are, and the same trick of producing opinion by reiterated assertion that is successful precisely to the extent to which it avoids rational argument and the danger of awakening people’s critical faculties
Joseph Schumpeter
2. The division of labour
Collectives act almost exclusively by accepting leadership — this is the dominant mechanism of practically any collective action
Joseph Schumpeter
Government requires careful consideration
Much of it boring
• Real Property (Priority Notices and Other Measures) Amendment Bill
Can we find a new democracy suited to the internet age?
Policy Brainstorming
1
2
3
Takeout
Democracy (like capitalism) is not a simple idea
• It’s a rich cultural achievement
Not just electionsNot just participation
Without building in deliberation, we’ll amplify, not overcome vox pop democracy
Participation and deliberation
Safer, more vibrant Adelaide night life
Overwhelmingly the jurors were very positive about the experience, with most still avidly following the progress of the recommendations through the media and other sources.
What the jurors found positive
1. Feeling more competent from exposure to diversity.
Unanimously positive on diversity of others.
Composition of jury didn’t match expectations. ‘Not just the young activists’
“I was expecting the blue rinse set from the
Eastern suburbs. I was delighted to find
that wasn’t the case”.
What the jurors found positive
“I’m a man, I’m six foot two, I have no considerations for my safety in Adelaide.
Then being with other people: older, smaller, females, you learn that their experiences are very different”
“Even if you have open forum you get the polar views there, you don’t get people in the middle who don’t… have to have their way. Here you get the average person and that’s really good”.
What the jurors found positive
2. Feeling that self selection demonstrated commitment
3. Having choice and control
4. Support inside and outside the sessions
5. The sense of occasion
What the jurors found positive
“If you receive an invitation from the Premier it’s a rare thing to pick out of your postbox … It’s a gift.
You’ve been invited.
Something about you was chosen.
Even though it’s randomly selected, you feel ‘Oh wow, I feel so lucky’”
How did involvement changeperceptions for jurors?
7 now thought differently about the challenges of democratic decision making.
3 felt reduced cynicism and suspicion towards government.
2 felt participation had given them a more
empathetic view.
6 now felt differently about the issue owing to access to views of other citizens, experts and the tools to deliberate
How did involvement changeperceptions for jurors?
“I know more how it is now - I have a broader perspective of it and there is a lot more happening than I realised.
“My political views haven’t changed. But my opinion about how you move things forward, yes. But to be in the process of really having something that you want, and having to allow it to not come out in exactly the way you want, but nevertheless having some contribution to it, I suppose that’s the essence of democracy”
How did involvement changeperceptions for jurors?
7 now had worse perception of media.
“It was eye opening. Because you had your opinions about things, and you would hear something completely opposite and you’d think ‘Why did I ever think that in the first place?’, and then you realise that you never really get the full story through the media”
6 described were ‘angry’, ‘annoyed’ and ‘appalled’ when they saw media coverage of their deliberations
Several journalists took one line from the report (on a car parking tax) and reported it “out of context”
How did involvement changeperceptions for jurors?
“I have a lot more respect for politicians. People give them a lot of flack but it’s so hard when you have so many conflicting voices coming at you.
The Jury was good for getting the informed voice of the people, without everyone’s opinion”.
How did involvement changeperceptions for government officials?
“I’m very cynical about opinion polls. We take it so seriously because we’re told ‘the majority of the public supported this’, but that’s opinion given with very little understanding of the process, reasoning, or the arguments that are part of it. It can’t be relied on”.
How did involvement changeperceptions for government officials?
6 of 9 bureaucrats felt that citizens jury got them beyond what was seen as ‘tokenistic’ engagement. An exercise involving real responsibility rather than the more typical “vox pop response”.
More time given to participants accessing and acquiring knowledge.
The results were ‘uncontrolled and not sanitised’ led to greater trust in the process. ”.
How did involvement changeperceptions for government officials?
7 were impressed by the sense of empowerment participation fostered in the citizens.
“All the jurors in the room had a real sense of responsibility. I don’t know whether that was usual, but I was blown away by it”.
Some told us of their surprise in the level of knowledge and capability demonstrated:
“I realised there’s way more capability in the community than we give credit for. And from a learning perspective, how do I somehow tap into that so we can start to engage quite differently?”
The view of experts and interest groups
Experts and special interest groups were impressed by the jurors’ eagerness to participate and felt that they came across as well informed, well read, and offered thoughtful questions.
Downsides
7 officials disappointed with the jury’s recommendations.
Many were hoping for more radical ideas, or options they hadn’t proposed themselves.
Homogenisation“Lots of good ideas get thrown out because consensus is narrower in its vision. Because they’ve all got to have input into it, are you all attempting to please everyone? In the end you get watered down ideas” - Juror
“A great way to get consensus on an issue… yet to get consensus they have to flatten out innovation” - Expert
Actionability
Citizens’ involvement as a resource
6 jurors increased their interest in policy issues. All jurors shared a desire to do it again and recommend the experience to others. This included sustaining contact with the group. Five of the jurors expressed a willingness to stay in touch with the other jury members, and two of these were actively looking for a way to sustain these personal ties.
What if …
Each citizens’ jury included an exit process with jurors electing those most respected to inform the next jury and pass on their knowledge.
Online v face-to-face discussion
After a session there would be a tirade of things people felt they didn’t get a chance to say or hadn’t resolved. Basecamp brought out all those typical aggressive behaviours that people will do online that they might not do to your face. Some times I saw what was happening, and thought ‘I’m not going to contribute. I have an opinion, but I hate the tone of that’. In a detached online forum, you don’t have to respect anyone’s opinion. A lot of our ground rules were ignored once people were in their own space hurling rocks.”
Gay Marriage
Responding toan epidemic
Monetary policy
Stem Cell research
Transgenic crops
Genomic medicine
Democracy isn’t fractal
Larger scale requires different forms, not just a scaled up version of what works in a town or neighbourhood.
Geoff Mulgan, NESTA
The Super Trawler Margiris should be banned
42
If Liberty and equality are to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost
Aristotle
