Policy Briefing - published in LGiU
Title
Evolving democratic deliberation for today’s diverse societies
Author Jonelle Naude
Summary
This briefingdiscusses the need for democratic practices such as deliberation to evolve for today’s diverse societies. With public trust in the political system and processes at an all time low, and societal divisiveness at a worrying high, there is a growing emphasis on the importance of stronger citizen involvement in decision making. This briefingargues that greater involvement through deliberation is not enough, but ‘inclusive involvement’ should be the goal within the context of our evolving and increasingly diverse communities.
Inclusive involvement can only be increased when the deliberative process itself helps tolevelthe playing field for those involved. When the inherent power dynamic of the represented society or constituency is temporarily suspended, the more marginalised voices (thought, lived experience, ideologies) can be heard.
A method of transformative systemic dialogue is proposed to address the above shortcomings during deliberation processes that should include three simple principles: 1. Listen for the systemic voices. 2. Acknowledge and express the emotion behind everything that is said or implied. 3. Bring marginalised voices to the fore.This momentarily changes the power dynamic within the group and allows ideas, experiences, and voices that are typically dismissed in that community to be heard with more legitimacy.
Local government is in the position to impact residents’ lives everyday - either towards greater inclusion and equality, or less. This makes Inclusive involvement a much-needed approach for local government in all of its dealings with people.
Briefing in full
Democracy is in crisis. Public trust in the political processes and democracy in general has gradually decreased. The UK like many societies is wrestling with issues caused by inequality and exclusion, whilst ‘diversity,inclusion and equity’ have finally moved unto the agenda for most organisational and governmental systems. It is fair to conclude that as our societies evolve and become more diverse, so too should our democratic processes.
Various polls conducted by theRoyal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) indicate a strong public sentiment for greater citizens’ involvement, and that this would restore trustin the political process. One way to increase involvement is through deliberative democracy (like citizens’ assemblies for example). In fact, there seems to be a renewed momentum around deliberative processes in the UK (from national endeavours like the government’s commitment to several deliberative processes in support of the Communities Action Plan and Communities Framework, right through to more localized initiatives like the Oxford’s citizen/s assembly on climate change).
It is important here to note that citizens’ involvement and representation in democratic processes is really a topic of inclusion. The dissatisfaction with our democratic processes and systems are not about involvement per se, but rather the ‘inequality of involvement’. The various diverse voices in our societies do not feel heard and are often drowned out by more dominant voices. As such, even when there is increased involvement, most processes would simply mirror the inequality that currently presides in that particular group, community, constituency or country. The same marginalised voices would still be marginalised.
As such, the renewed interest in deliberative democracy is a good one, but in need of evolution for greater inclusion of disenfranchised and marginalized voices. What is needed is a process of citizen participation that does not ignore nor perpetuate inequality of power and voice, but rather one that works with these realities head on, as a transformative process in itself. Many agree that we need new innovative and creative thinking and structures to allow democracy to evolve. As these deliberative processes gain momentum this is a timely opportunity to design them in a way that acknowledges, includes and works with the diversity of/in our societies.
This briefing looks at the shortcomings of deliberative processes in today’s diverse societies, and how an approach and method of transformative systemic dialogue could be used to evolve democratic deliberation processes for a globalised world. This briefing suggests that deliberation should include the intention of facilitating deeper understanding of “the other” (people or groups who are perceived as fundamentally different in some way compared to oneself, the group you belong to, or the ‘norm’), as well as use careful facilitation to address the power imbalances within citizenry. Only this would truly allow inclusive involvement of citizens.
When deliberative processes do their best to select a representative sample of society, how do they end-up not being representative and inclusive?
Firstly, content driven conversations, such as those used for deliberation processes (think table conversations, social café processes, facilitated group discussions, and various decision-making processes) are not designed to address the power imbalance between dominant and marginalised opinions and narratives. As such, the dominant ideas that feature in society naturally enjoy more weight and legitimacy than the more unpopular ideas and arguments.
Another way of looking at it is to say that people are involved in the process as a collective, but the diversity amongst people is not fully acknowledged or represented. As a result, the same power discrepancies and marginalisation that play out in society are perpetuated in the participatory process. These processes therefore reinforce a dominant narrative and deepen the uncontested embedded ideology instead of facilitating more understanding of diverse voices or possible transformation of thought. Without actively seeking and allowing diversity of thought or experience, the process cannot acknowledge nor address the inherent inequality and power discrepancies within the representing sample.
Secondly, typical deliberation processes do nothing to actively and carefully facilitate deeper understanding of ‘other’. The fact that this is absent from the processes, highlights an underlying assumption that a homogenous and/or cohesive society is being represented, where individuals are familiar with and understand each other’s lived experiences, cultures, religions, genders, sexualities and so forth. This is clearly not true for many of our communities or constituencies today.
Where the underlying conflicting beliefs, ideologies and diverse lived experiences are not addressed in a safe facilitated space, these differences will only keep driving division and misunderstanding. This is a missed opportunity to facilitate deeper connection and understanding of ‘other’, and it has a direct impact on inclusivity. Only when we actively seek to bridge divides within our communities, do we level the playing field enough (albeit momentarily) for all voices to feel invited to engage and speak up.
So what can we do?
There is a different way of deliberation and dialogue that has been employed and experimented with in different communities and corporate settings in South Africa, UK and elsewhere with the similar results: the different systemic voices (including the most diverse and/or taboo ones) are acknowledged and expressed without the risk of victimising or demonising individuals in the process.
This leads to greater insight and understanding of ‘other’ and great reflection of ‘self’ and the ideologies that drive us. It also allows the more marginalised voices, ideas and lived experiences to be represented, as they finally have greater legitimacy within the process by being more understood.
How could it be done?
This method involves a facilitated systemic dialogue that treats the underlying themes of what people think and feel, and the ideologies underpinning them, as “voices”. These “voices” are identified and then physically positioned in the room. The principle of “anonymity” is used to make sure when a position or “voice” speaks, the persons occupying that voice is merely delivering the message of that voice, and is not themselves held accountable for what that voice thinks or feels. The individual might not necessary feel like that or even identify with the position in their personal lives (or they might), but rather they are stepping in and speaking on behalf of that voice that needs to be heard.
Throughout this process, the more marginalised thoughts, feelings and lived experiences are brought to light to ensure the typical dominant narrative in society is not simply replicated. This creates a transformative process that allows the power dynamic within that constellation of citizens to shift momentarily, the unspoken to come to the surface, and new insight and understanding to come to light.
However, this is only possible when the dialogue opens up from dealing with factual content to the emotion of what isbeing expressed or presented (that which we experience as human beings, not just what we think). This type of citizen dialogue takes the system deep into an “energy-emotion” level, where ideas become more fluid and different points of view are more easily accessed through emotional sharing and our innate ability to relate to true feelings, worries, concerns, dreams, and hopes.
Consequently, the process not only excavates the deeper underlying information for that system, but it is a healing and transformative process in its own right as it allows deep emotions to be aired, released and processed - finally being channeled in more systemically aware actions, commitments, and/or decisions. Other typical outcomes include a greater understanding of ‘other’ and a sense of connectedness.
A summary of this quite complex, multi-level process could be attempted using three principles:
1. Listen for the systemic voices: Position them and let them express and dialogue in order to create greater understanding of the ideologies, beliefs and power dynamic that are present in that community system or societal system.
2. Acknowledge and express the emotion behind everything that is said or implied: Stay with feelings and emotion for longer than feels ‘normal’ or ‘necessary’. Emotion is not only a universal language that creates deeper understanding of other, but it also shifts energy within the system as the emotion is being processed.
3. Bring marginalised voices to the fore: This momentarily changes the power dynamic within the group and allows ideas, experiences, and voices that are typically dismissed in that community to be heard with more legitimacy.
(Read more about the no-name initiative and their methodology of transformational systemic dialogue)
How can this be applied?
The written statement, ‘By deeds and their results’(published in July, 2019) commits the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to have national conversations with communities across England (amongst other actions) to deliberate ‘who we are as a nation’, the ‘vision for their community’ (and country), and how local and national government can ‘support their community to thrive’.
This statement resulted from theIntegrated Communities Action Plan and Communities Frameworkto address the high levels of divisiveness. According to this framework building stronger communities would rest on four pillars: trust, connectedness and local pride; active citizenship and local control; shared community spaces; and shared prosperity through a thriving and inclusive economy. This is an opportune (and somewhat urgent) moment to employ more inclusive and conscious deliberation processes while there is appetite and drive to evolve democracy and strengthen communities.
Although this approach is innovative and new, it has been applied in diverse contexts in South Africa, helping communities and deliberative processes become more inclusive and representative of their diversity, facilitating more empowered as active citizens.
One such story is with the impoverished community of Bonnievale in the Western Cape of South Africa. After only one community dialogue using this process, they reported a transformative empowering experience especially for the women of the community, and an increased sense of involvement and active citizenship. From this one dialogue they created the “Bonnievale Gemeenskaps-omgeegroep” (Bonnievale Community Care Group) engaging and mobilising other community members to become more supportive to each other (to care more). This group action was created from their deep realisation that they were not alone in their trauma and suffering as individuals; that they were all experiencing the same challenges. They agreed that when they ‘open up’ to each other, they become a crucial and needed support for each other (read more here).
Moving to the other side of the spectrum this type of process can help us bridge the asymmetry of information by empowering citizens to become more actively engaged in once guarded topics, such as the economy for example. To engage citizens in meaningful deliberation about the economy requires a process that can create access to the topic beyond the huge power imbalance that knowledge and expertise create, and that can provide legitimacy to the less empowered voices in such a context. Even Andy Haldane (chief economist of the Bank of England) stresses the need for greater balance between elite decision-makers and ‘folk wisdom’as he calls for a ‘second revolution’ of the central bank that must create greater engagement with the public and include greater diversity of thought and context in its decision-making processes.
Comment
The three principles advocated by the nni methodology (systemic listening for the underlying ideology, acknowledging and expressing the emotion behind what is said; bringing marginalised voices and experiences to the fore) should not be saved for official deliberative processes only.
Transformative systemic dialogue could be employed in official and unofficial daily interactions in all areas of government and civil service. This would not only help create a more inclusive take on democratic processes, but also foster greater understanding or ‘other’ in our increasingly diverse societies, supporting more tolerant and resilient communities.
Many have become paralysed to the ‘way politics work’. Too easily do we dismiss embedded ideologies (such as realism or the rational-actor model) as uncontested truths colouring the way we perceive, approach, and operate in the world. As such these ideologies inform the way we ‘do politics’, from how we negotiate, how we position power in society, what we assign validity to, right through to who’s voice receive the most attention.
We cannot assume that we will solve our current political crisis with the same ideological foundations that inform the very structures and processes that have caused many of our current challenges. We need evolution of thought and ways of working. This briefing suggests that we learn how to access the intelligence of the collective in healthy inclusive systems. This would inform new ways of tackling our complex systemic challenges, better suited for today’s diverse societies and complex systems.
For more innovative and creative ways to help evolve democracy towards greater inclusive involvement, we need to dare to do things differently. With democracy in crisis in different parts of the world, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Article published in LGIU (Local Government Information Unit), August 2019.