Fostering Local Democracy
A new resource written by Matt Leighninger, an Associate of Everyday Democracy, was recently released. It helps to inform the work of the Australian Study Circles Network.
Matt has been able to succinctly tackle some important key questions in relation to the work of deliberative democracy.
Compiled below are some extracts from his work:
- What do these efforts look like on the ground?
- How does this work lead to change?
- How is this work different from advocacy?
- How is this different from traditional community organising?
- What are the key values underpinning deliberative democracy?
The community organisations which the Australian Study Circles Network is currently working with will find Matt's answers to these key questions helpful in understanding the values and principles that underpin our community wide study circle program effort.
What do these efforts look like on the ground?
The democratic governance efforts that have emerged in the last fifteen years have taken three main forms:
- Temporary initiatives to help citizens address a major public issue. These have been led by all kinds of organisations, and are usually supported by a broad coalition of groups. Sometimes the sessions are spread over several weeks; sometimes they take place in a single day. Most of these projects aim to engage a diverse critical mass of people, but some of them are designed to assemble a smaller, representative microcosm of the community.
- Efforts to involve citizens in particular policy decisions. These are usually initiated by governments, sometimes with support from other groups. These activities are similar to temporary organising initiatives in the sense that they are tied to a policy debate that usually subsides once the decision has been made; however, they are different in that the public officials and employees may come back to the community again on the same or other issues in the future - there is some kind of ongoing commitment by government to working more intensively with the public.
- Permanent structures such as neighbourhood councils, district councils that represent multiple neighbourhoods, school councils, and other standing bodies that are intended to give citizens regular opportunities to solve problems and make decisions over the long term. They usually are structured around monthly face-to-face meetings, though there are many different variations.
Face-to-face meetings are still the most common type of interaction in all three forms, but the use of online formats is increasing dramatically.
Each form has advantages and disadvantages. Many permanent structures do not seem to emphasise recruitment adequately; over time, these neighbourhood groups often devolve into small sets of 'professional citizens' who don't necessarily involve or represent their neighbours.
The recurring government-led initiatives have the strongest connection to the policymaking process, but they are often narrowly focused on the policy questions of the moment, and do not encourage citizens to devote their own energy and time to solving broader public problems.
The temporary projects sometimes have greater difficulty affecting policymaking processes, but probably their greatest shortcoming is simply that they are temporary - even in situations where they've been extremely successful and have produced a range of tangible outcomes, they often don't lead to structured, long term changes in the way citizens and governments interact.
Practitioners and local leaders are looking for ways to combine the strengths of all these approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How does this work lead to change?
One of the most confusing things about deliberative democracy - and yet one of its greatest strengths - is that it can lead to change in a number of different ways. In many cases, you can see several different kinds of changes happening in the very same project:
- People changing their attitudes and behaviour.
Many evaluations of deliberation projects have shown that the attitudes of participants change as a result of the sessions. People also frequently report that the experience has made them more likely to behave in ways that will make an impact on the issue being discussed.
- People volunteering their time and talents to help improve their communities.
Some projects and structures are particularly focused on promoting volunteerism; in these situations, organisers try hard to connect participants with volunteer opportunities.
- Small groups of people taking on projects to improve their communities.
Many deliberative democracy efforts produce citizen committees, task forces, or action groups that try to implement action ideas developed during the sessions. The track record of these kinds of efforts is uneven; without continued support from organisers or decision makers, these groups can quickly become isolated and lose their momentum. However, these kinds of small-group efforts have also produced some of the most dramatic outcomes of these kinds of projects.
- Organisations (businesses, churches and other faith institutions, universities, schools, non-profit groups, foundations) undertaking new projects. Nongovernmental groups and organisations already play important roles in local problem-solving. Deliberative democracy efforts sometimes lead these kinds of groups to change their policies or begin new action efforts.
- Action ideas moving forward because they have been reported extensively by the media. When newspapers and other media outlets cover deliberative projects in an extensive way - especially over a sustained period of time - they encourage the people involved in implementation efforts and make it more likely that public officials and other decision-makers will use citizen recommendations.
- Public officials implementing policy changes because they are impressed by the recommendations given by citizens. Some public officials report that the chance to sit down with citizens, understand why they care about an issue, and find out why they support a particular policy option, will change the way they think about a policy decision.
- Public officials implementing policy changes because they are backed by a large, diverse number of voters. In other situations, the support of a large set of voters for a particular policy option seems to be persuasive to public officials. Some of them describe this broad-based support as the 'political cover' they need to 'do what they already thought was the right thing.'
Because these efforts can lead to change in so many different ways, they are inherently unpredictable, difficult to plan, and difficult to evaluate. The first few changes on the list above - shifts in individual behaviour, volunteerism, and small-group efforts - are the most likely to occur, least dependent on outside factors, and easiest to document. The policy-related outcomes at the bottom of the list are the most dependent on outside factors; from an evaluator's perspective, it is often difficult to disentangle them from other developments in the community.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How is this work different from advocacy?
One of the defining elements of deliberation projects is that they welcome a range of views; the intent is not to advocate for a particular cause or policy proposal, but to allow citizens to learn about the issue, listen to other perspectives, and decide for themselves what they think.
To accomplish this, most deliberative processes rely on impartial facilitators who act as the caretakers of good group process: giving everyone a chance to speak, helping the group set ground rules, managing the allotted time, helping the group use discussion materials, and helping ensure that conflicts are addressed openly and productively. (Some models employ voting of one kind or another to help groups make decisions; others stress the importance of consensus; still others seek to establish common ground or help participants reflect on their beliefs and attitudes in ways that will lead to individual or group action.)
It is true that most of the people initiating these kinds of projects have their own (usually highly informed) views on the issue being addressed. But by engaging citizens in deliberation, they are taking a 'leap of faith' that ordinary people, given adequate information, a range of options, and a setting for productive conversations, will come to better, smarter, more broadly supported conclusions than might otherwise be the case.
Local leaders are therefore employing deliberative democracy not only because it is the 'right thing to do' but also because it is a way of moving the policy agenda forward in situations where traditional advocacy might not work.
--------------------------------------------------------------
How is this different from traditional community organising?
The line between community organising and other forms of civic engagement is becoming more and more blurry. This is partly because practices of community organising have diversified and evolved dramatically over the last fifty years.
This dissemination was driven by the experimentation of local organisers, who reacted to changing conditions by modifying various aspects of their approach. The organisers themselves have also diversified; partly because people who were trained as community organisers have gone on to serve as public officials, non-profit directors, program officers at foundations, and in other roles. These leaders have adapted the skills and philosophies of traditional community organising to fit the perspectives and needs of their new positions.
Some of these organisers have reached an important threshold: rather than pressuring public officials to give citizens what they want, they have created arenas where citizens, decision makers, and other stakeholders can sit down and make policy together.
The idea that citizens and decision makers should be kept apart from one another was one of the original precepts of community organising. Organisers tried to build a separate base of power by interviewing citizens, identifying their common interests, and then recruiting them for meetings and other events that would solidify their commitment to a shared cause.
Once the people had turned out and the group was formed, the organisers and participants could begin to broadcast their priorities in the corridors of power. From that point, community organisers might confront the decision makers ("us" vs. "them") or they might work together with public officials ("us" working with "them"), but they still assumed that citizens and decision makers were two very distinct sets of people.
Some community organisers now use a broader definition of "us." This is partly because organisers are much more likely to negotiate and partner with public officials than in the more confrontational days of the '60s and '70s.
More recently, organisers began to realise that if they structured the sessions well, and offered additional leadership training opportunities for residents, they could change the dynamic between citizens and decision makers and include both sets of people in the discussions. Many of these leaders, who still refer to themselves as community organisers, employ different tactics in different situations: they will use a more traditional, confrontational approach on some issues, and a more deliberative, inclusive approach on others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the key values underpinning deliberative democracy?
From the beginning, this field had something of a split personality. Some of the original advocates and practitioners were inspired by idealistic, sometimes utopian visions of how democracy ought to function.
Many others were motivated by very immediate, pragmatic reasons: the need to solve a critical public problem or bridge divisions in their community.
The pragmatists and idealists were speaking in such different terms that it wasn't always apparent that they were interested in the same things.
Furthermore, the field has been segregated by geography (people in different communities doing this work in isolation from each other), and by professional divisions (educators, planners, public officials, community organisers conducting separate public engagement efforts; scholars working on deliberative democracy isolated from their colleagues in other academic disciplines).
It has been difficult, therefore, to develop a clear message about the common values underpinning the field.
But whether they articulated these tenets from the beginning or simply followed them by instinct or expediency, the pragmatists and idealists all seem to have coalesced around a shared set of values:
- Bringing everyone to the table. It is important to bring a large, diverse set of people together to address public problems and decisions. (In some cases, this may be a smaller but extremely representative group.) This is different from allowing citizens to participate; it means reaching out proactively, listening to why people might participate, and providing participation opportunities that are aligned with those goals.
- Giving people equal opportunities to participate. It is important that everyone have the opportunity to speak; it is also important to begin the conversation with questions and topics that most people can relate to. Most successful projects allow ample time for people to talk about their experiences with the issue being addressed, and why they care about it. Impartial facilitators play a strong role in establishing equality within the group.
- Asking people to consider a range of views or options. It is important to give people adequate, unbiased background information and present the full range of arguments or policy options under consideration. In most cases, some kind of discussion guide is used to help provide this information and structure the discussion.
- Affirming the capacity of citizens to make decisions and solve problems. It is important to honour the time and talents of citizens, and give them a sense that their contributions are valuable and legitimate. Many deliberative democracy efforts encourage citizens to think of themselves as problem-solvers (rather than simply making recommendations on how government should solve problems) and help them coordinate their action efforts.
From
Funding and Fostering Local Democracy: What philanthropy should know about the emerging field of deliberation and democratic governance
By Matt Leighninger, Presented by Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement,
April 2009, http://www.pacefunders.org/publications/FundingLocalDemocracy.pdf
