January 11, 2010

Power 2010′s Deliberative Democracy: Intriguing Potential

Posted in Political Philosophy, Politics, Society at 8:00 am by Paul Sagar

This weekend I was invited to observe a special “deliberative democracy” event organised by Power2010. The event drew on the work of Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University, attempting to pioneer methods in which ordinary people might “set priorities for electoral reform, MPs expenses and political scandals.”

200 people drawn from YouGov polling, representing a balanced cross-section of society, debated in small groups and put question to academic experts. The idea was to help define a manifesto for democratic reform, based on more than 4,500 ideas submitted by the public. Power2010 will collate the issues identified as being most important by participants, and publish them online. These will be open to public vote, and the most popular will “be put to all election candidates, with the aim of them committing to make the next Parliament a reforming one.”

I’ll be honest. I’m generally sceptical about these sort of big-name (Helena Kennedy was chairing), big-profile events. I’m dubious that they can have any impact upon real-world politics.

But Power2010 intrigued me.

One of the most interesting aspects was the social dynamic in each debating group. The first party I observed saw a clear hierarchy emerge within 20 minutes. A late-middle aged lady asserted herself as the leader, and soon all ideas were channelled through her, with an understanding that she was setting the parameters for acceptable debate and dissent. One younger participant – a student with a good knowledge of electoral reform – quickly found himself put into place by the older leader (and her eager number 2) despite his superior expertise.

But not every group was the same. Another was far less hierarchical, with everyone contributing freely and equally. As I watched closely, however, it became clear that one man nonetheless had established himself as the director of debate. It was he who decided when to move on, what to pursue, and how to frame the issues. But his subtle, non-confrontational chairing seemed to go un-noticed by his group – with extremely positive results in terms of debate and output. Other groups were firmly led by the Power2010 “facilitators”, official managers who ensured everybody joined in and that debate moved smoothly on. In these cases the participants tended to accept the authority of the official chair quite automatically.

None of which is surprising. Human beings naturally fall into patterns of leadership and hierarchy. And often this is a good thing: leadership solves co-ordination problems and is efficient. It would be a mistake to think that democracy – even at a devolved deliberative event like Power2010s’ – is the enemy of leadership. Democracy is interesting because it provides new ways for leaders to emerge, and new kinds of leaders. Furthermore, it tends to produce the least-worst kind of leaders, as experiences under systems of dictatorship teach us.

Yet whilst observing the Power2010 participants it seemed that something altogether more important was happening. That there was something actually inspiring about ordinary people from many and varied walks of life getting genuinely enthused about their political system.

The formal equality of the participants as they debated each other and quizzed the academic experts had something inherently valuable to it. Participants engaged with each other simply as people, not as lawyers or builders, members of classes or representatives of different parties. Opinions clashed, for sure – but often with constructive results. The sense of civic co-operation and solidarity that rapidly emerged had almost tangible worth. The participants really cared about the issues, they really wanted to sort them out together.

It’s hard to extrapolate from such brief observations, but it seemed that believing their opinions mattered and could make a difference filled many participants with a sense of constructive purpose. Call it a sense of common endeavour, if you like. It was an impressive thing to witness.

Then again, the ultimate significance of this event will turn on whether the weekend proves to be anything other than an expensive talking shop. It’s easy for people to get enthused the first time around. But if Power2010’s proposals are ignored or met with weasel words by the Westminster parties, it’s hard to imagine the enthusiasm of participants remaining high. Future groups would justifiably be sceptical of their chances of having an impact.

Time is yet to tell. It’s certainly unrealistic to expect Power2010 to re-arrange the political agenda over night, but Rome wasn’t built in a day. Something impressive happened this weekend, and it certainly has potential. Whether or not that potential goes anywhere is the vital question. Either way, important lessons for our democracy will be learnt. For better or worse.

Permalink