The US Deliberative Democracy Consortium …
Recently published an article on an issue close to my heart, deliberative publicity. Say a Council has a wonderful deliberative event – it could be the Darebin Participatory Budgeting Jury for example. It makes sound recommendations, but almost no-one in the community knows about it. Does this matter? Further the authors, Chris Karpowitz and Chad Raphael, address doubts frequently expressed about these forums: Why should anyone who does not attend a deliberative forum trust that it was run fairly and that its conclusions are sound? How do convenors of these forums ensure adequate publicity? the article asks. It speaks for the importance of ‘deliberative publicity’ (as opposed to political public relations), and establishing lines of communication to those in the public policy domain who need to be informed about the deliberations of citizens’ forums. You can read more in their recent book, Deliberation, Democracy and Civic Forums.
In the Age …
It’s encouraging that the City of Melbourne People’s Panel has had attention from commentators such as Nicholas Reece. Key values he sees in the Panel is that:
- Citizens are smart if given the time and information to deliberate on decisions.
- The importance of citizen involvement is increasing as trust in politicians wanes, and as hard decisions need to be made on budgets.
- The City of Melbourne Panel provides evidence that citizens are capable of understanding and making recommendations on large budgets. If citizens can work through the complexities of $5 billion major city budget, they can do the same with a $400 billion federal budget.
In the Fin Review …
In February, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, co-founder of newDemocracy Foundation wrote on different options for democracy.His opening stance is to highlight tradeoffs in public policy making. Contemporary politics and its environment of contest, he suggests, is unsuited to working out rational policy options. Standing up for the methods of selection used in deliberative democracy he puts in a strong defence for the jury, citing James Spigelman AC, a recently retired NSW Chief Justice of NSW on the benefits of random stratified selection, or choosing representatives ‘by lot.’
“We have become accustomed over recent centuries to representatives being chosen by election. However, selection by lot is, notwithstanding what appears to be an element of chance, a fundamentally rational process, with a long and honourable tradition.
“The jury is a profoundly democratic and egalitarian institution. Selection by lot has two distinct advantages. First, it operates on the principle that all persons to be selected are fundamentally equal and that, in the relevant circumstances, it is invidious to say that one person is more qualified than another. Secondly, selection by lot prevents corruption of the system.”
There’s no doubt that Belgiorno-Nettis’ sheer optimism about alternative forms of democracy has driven the take up of new formats such as participatory budgeting in Australia, as well as citizens’ juries on numerous public issues. Like Nicholas Reece he and others at newDemocracy keep pressing the point that citizens are smart if given time and a good evidence base to work off.