The Case for a More Deliberative Democracy
Even before COVID-19, we could all sense that democracy was having a hard time. The rise of populism all over the world is by far the clearest example of the sense of betrayal that the people were feeling towards the establishment, guilty of taking decisions without assessing what citizens feel in regards to potential reforms.
Pushing for more deliberative processes has therefore become one of the latest trends among political scientists and governments in order to re-establish trust among their people, making them part of the decision-making process.
Even though many may believe that the citizens’ assemblies used in Ireland to assess -among other topics- same sex-marriages and abortion are the most commonly used, we might be surprised when looking at the latest data provided by the OECD. This kind of deliberative process is in fact one of the least put in place. The leading one being in fact the Citizens’ Jury/Panel. Although they use the same deliberative and decision-making phases of Citizens’ assemblies, they are far more widespread.
It is possible to argue that, while the former are de facto used to solve the constitutional crisis or assess very delicate civil rights issues, the latter is used more broadly and at all levels of government. They in fact tend to address a wide range of topics, that goes from urban development to the environment.
When looking at the data provided by the new Democracy Foundation and the UN Democracy Fundas well as those provided by the OECD one thing seems undeniable: in order to have a successful deliberative process, it is mandatory to follow and respect some requisites, some of them being almost self-evident whilst others less so. We can place in the first group the fact that the task given to citizens should be clearly defined, it must be easy to find information about the process and the participants must be chosen in a transparent way. Instead, as far as the second one is concerned, it has been argued that it is of paramount importance to convince employers to provide paid leave in order to participate and that any criminal jury ought to consider and value the involvement in policymaking when dealing with those who fall under their jurisdiction.
One should rightly ask himself what would happen if the public authorities simply ignored a transparent and productive exercise of deliberative democracy such as the ones we have seen. While they are ultimately entitled to do that, it is a choice that has hardly been made. The data collected by the OECD in fact tell us that when having in front of a concrete and well-articulated proposal, the public authority is likely to make commitments or act to implement it.
It is sometimes pointed out that this trend of openness towards deliberative democracy might ultimately be detrimental to the State since it could weaken its legitimacy and therefore give rise to an ochlocracy of some kind. This is however a critique that, at the very least, is highly debatable. The result of having a more deliberative democracy could in fact be the exact opposite of the one previously envisaged; it would result in a stronger legitimacy of the government which would be deemed not only to care more for his people but would also come across as being less authoritarian since it would give every stratum of society the chance to have a voice.
The case for a sound push towards a more deliberative democracy however can also be made by envisioning it as a tool to diminish the extreme political polarization we currently face, that -as it has been well established- was aggravated by social networks. Without trying to sound overly simplistic, it has often been the case in our daily life that divergencies on several numbers of issues are usually due to a lack of dialogue between the opposing parties. Therefore, by promoting the necessary confrontation in order to come up with a proposal such as in the case of deliberative processes, it thus becomes mandatory to exchange our views and find common ground.
A third possible reason why it is desirable to opt for an increasing deliberative democracy can be that it could fill up the concept of citizenship. One of the most important duties of a citizen is in fact to vote, but as is of common knowledge turnouts have drastically decreased lately, as a consequence of increasing distrust in governments. This phenomenon could be explained by the fact that the general public feels that his vote is ultimately not important, because no matter the government, it will not have the possibility to play any kind of role between the elections. Enhancing deliberative democracy could then very well be considered a way through which it is possible to make people overall more politically engaged, and promote better and lasting policies resulting from a frank and vivid confrontation.
On one thing we can all be nonetheless sure: the post-COVID-19 years will inevitably provide fertile ground for proposals such as the ones described so far since there is no doubt that citizens will like to be heard. Finding the right way to accomplish their demands will be crucial.
References
-OECD (2020), “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions : Catching the Deliberative Wave”. (online)Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/339306da-en/1/3/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/339306da-en&_csp_=07698b7c924c319dbb92a6500bf563da&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book.
-The Economist (2020), “How to restore trust in politics”. (online) Available at: https://youtu.be/6UcFQ-eDhTk.
-newDemocracy Foundation and UN Democracy Fund (2019), “Enabling National Initiatives to Take Democracy Beyond Elections”. (online) Available at: https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/newDemocracy-UNDEF-Handbook.pdf.
