[I submitted the following text to The Age (Melbourne) for publication]
There is a simple reason why so much hot oil has been poured on Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s proposal to convene a Citizens’ Assembly (CA) about climate change policy: few commentators understand how a CA is designed and what it sets out to do. Unfortunately, misinformation comes from some of the most influential commentators.
There is no such thing as a “best” policy, because there are a diversity of incompatible priorities and interests among individuals and institutions. When contested through brute-force argument and activism, policy will usually be unstable as each successive Government shoves it this way and that based on their purported electoral mandate.
Climate policy is also contentious because of disagreement about the credibility of facts and how they should be interpreted. Everyone thinks they have the ticket to absolute truth. Trust is like globally-warmed thin ice.
Commentators cry, “Just make a decision, Julia, lead us!” Then when the decision isn’t what they or half of the population likes, the same commentators will lambaste her. She can’t win, and neither will the governments after her.
So how can the competing positions be bridged instead of perpetuated in this puerile and distorted war-by-media? Gillard’s proposal to convene a Citizens’ Assembly is a reasonable alternative.
The format for a CA has been tried and tested in Canada and elsewhere. In 2009, an Australian Citizens’ Parliament was convened along similar lines and may serve as the process model for what Gillard has in mind.
If it is anything like other CAs, a large number of citizens randomly-selected from the electoral roll in each federal electorate will be sent invitations to participate. From those who register, a second stage of random selection is performed using computer software to obtain the 150 attendees distributed on demographic dimensions like locality, age, education level and perhaps political leaning to match official statistics.
A CA has some similarities to a jury, but scaled up in size to bring a full range of relevant perspectives into the deliberation. What distinguishes a CA is that the participants drive the agenda and learn from each other with the assistance of unaligned small-group facilitators. The participants are also urged to seriously consider the views of people and institutions that are not directly represented amongst them.
Participants converse, but it’s not a festival of talk or a competitive “ideas” summit. It’s far more than a focus group or a show-piece “deliberative poll”.
The facts and options will always come from experts and stakeholders, including those who may not align with the Government’s mission. What the CA will do best, with the help of impartial facilitation, is to ask better questions than reporters and opinion pollsters usually do.
Some participants will have environmental, finance or other expertise to contribute. But none of the participants are expected to become climate experts or economists. They assemble to compare judgements about the presented positions. Of course, they will learn some climate science, but more usefully they will listen and reflect on how different people ascertain and judge the facts, and appreciate the local impacts of proposed options. Other CAs have taken six months to complete on average, including online sessions and a final face-to-face plenary.
There is never pressure on participants to change their preferences or political views. Importantly, there is no demand for a contrived consensus. The emphasis is on listening to each other and getting past the rhetoric. The facilitators help participants unpack the positions and judgements for themselves. Funnily enough, when you trust that you are being listened to properly, you don’t try so hard to pound your ideas across the table! The deliberative group process helps participants be more effective individuals.
Many commentators incorrectly presume that the CA decides the final policy. But the intention would only be for the CA to inform the elected representatives and the Executive about which policy options the country as a whole can best live with for the long term.
The Government must publicly endorse and celebrate the Citizens’ Assembly process and the dedicated work of the participants. The process should be transparent, and organised by an agency that is independent of government.
The output of a CA will be judgements that the Government can apply with confidence to satisfy and respect the broadest range of public, private and institutional interests, with a greater chance of achieving support from across the political spectrum. Provided that the Government implements policies that are consistent with those judgements, the CA adds legitimacy to those policies that will stand the test of time.
Evidence in similar, well-designed public participatory events has shown that randomly-selected citizens of all stripes can be trusted to work together productively and competently to see beyond their local echo chambers and make real sense of national policy options.
Ron Lubensky is a Research Associate and PhD candidate at the Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy at the University of Western Sydney.
Published under a Creative Commons License