Deliberations

I write you as one of the PhD researchers who helped set up and run the Australian Citizens’ Parliament in 2009. It is with great surprise and excitement today that I read media reports about your proposal to convene a Citizens’ Assembly (CA) to inform climate policy!

This is fantastic news for those of us working in public participation circles who believe that deliberative procedures should be formally embedded in policy generation processes. In addition to our own research-oriented example, I point to the Canadian experience with its Citizens’ Assemblies for Electoral Reform in British Columbia and Ontario.

I’d like to help you dispel the nay-sayers about your CA. Reading the newspaper columns and the raging public commentary, it is apparent that most people do not understand what a CA is about. For example, many presume that the CA will be a stacked, stage-managed talk-fest or a town-hall style “consultation” without genuine influence, that facilitators are not neutral, that the randomly-selected citizens are to somehow become climate science boffins, that the CA is an elaborate opinion poll of participants’ predispositions, that the effort is somehow crippled because it is not initiated as a direct democratic process, or that there are already 150 elected representatives of the people. Unfortunately, such incorrect expressions amount to the prevailing uninformed and elitist discourse about government-convened public engagement. These must be countered.

Deliberative processes bring people together to learn from each other the diversity of values, beliefs and private interests that underscore policy preferences. Of course, they will learn some climate science, but more usefully they will listen and learn how different people ascertain and judge the facts, and appreciate the diversity of values and local impacts of proposed options. While many in the public ask, “will the assembly recommend better solutions”, there is rarely a single “better” that stands out universally over all others. It is up to the assembly to frame and sort out the options and design a recommendation that they believe most citizens and institutions can live with. What the CA will do best, with the help of expert and impartial facilitation, is ask better questions.

The CA will work diligently and collaboratively in the interests of all Australians, you can count on that. The Government should publicise its respect of those participants and of the collaborative process, which should be conducted transparently. The work of the 150 citizens should be celebrated. (Such publicity did not occur in Canada, which directly led to the failure of the subsequent referenda on electoral reform.)

The newDemocracy Foundation is the non-profit organisation associated with the Australian Citizens’ Parliament. I recommend that you refer to its experts about process design considerations. Although I live in Melbourne, I am currently working for the Centre for Citizenship and Public Policy at the University of Western Sydney, which can also supply resources. My particular interest is in the use of online technology to augment the face-to-face assembly. I would be pleased to assist in any way I can.

Best of success in the upcoming election!

Published under a Creative Commons License