[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00880: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)

From: Richard Moore <rkm(at)quaylargo.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 04:07:45 +0000
Subject: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)

____________________________________________

AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0)

2 January 2007

Richard K. Moore - rkm(at)quaylargo.com
author of "Escaping the Matrix: how We the People can change the world"
http://EscapingTheMatrix.org

(prepared with a little help from my friends)
(feedback or redistribution invited)

_____________________

"We've lived so long under the spell of hierarchy - from
god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses - that only
recently have we awakened to see not only that 'regular'
citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that
without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be
addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to
survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way
we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular
citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through
direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated,
and pervasive to yield to directives from on high."
-Frances Moore Lappé, "Time for Progressives to Grow Up"


INTRODUCTION

There are many definitions of 'democracy', most
of them based on elections and representation.
This paper envisions a direct form of democracy,
in which the people of a community decide
together, on an inclusive basis, the major
policies and programs of their community. It is
quite reasonable to ask if this is possible, and
if it is desirable. Is it possible for the people
of a community to reach consensus
decisions?...and if they could do so would their
decisions be wise ones?

It would be foolhardy to claim these questions
can be answered in the affirmative, and yet there
is considerable reason to believe that this kind
of direct democracy might be achievable. In the
field of group process and facilitated dialog,
there are proven methods that show remarkable
results, as regards achieving agreement in
diverse groups and producing outcomes that are
wise and sensible. Can these processes be used in
a community setting so as to enable the emergence
of an ongoing community consensus regarding local
agendas?

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an
experimental framework for investigating this
question directly, by applying known methods in
existing communities (towns or neighborhoods).
There are many process methods, and many ways of
approaching such an experiment. The framework
suggested here has been developed through dialog
with some of the leading researchers in this
field. We have tried to select those processes
that show the most promise in a community
environment.

Nonetheless, any real experiment will be breaking
new ground, and we encourage anyone pursuing such
an experiment to remain open to whatever energy
and direction emerges in their community as the
experiment unfolds. Real democracy is not about a
formula, but rather about the dynamic emergence
of people's participation in determining their
own destinies. This experimental framework is not
meant to suggest the eventual form of that
participation, but is intended rather to provide
kindling for the process of emergence.


BASIC CONCEPTS

As we see it, the core principle of democracy is
dialog. It is through dialog that people can
discover their shared problems, and it is through
dialog that they can agree on ways to solve those
problems. We identify two levels of dialog:
'whole-system dialog' and 'distributed dialog'.

Whole-system dialog is about 'special events',
like Wisdom Councils or Citizens' Juries, where
some group has been selected to dialog on behalf
of the whole community. In a representative
democracy, whole-systems dialog is carried out by
the elected representatives, and it involves
making decisions on behalf of the whole society.
In the processes suggested here, the dialog
involves ordinary people from the community, and
their role is not to make final decisions, but to
make considered recommendations to the community.
A trained facilitator is required for such
events, and creative and sensible proposals can
be expected as outcomes.

Distributed dialog is about dialog that goes on
in the general community, typically on a more
informal basis. There are simple processes, such
as Conversation Cafes and dialog circles, that
can be used to enable a deeper form of dialog
than typically occurs in a 'meeting' or a
'discussion group'. These processes do not
require a trained facilitator, but involve simple
dialog protocols that anyone can learn to use.
Outcomes are more unpredictable in this kind of
dialog, and we would expect the value of
distributed dialog to grow over time as people
become accustomed to civic participation and to
process.

As an experimental approach, we recommend that
both forms of dialog be pursued in parallel, and
that the primary emphasis be at first applied to
whole-system dialog. It is important to get
started with distributed dialog, because it takes
time to get dialog groups organized. However
whole-system dialog offers more initial value, as
such events can be organized relatively easily,
and their outcomes tend to be inspiring and
forward-moving. We believe that as an organic
democratic process emerges in a community, it
will involve interactions between whole-system
and distributed dialog, taking forms we would not
try to predict.


WISDOM COUNCILS

As a starting point for whole-system dialog, we
recommend the convening of a series of Wisdom
Councils. Wisdom Councils were only recently
developed by Jim Rough, but initial trials have
been very promising, and the characteristics of
this formula are well-suited to democratic
process.

The participants in a Wisdom Councils are
selected randomly, as in a jury, and as in a jury
there are twelve participants, and they are
expected to achieve unanimous outcomes. The
theory behind both a jury and a Wisdom Council is
that twelve random citizens serve as microcosm of
the community, bringing in the general spectrum
of concerns and values of the community. When
such a group achieves a unanimous outcome, we can
assume that the spectrum of concerns has been
taken into account, and that people generally in
the community would be likely to find the outcome
sensible.

While a jury's task is to evaluate the evidence
in a criminal case, the task of a Wisdom Council
is much more open ended. There is no pre-selected
topic or problem, rather the participants decide
as a group what they want to talk about, in the
context of their community. As they settle on an
agreed problem to examine, we can assume that the
problem is of general concern to the community,
by virtue of the microcosm principle. And when
the participants come up with a unanimous
solution to that problem, it is likely that the
solution will make sense to people in the
community generally. If the problem is a
particularly thorny one, and of serious concern
to the community, then people in the community
are likely to be quite enthusiastic about the
solution.

As a process, the Wisdom Council uses Dynamic
Facilitation (DF), also developed by Jim Rough.
DF is a particularly powerful process that
enables the participants -- even where strong
differences exist -- to find common ground, and
work together collaboratively to find creative,
breakthrough solutions to very difficult problems
-- solutions that take everyone's concerns into
account. If there is a lot of divisiveness in the
community, DF enables a Wisdom Council to find
ways to overcome that divisiveness, on behalf of
the community. A DF session of only a few hours
can sometimes be useful, but the process achieves
its most valuable outcomes if more time is
allocated, typically 2-4 days. Tom Atlee's
co-intelligence site provides a good description
and links to further information:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html

As part of the Wisdom Council formula, each
Council event is well-publicized in the
community, and a public meeting is held following
each Council, where the participants report on
their experiences and their outcomes. Breakout
sessions are held, to give the attendees a chance
to share their responses to the reports. The
pubic meeting, and the publicity, are intended to
feed into distributed dialog in the community
regarding the Wisdom Council process and the
outcomes that have resulted.

The value of a Wisdom Council is measured by the
degree of resonance that occurs in the larger
population. The degree of resonance achieved
depends on the relevance of the topics discussed
to the larger population, the quality of the
session outcomes, the effectiveness of the
publicity process, and the availability of
opportunities for citizens in the larger
population to engage in follow-up dialog.

Wisdom Councils can be very effective if they are
convened on a regular basis in a community,
selecting a different twelve participants each
time from the community. Each group brings in its
own unique insights and concerns, and thus each
Council expands the scope of community resonance.
Over time, this 'growing resonance' can lead to
the emergence of a strong sense of community, and
the development of a general consensus as regards
community priorities and agendas.

Ultimately, the hope is that a palpable sense of
We the People will emerge in the community, and
the foundation will be laid for a direct,
participatory process of democratic
self-governance at the local level. If this
occurs, we can say that the the community has
'woken up' and become an 'empowered community'.
More information about Wisdom Councils can be
found on Jim Rough's 'Wise Democracy' website:
http://www.wisedemocracy.org/


THE CIRCLE PROCESS

As a starting point for distributed dialog, we
recommend the circle process. The circle process
is a simple process that does not require a
facilitator and can be used in any small group
setting to enhance the quality of dialog. A
token, or 'talking stick', is passed around the
room, giving each person a turn to talk each time
the stick goes around. Whoever has the stick
speaks, and everyone else gives the speaker their
full attention.

This process, though simple, may be difficult at
first, as most of us are accustomed to chiming in
whenever a response occurs to us regarding
someone's comment. It takes people a while to
learn to still their minds and really listen. As
people become comfortable with the process, a
space of 'deep listening' is created. In this
space, people begin sharing more deeply, from
their hearts. The process tends to minimize
debate and encourage a spirit of collaborative
and productive inquiry.

A variation of the circle process, called
'fishbowl', can be used for larger groups of
people. Here there is an active dialog circle in
the middle (the fishbowl) and the rest of the
group sits outside the circle and listens. People
typically participate in the fishbowl for a
limited time, and then vacate their seat so
someone else can have a turn to participate.

A 'circle group' is a group of people who agree
to meet on a regular basis using the circle
process. The group might be formed around a
collective endeavor or a particular line of
inquiry, or it might simply be a group of people
who want to engage in conversation at a deeper
level than that provided by a standard discussion
group format.

The quality of the dialog and the value of the
outcomes tend to increase over time, as people
become familiar with one another and with the
process. If a collective endeavor is being
pursued, the process encourages the development
of consensus and tends to harmonize the
participant's perspectives and activities. If the
group includes people with conflicting interests,
the process can help create breakthroughs in
mutual understanding, and lead to the discovery
of underlying common interests and the emergence
of shared objectives.

A more detailed discussion of circle groups and
the circle process can be found on the
co-intelligence website:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-listeningcircles.html

An 'open circle' is a regularly scheduled
circle-process event that is held in a public
place, and is open to whoever shows up. Typically
someone would act as host for the circle, and
take responsibility for finding the venue and
publicizing the events. The host might exercise a
degree of leadership, by announcing in advance
topics for discussion, or each session might be
encouraged to seek its own direction, based on
the interests and concerns of those who show up.

Open circles provide an opportunity for people to
be introduced to listening-based dialog, and they
provide a forum for distributed dialog, without
requiring people to commit their time on a
regular basis. Open circles are similar to
Conversation Cafes, but the use of the circle
process enables a more productive kind of dialog.
Nonetheless, the Conversation Cafe website
(http://www.conversationcafe.org/) provides
guidelines and resources that can be very useful
for open circles as well.

It may be difficult at first to generate
enthusiasm for circles and for distributed dialog
in general. Most people are very busy and many
may have had disappointing experiences with group
discussions in the past. But later on, as Wisdom
Councils begin to generate resonance in the
community, it is likely that people will have
more interest in participating, and more success
can be achieved in encouraging circle groups and
open circles. Eventually, the two levels of
dialog can be expected to feed back on one
another, each enhancing the value of the other.
While Wisdom Councils are capable of producing
breakthrough solutions to important community
problems, distributed dialog provides a way for
people generally to participate directly in the
community's emerging democratic process.


OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY (OS)

Open Space occupies a middle ground between
whole-system dialog and distributed dialog. It is
a way of enabling a large group of people to
self-organize a conference, or a community
gathering. Anyone can volunteer to host a
breakout session on any topic they choose, and
people then join whichever sessions they prefer.
As with Wisdom Councils, the participants choose
their own topics, but with OS any number of
people can participate, and many topics can be
pursued in parallel. OS can be used to create a
democratically-enlightened version of a town hall
meeting, thus providing a very direct forum for
participatory democracy.

In the standard OS formula, the question of
process is left up to each session host. We
believe the effectiveness of OS might be enhanced
by encouraging the use of the circle process in
sessions, and by having facilitators on hand to
help with more intensive sessions if invited to
do so. Information about OS can be found on the
web:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?
http://www.opencirclecompany.com/papers.htm

In order for an OS event to be effective in a
community, there needs to be a large number of
people in the community who are enthusiastic
about participating. This is more likely to be
achievable after some resonance has been created
by the Wisdom Council process and by whatever
distributed dialog has been going on. When there
is sufficient resonance, OS can be a very
effective way to accelerate the process of
community convergence. As with Wisdom Councils,
OS events are most successful when sufficient
time is allocated, 3-5 days being optimal.

The investment of time required for Wisdom
Councils and OS events might seem like a lot to
ask, but that must be balanced against the kind
of outcomes that can be expected. If
long-standing community divisiveness can be
overcome, and if chronic or acute problems can be
addressed successfully, then the few days
invested are negligible by comparison.


OTHER DIALOG PROCESSES

As stated earlier, this framework does not offer
a fixed formula, but rather a starting point --
'kindling processes'. As participation emerges in
the community, we can expect process forms to
evolve, and to be used in new ways. Besides those
we have mentioned, there are many other processes
that a community might find useful for various
purposes. There are many kinds of facilitation
and many formats in which they can be employed. A
fairly comprehensive summary can be found on the
co-intelligence website:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CI-Practices.html.

As a community begins to identify its shared
priorities and concerns, through Wisdom Councils,
circles, and other dialog processes, it can make
sense to convene specialized Councils with the
express purpose of delving into a
democratically-identified problem and coming up
with recommendations to the population. Citizens
Deliberative Councils are designed just for this
purpose.

There are several kinds of these CDCs, with
various ways of selecting participants, and
employing various processes and time frames,
depending on the kind of problem being addressed.
In some cases the Council will have access to
expert testimony, and will be provided with other
investigative tools that it can use in the
pursuit of its task. Once again, we can turn to
Tom Atlee's site for comprehensive summary of
available CDC methods:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-CDCs.html


____________________________________________


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]