| From: | Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2007 11:40:02 +0100 |
| Subject: | Re: AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.0) |
I agree, people said that I would be breaking the law by doing___________________________________
public-run referendums, I have done two so far ......... and no
one has taken me to court.
That appears to be the biggest reason why democracy does
not progress - fear.
If the advocates do not have the courage of their convictions,
why should anyone take any notice of them.
It also shows why there is a demand for an organisation, they
want something to hide behind.
Not very encouraging is it.
____________________________________________
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
____________________________________________