Talk given on 22nd May 2015

1. Reclaiming Deliberation:
Escaping the Vortex of Vox Pop Democracy
Nicholas
Gruen
@ngruen1
ngruen@gmail.com

2. Outline
Vox Pop Democracy
Fond fallacies about democracy
Two ideas about democracy
Finding a new democracy
A South Australian case study
Online deliberation

3. What people think when they don’t think

4. 4
We the people

5. 5

6. Two ideas about
democracy

7. 1. The engine of democratic engagement
Expression: not deliberation
Affect: not reason or calculation
[Between political campaigning and modern advertising]
we find the same attempts to contact the subconscious
of creating favourable and unfavourable associations
which are the more effective the less rational they are,
and the same trick of producing opinion by reiterated
assertion that is successful precisely to the extent to
which it avoids rational argument and the danger of
awakening people’s critical faculties
Joseph Schumpeter

8. 2. The division of labour
Collectives act almost exclusively by accepting
leadership — this is the dominant mechanism of
practically any collective action
Joseph Schumpeter
Government requires careful consideration
Much of it boring
• Real Property (Priority Notices and Other Measures)
Amendment Bill

9. Can we find a new democracy
suited to the internet age?

10. Policy
Brainstorming

11. 1

12. 2

13. 3

15. Takeout
Democracy (like capitalism) is not a simple idea
• It’s a rich cultural achievement
Not just elections
Not just participation
Without building in deliberation, we’ll amplify,
not overcome vox pop democracy

16. Participation and deliberation

20. Safer, more vibrant Adelaide night life
Overwhelmingly the jurors were very positive
about the experience, with most still avidly
following the progress of the recommendations
through the media and other sources.

21. What the jurors found positive
1. Feeling more competent from exposure to
diversity.
Unanimously positive on diversity of others.
Composition of jury didn’t match expectations.
‘Not just the young activists’
“I was expecting the blue rinse set from the
Eastern suburbs. I was delighted to find
that wasn’t the case”.

22. What the jurors found positive
“I’m a man, I’m six foot two, I have no
considerations for my safety in Adelaide.
Then being with other people: older, smaller,
females, you learn that their experiences are very
different”
“Even if you have open forum you get the polar
views there, you don’t get people in the middle
who don’t… have to have their way. Here you get
the average person and that’s really good”.

23. What the jurors found positive
2. Feeling that self selection demonstrated
commitment
3. Having choice and control
4. Support inside and outside the sessions
5. The sense of occasion

24. What the jurors found positive
“If you receive an invitation from the Premier
it’s a rare thing to pick out of your postbox …
It’s a gift.
You’ve been invited.
Something about you was chosen.
Even though it’s randomly selected, you feel
‘Oh wow, I feel so lucky’”

25. How did involvement change
perceptions for jurors?
7 now thought differently about the challenges
of democratic decision making.
3 felt reduced cynicism and suspicion towards
government.
2 felt participation had given them a more
empathetic view.
6 now felt differently about the issue owing to
access to views of other citizens, experts and the
tools to deliberate

26. How did involvement change
perceptions for jurors?
“I know more how it is now - I have a broader
perspective of it and there is a lot more
happening than I realised.
“My political views haven’t changed. But my
opinion about how you move things forward, yes.
But to be in the process of really having
something that you want, and having to allow it to
not come out in exactly the way you want, but
nevertheless having some contribution to it, I
suppose that’s the essence of democracy”

27. How did involvement change
perceptions for jurors?
7 now had worse perception of media.
“It was eye opening. Because you had your opinions about things,
and you would hear something completely opposite and you’d
think ‘Why did I ever think that in the first place?’, and then you
realise that you never really get the full story through the media”
6 described were ‘angry’, ‘annoyed’ and ‘appalled’ when they
saw media coverage of their deliberations
Several journalists took one line from the report (on a car parking
tax) and reported it “out of context”

28. How did involvement change
perceptions for jurors?
“I have a lot more respect for politicians.
People give them a lot of flack but it’s so hard
when you have so many conflicting voices
coming at you.
The Jury was good for getting the informed
voice of the people, without everyone’s
opinion”.

29. How did involvement change
perceptions for government officials?
“I’m very cynical about opinion polls. We take
it so seriously because we’re told ‘the majority
of the public supported this’, but that’s opinion
given with very little understanding of the
process, reasoning, or the arguments that are
part of it. It can’t be relied on”.

30. How did involvement change
perceptions for government officials?
6 of 9 bureaucrats felt that citizens jury got them
beyond what was seen as ‘tokenistic’ engagement.
An exercise involving real responsibility rather than
the more typical “vox pop response”.
More time given to participants accessing and
acquiring knowledge.
The results were ‘uncontrolled and not sanitised’
led to greater trust in the process. ”.

31. How did involvement change
perceptions for government officials?
7 were impressed by the sense of empowerment
participation fostered in the citizens.
“All the jurors in the room had a real sense of responsibility.
I don’t know whether that was usual, but I was blown away
by it”.
Some told us of their surprise in the level of
knowledge and capability demonstrated:
“I realised there’s way more capability in the community
than we give credit for. And from a learning perspective,
how do I somehow tap into that so we can start to engage
quite differently?”

32. The view of experts and interest groups
Experts and special interest groups were
impressed by the jurors’ eagerness to
participate and felt that they came across as
well informed, well read, and offered
thoughtful questions.

33. Downsides
7 officials disappointed with the jury’s recommendations.
Many were hoping for more radical ideas, or options they
hadn’t proposed themselves.
Homogenisation
“Lots of good ideas get thrown out because consensus is
narrower in its vision. Because they’ve all got to have input into it,
are you all attempting to please everyone? In the end you get
watered down ideas” - Juror
“A great way to get consensus on an issue… yet to get
consensus they have to flatten out innovation” - Expert
Actionability

34. Citizens’ involvement as a resource
6 jurors increased their interest in policy issues. All
jurors shared a desire to do it again and recommend
the experience to others. This included sustaining
contact with the group. Five of the jurors expressed a
willingness to stay in touch with the other jury
members, and two of these were actively looking for a
way to sustain these personal ties.
What if …
Each citizens’ jury included an exit process with jurors
electing those most respected to inform the next jury
and pass on their knowledge.

35. Online v face-to-face discussion
After a session there would be a tirade of things people
felt they didn’t get a chance to say or hadn’t resolved.
Basecamp brought out all those typical aggressive
behaviours that people will do online that they might
not do to your face. Some times I saw what was
happening, and thought ‘I’m not going to contribute. I
have an opinion, but I hate the tone of that’. In a
detached online forum, you don’t have to respect
anyone’s opinion. A lot of our ground rules were
ignored once people were in their own space hurling
rocks.”

36. Gay Marriage
Responding to
an epidemic
Monetary policy
Stem Cell research
Transgenic crops
Genomic medicine

37. Democracy isn’t fractal
Larger scale requires different forms, not just
a scaled up version of what works in a town or
neighbourhood.
Geoff Mulgan, NESTA

39. The Super Trawler Margiris should be banned
42

40. If Liberty and equality are to be found in
democracy, they will be best attained when all
persons alike share in government to the
utmost
Aristotle