Wellsangels

Following on some of Seth Greenfest’s reactions to the ideas about representation discussed by Coleman and Blumler:

I thought that one of the most notable things about Coleman and Blumler’s proposal was their insistence that it could fit into current systems of representation, and enhance them—to something they call “Direct Representation.” This is very important for a proposal to practically apply the principles of deliberative democracy, which too often seem to never leave the theoretical stage, or are employed in processes such as the deliberative poll, which have only very tangential relevance to the political world.

There are a number of things that can be said about applying the principles of deliberation to a situation in which a representative is ultimately making decisions, but those need to be tempered by the challenges to producing anything resembling deliberation in the interaction between citizens and representatives. I see three principal sets of barriers to forming a deliberative process that involves citizens and their representatives in decision-making:

(1) First, such a deliberative process violates one of Habermas’ central tenets, that differences in status and power must be shelved for deliberative discussions. If one member of the deliberation is a representative, and ultimately will be the decision-maker on the issue, there is not just a level playing field for deliberation.

(2) Second, as Coleman and Blumler note (and we further fleshed out in class), representatives have pretty clear reasons for resisting participating in such a deliberation. Foremost among these may be an unwillingness to share power and a fear of giving themselves over to unnecessary exposure, should they make a promise they can’t fulfill or a public gaffe that hurts them.

(3) A natural result of the latter has been pseudo-deliberative exercises in which governments or officials nominally request the input of citizens, but do so through a process in which citizens have no real decision-making power. Among an already skeptical citizenry, this produces real disenchantment and disconnection, with citizens regularly reporting that they didn’t feel they had any input into the process.

To overcome these challenges, what should be the standards for deliberation that involves both citizens and their representatives? Here are a few I’ve started sketching:

• General principals: Coleman and Blumler note several general process elements that should definitely apply. These include a specific timeline, a specific process, groundrules, prevention of external manipulative pressure, and a specific outcome.
• Outcome of deliberation: They are less willing to specify what such an outcome should look like. They lean on the idea that citizen-representative deliberation should produce specific policy outcomes, but I am not sure this is realistic or necessary. As long as an outcome is specified from the outset, participants develop realistic expectations about it, and representatives meaningfully respond to it, I think there is reason to be optimistic. In that case, I am thinking about an outcome such as a specific set of policy recommendations such as those often produced by citizen juries and some deliberative polls. A specific policy question is raised, citizens research and discuss the issue, and make recommendations. It is not necessary that citizens come to consensus about the issue, because participants can declare their support for any particular proposal at the end of the process.
• Representatives’ role: Representatives should be aware of their role as a high-status deliberator. They should thus participate in the deliberations with the awareness that they will be making the final decision, and that many citizens will likely be skeptical of their motives. They should thus play a largely listening role, but for the deliberation and outcomes to be meaningful, they should also make participants aware of the considerations and pressures they are considering. In both the course of the deliberation and in response to the deliberation outcomes, they should be responsive to constituent concerns, perhaps most importantly, by responding to the process (and especially the outcome) with concrete reasons for their decision-making. They should clearly identify which elements of the citizen recommendations they are acting upon and which they are not, and give reasons for those choices. What is interesting to me is that representatives do this pretty naturally in interpersonal settings—in my experience, they don’t do a lot of BSing, but describe openly the constituencies they must support and the evidence they are working with. It seems to be primarily in public communication—surely driven by a soundbite mediascape—that representatives are depicted as unthinking and unidimensional. Of course, it remains to be seen—and is probably up to the design of the environment—what kind of environment will be fostered by the digital deliberation proposed by Coleman and Blumler.
• Process outcomes: Both representatives and citizens might expect to benefit from participating in such a process. Representatives may gain positive exposure as being able to listen, competent about the issues, reasoning, and having their decision backed up by visible public support. Citizens will have the opportunity to discuss an issue, potentially have a real influence on the process, and, perhaps most importantly, have their concerns recognized and responded to by a representative. For the vast majority of citizens, receiving a meaningful reply—not a stock political answer, but one with substance—would be the greatest interaction they have with policy-making, much more so than voting. It was noted in class that investing oneself in a process and coming out a loser may be very unmotivating. Of course, in a collective decision-making process, many participants will often come out losers. But a process in which representatives hear and meaningfully respond to constituents—especially constituents who have had the experience of expressing themselves, researching and issue, and possibly building a coalition around their feelings—may give citizens a positive sense of participation even when they don’t come out on top.