Skip to main content

Where can you set the agenda?

In a previous post I highlighted the importance of personal relationships and trust for democracy. The implication is that without some degree of personal relationships, public decisions are made without meaningful responsibility or commitment to one another as political equals.  A separate but related concept concerns control over the agenda - a critical but often overlooked dimension to democratic decision-making.

Controlling the agenda is distinct from the power to actually make decisions. The ability to set the agenda entails discretion and power over the issues themselves; deciding what issues matter, and what issues require a decision. Deciding what to decide.

The concept is one of five criteria Robert Dahl put forward in his book Democracy and Its Critics (1989). At first the idea sounds boring and inconsequential, but the power to frame issues has an enormous influence over decision-making. An inability to control the agenda is one reason for much frustration with politics today. Our elected representatives, or civil servants, control the agenda either completely or substantially. Think of a referendum. You do not decide the question to be asked, you do not frame the issue. A referendum delegates the decision to the public, but imparts absolutely no degree or capacity to control the agenda. The agenda is framed and decided by someone else, and we're frustrated that we are not empowered to propose or explore alternative options.

There are, however, places where members of the public do have an opportunity to frame the issues that get discussed. Community associations, community groups, and non-profits. Events in your community and neighbourhood projects. In these settings, volunteer contributors are empowered to frame the issues, to put forward different ideas for what gets discussed, and what options should be pursued. In the public realm, when it comes to voting, we seldom get the opportunity to control the agenda. But community agencies and community groups empower participants to propose projects and ideas for discussion - to control the agenda of what gets reviewed and pursued by the group.

Where in your life might you be able to exert some control over the agenda? Is there a place where you can empower others to frame the issues that get put forward for community review and discussion?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Voting

Voting at the polls is a cornerstone of democracy today. When we think about, and understand, democratic participation, we imagine casting some kind of vote for some kind of person or issue in some kind of election.

Unfortunately, a focus on voting narrows the possibilities for democratic participation, which is really all about shared decision-making. Don't get me wrong, voting is important. It took us about 2500 years to set up voting as an actual mechanism to make decisions, and even now it's certainly not a widespread practice. The right to vote is a contested aspiration in many corners of the world, and we should support the right of each and every person to an equal voice in community decision making.

However, an exclusive focus on voting carries a significant risk. The concept of democracy is an aspiration; an aspiration to share decision-making, and to enable each other, as equals, to participate in decision-making. Decision-making cannot always be achieved with a sin…

Running for office: no experience necessary

There are moments when I hear people question the qualifications and experience of those who are running for, or hold, positions in office. Shouldn't there be some minimum, established, standard or criteria for holding a public position of power? Some minimum level of education?

The short answer is no. If we start looking to impose minimum standards or benchmarks other than: 1) residency, 2) adulthood* we've missed the whole point of democracy, and a critical part of what democracy means. A fundamental democratic principle is equality of voice, or equality of voting. Every person has decision-making power. This principle is based on the concept that not a single one of us is more qualified, or has any right, to impose decision-making or power over others, any more than they also have a right to impose decision-making or power over us.

By contrast, in other spheres of life, we want trained experts to hold some degree of decision-making power. For example, Doctors should probabl…

Why public hearings are terrible

It's a typical public hearing, and over a dozen speakers have arrived to speak for or against the proposed development. When called, each speaker heads up to the microphone and passionately relays their personal perspective on why the new development should, or should not, be permitted.

At the end of the hearing none of the speakers has changed their mind, and very few have learned anything new. Council makes their decision. Those who are aligned with the vote rejoice, while those opposed to the decision lament and decry the process as well as the decision.

A democratic exercise? Certainly doesn't feel like one. Public hearings are notorious for leaving council members exhausted, members of the public frustrated, and decisions that seldom seem connected to the proceedings themselves. This format and mechanism are partially products of our focus on democracy as accountability and equality of voice. At a public hearing, any resident can register to speak, and views are expressed…