Skip to main content

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?


The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society.

More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts.

This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance. Robert Dahl emphasized the importance of enlightened understanding as a key democratic principle, which he defines as: “citizens ought to have adequate and equal opportunities for discovering and validating the choice on the matter to be decided that would best serve the citizen's interests.” The discovery and validation are key points here; we need an opportunity to inform ourselves before making decisions about items in the public interest. 

Paul Woodruff raises a similar point in the book First Democracy when he outlines the notion of reasoning without knowledge. This phrase is meant to highlight the fact that when it comes to public policy, or big decisions facing society, we can't predict the future. We are making decisions without reliable knowledge of the future. From this standpoint, democratic decision-making must include a process of reasoning - to incorporate diverse perspectives, different ideas, and to reason through possible outcomes, before a decision is made. Decision-making processes must have opportunities for learning and reflection, reasoning, discovery, and validation. 

This is where discussion and deliberation is powerful, and it is important that deliberation can take place before a decision needs to be made. In BC, the Citizens Assembly on electoral reform met for months, heard from experts, and deliberated before they made a decision about what to recommend. The Citizens Initiative Review process in Oregon brings together randomly selected citizens to review and deliberate the implications of various measures being put forward as ballot initiatives. They are invited to deliberate and discuss the various measures before they are expected to jump into a decision.

There are two critical, distinct, dimensions to this knowledge-building in the context of decision-making. 1) Getting the information and 2) deliberation. Citizens need to be able to access information about the issues under review, to inform themselves. But the understanding, validation, and reasoning that Dahl and Woodruff highlight raises the notion of deliberating and discussing issues with others as political equals. How often does this happen at the ballot box? We may get access to information about issues, candidates, and policy platforms, but how often do we get to deliberate and discuss issues that are put forward for a vote?

It is our contention that this does not occur often enough. And so it falls to communities and civic groups, and you, to carve out opportunities for deliberation. It falls to each of us not to avoid talking about politics, but to get the information we need, and to build spaces where we can reason and deliberate with one another.

Comments

  1. Big thanks to colleague George for pointing me in the direction of Julia Galef on this topic, who runs the Update Project and the Rationally Speaking podcast. Great resource to understand our respective frames of the world!
    https://juliagalef.com/

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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…