Skip to main content

...or is ideology here to stay? The case for a new golden rule: "shared values first"

In the last post I made the case that perhaps, if we could engage in political discourse without ideology, we might find more synergies between seemingly opposite points of view. Is it possible to break down polarized politics by removing ideology from the equation, and focusing on specific policies, localities, and data?

Boris DeWiel, "Democracy: A History of Ideas", (2000)
Political scientists such as Boris DeWiel would suggest that the answer is no; that politics is fundamentally a contest of values, and political discourse boils down to alternate conceptions of a "good" society. His book, Democracy: A History of Ideas, reminds us that our political differences are often the result of the values that are most important to us. For some: personal and individual liberty, for others: equality and fairness. These values are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and there's nothing inherently wrong with values such as these. Our difficulties begin when we prioritize a given value over another, and focus on a particular value at the exclusion of others.

Is this exclusion necessary? Arguably, values should drive actual behaviour and decision-making. And if decisions are made, alternate possibilities are excluded. A particular direction is chosen over another.

But what if, instead, decision-making processes were to begin by exploring shared values, and revealing values that are held in common? Perhaps our trouble with ideology stems not from an ideal conception of the "good", but in the dogmatic pursuit of values to the exclusion of...one another? Rather than try and articulate the values that are most important to us individually, perhaps we should engage in a perpetual search for the values that we hold in common with one another.

To adopt this approach, the key first step would be an open exploration of values, and an agreement not to proceed (debating, discussing, whatever), until shared values had been unearthed. The various participants in a decision-making process would be asked to prioritize the realization of shared values, rather than try to convince others to take sides with their respective ideals.

These shared values could then become a shared framework, between multiple parties, to engage in thoughtful decision-making. The process would focus on values held in common, and would exclude values that are not shared by all participants. This is, in fact, often an important process piece for many facilitators: leading participants in the creation of a group agreement. But what if we were to explore and reveal deeply held political values in the early stages of decision-making.

What would that make possible?

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…