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

Why democracy doesn't always require a majority

With the recent referendum in BC on electoral reform, which resulted in not only a defeat at the polls but also an abysmal voter turnout at 42.6% of eligible votes, there have been some renewed calls for policy decisions to be reviewed by a random assortment of voters through something like a Citizens' Assembly. A citizen's assembly would be an alternative, or a complement, to a public vote on a matter of public policy such as electoral reform; rather than putting the matter directly to the public, a random group of citizens would be selected and convened to give their opinion.

Further, over the course of the referendum, other important questions were raised about the process itself: what's a sufficient voter turnout to inform a policy decision? Shouldn't the ballot include the specific details of the voting system being proposed?

All of these questions serve as an important reminder of why democracy entails much more than showing up at a poll booth to submit a vote. A…

Accountability: getting information about public things...to the public

When it comes to democracy one term that gets floated around often is the notion of accountability. But what does accountability actually mean? What does it look like?

Further, in the context of government bodies, elected representatives, and the myriad different organizations that provide civil services in our communities, how does accountability happen? And what's required for a community institution to be able to say it is accountable?

The answer is different, for different institutions. For example, we often focus on the accountability of elected officials and government representatives. But what about Crown corporations, or state companies? In Canada, Crown corporations are publicly held entities that provide a public service, but that are not directly managed or overseen by any elected official. The first federal Crown Corporation was the Canadian National Railway, established in 1922, and there are now a diverse array of publicly owned autonomous public entities in diverse s…

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…