____________________________________________ AN EXPERIMENTAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY DEMOCRACY (1.1) 7 January 2007 Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• author of "Escaping the Matrix: how We the People can change the world" http://EscapingTheMatrix.org (prepared with a little help from my friends) (feedback or forwarding invited) _____________________ "We've lived so long under the spell of hierarchy - from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses - that only recently have we awakened to see not only that 'regular' citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high." -Frances Moore Lappé, "Time for Progressives to Grow Up" INTRODUCTION There are many definitions of 'democracy', most of them based on elections and representation. This paper envisions a direct form of democracy, in which the people of a community decide together, on an inclusive basis, the major policies and programs of their community. It is quite reasonable to ask if this is possible, and if it is desirable. Is it possible for the people of a community to reach consensus decisions?...and if they could do so would their decisions be wise ones? It would be foolhardy to claim outright that these questions can be answered in the affirmative, and yet there is considerable reason to believe that this kind of direct democracy might be achievable. In the field of group process and facilitated dialog, there are proven methods that show remarkable results, as regards achieving agreement in diverse groups and producing outcomes that are wise and sensible. Can these processes be used in a community setting so as to enable the emergence of an ongoing community consensus regarding local agendas? The purpose of this paper is to suggest an experimental framework for investigating this question directly, by applying known methods in existing communities (towns or neighborhoods). There are many process methods, and many ways of approaching such an experiment. The framework suggested here has been developed through dialog with some of the leading researchers in this field. We have tried to select those processes that show the most promise in a community environment. Nonetheless, any real experiment will be breaking new ground, and we encourage anyone pursuing such an experiment to remain open to whatever energy and direction emerges in their community as the experiment unfolds. Real democracy is not about a formula, but rather about the dynamic emergence of people's participation in determining their own destinies. This experimental framework is not meant to suggest the eventual form of that participation, but is intended rather to provide kindling to help ignite the emergence. BASIC CONCEPTS As we see it, the core principle of democracy is dialog. It is through dialog that people can discover their shared concerns, and it is through dialog that they can agree on ways to deal with those concerns. We identify two levels of dialog: 'whole-system dialog' and 'distributed dialog'. Whole-system dialog is about 'special events', like Wisdom Councils or Citizens' Juries, where some group has been selected to dialog on behalf of the whole community. In a representative democracy, whole-systems dialog is carried out by the elected representatives, and it involves making decisions on behalf of the whole society. In the processes suggested here, the dialog involves ordinary people from the community, and their role is not to make final decisions, but to make considered recommendations to the community. A trained facilitator is required for such events, and creative and sensible proposals can be expected as outcomes. Distributed dialog is about dialog that goes on in the general community, typically on a more informal basis. There are simple processes, such as Conversation Cafes and dialog circles, that can be used to enable a deeper form of dialog than typically occurs in a 'meeting' or a 'discussion group'. These processes do not require a trained facilitator, but involve simple dialog protocols that anyone can learn to use. Outcomes are more unpredictable in this kind of dialog, and we would expect the value of distributed dialog to grow over time as people become accustomed to civic participation and to process. As an experimental approach, we recommend that both forms of dialog be pursued in parallel, and that the primary emphasis be at first applied to whole-system dialog. It is important to get started with distributed dialog, because it takes time to get dialog groups organized. However whole-system dialog offers more initial value, as such events can be organized relatively easily, and their outcomes tend to be inspiring and forward-moving. We believe that as an organic democratic process emerges in a community, it will involve interactions between whole-system and distributed dialog, taking forms we would not try to predict. WISDOM COUNCILS As a starting point for whole-system dialog, we recommend the convening of a series of Wisdom Councils. Wisdom Councils were only recently developed by Jim Rough, but initial trials have been very promising, and the characteristics of this formula are well-suited to democratic process. The theory behind Wisdom Councils is similar to the theory behind juries. In both cases, twelve citizens are selected randomly to participate, and they are expected to reach a unanimous decision. The theory is that twelve random citizens serve as microcosm of the community, bringing in the general spectrum of concerns and values of the community. When such a group achieves a unanimous outcome, we can assume that the spectrum of concerns has been taken into account, and that people generally in the community would be likely to find the outcome sensible. While a jury's task is to evaluate the evidence in a criminal case, the task of a Wisdom Council is much more open ended. There is no pre-selected topic or problem, rather the participants decide as a group what they want to talk about, in the context of their community. As they settle on an agreed problem to examine, we can assume that the problem is of general concern to the community, by virtue of the microcosm principle. And when the participants come up with a unanimous solution to that problem, it is likely that the solution will make sense to people in the community generally. If the problem is a particularly thorny one, and of serious concern to the community, then people in the community are likely to be quite enthusiastic about the solution. As a process, the Wisdom Council uses Dynamic Facilitation (DF), also developed by Jim Rough. DF is a particularly powerful process that enables the participants -- even where strong differences exist -- to find common ground, and work together collaboratively to find creative, breakthrough solutions to very difficult problems -- solutions that take everyone's concerns into account. If there is a lot of divisiveness in the community, DF enables a Wisdom Council to find ways to overcome that divisiveness, on behalf of the community. A DF session of only a few hours can sometimes be useful, but the process achieves its most valuable outcomes if more time is allocated, typically 2-4 days. Tom Atlee's co-intelligence site provides a good description and links to further information: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html As part of the Wisdom Council formula, each Council event is well-publicized in the community, and a public meeting is held following each Council, where the participants report on their experiences and their proposals. Breakout sessions are held, to give the attendees a chance to share their responses to the reports. The pubic meeting, and the publicity, are intended to feed into distributed dialog in the community regarding the Wisdom Council process and the proposals that have resulted. The value of a Wisdom Council is measured by the degree of resonance that occurs in the larger population. The degree of resonance achieved depends on the relevance of the topics discussed to the larger population, the quality of the proposals, the effectiveness of the publicity process, and the availability of opportunities for citizens in the larger population to engage in follow-up dialog. Wisdom Councils can be very effective if they are convened on a regular basis in a community, selecting a different twelve participants each time. Each group brings in its own unique insights and concerns, and thus each Council expands the scope of community resonance. Over time, this growing resonance can lead to the emergence of a strong sense of community, and the development of a general consensus as regards community priorities and agendas. Ultimately, the hope is that a palpable sense of 'We the People' will emerge in the community, and the foundation will be laid for a direct, participatory process of democratic self-governance at the local level. If this occurs, we can say that the the community has 'woken up' and become an 'empowered community'. More information about Wisdom Councils can be found on Jim Rough's 'Wise Democracy' website: http://www.wisedemocracy.org/ THE CIRCLE PROCESS As a starting point for distributed dialog, we recommend the circle process. The circle process is a simple process that does not require a facilitator and can be used in any small group setting to enhance the quality of dialog. A token, or 'talking stick', is passed around the room, giving each person a turn to talk each time the stick goes around. Whoever has the stick speaks, and everyone else gives the speaker their full attention. This process, though simple, may be difficult at first, as most of us are accustomed to chiming in whenever a response occurs to us regarding someone's comment. It takes people a while to learn to still their minds and really listen. As people become comfortable with the process, a space of 'deep listening' is created. In this space, people begin sharing more deeply, from their hearts. The process tends to minimize debate and encourage a spirit of collaborative and productive inquiry. A variation of the circle process, called 'fishbowl', can be used for larger groups of people. Here there is an active dialog circle in the middle (the fishbowl) and the rest of the group sits outside the circle and listens. People typically participate in the fishbowl for a limited time, and then vacate their seat so someone else can have a turn to participate. A 'circle group' is a group of people who agree to meet on a regular basis using the circle process. The group might be formed around a collective endeavor or a particular line of inquiry, or it might simply be a group of people who want to engage in conversation at a deeper level than that provided by a standard discussion group format. The quality of the dialog and the value of the outcomes tend to increase over time, as people become familiar with one another and with the process. If a collective endeavor is being pursued, the process encourages the development of consensus and tends to harmonize the participant's perspectives and activities. If the group includes people with conflicting interests, the process can help create breakthroughs in mutual understanding, and lead to the discovery of underlying common interests and the emergence of shared objectives. A more detailed discussion of circle groups and the circle process can be found on the co-intelligence website: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-listeningcircles.html An 'open circle' is a regularly scheduled circle-process event that is held in a public place, and is open to whoever shows up. Typically someone would act as host for the circle, and take responsibility for finding the venue and publicizing the events. The host might exercise a degree of leadership, by announcing in advance topics for discussion, or each session might be encouraged to seek its own direction, based on the interests and concerns of those who show up. Open circles provide an opportunity for people to be introduced to listening-based dialog, and they provide a forum for distributed dialog, without requiring people to commit their time on a regular basis. Open circles are similar to Conversation Cafes, but the use of the circle process enables a more productive kind of dialog. Nonetheless, the Conversation Cafe website (http://www.conversationcafe.org/) provides guidelines and resources that can be very useful for open circles as well. It may be difficult at first to generate enthusiasm for circles and for distributed dialog in general. Most people are very busy and many may have had disappointing experiences with group discussions in the past. But later on, as Wisdom Councils begin to generate resonance in the community, it is likely that people will have more interest in participating, and more success can be achieved in encouraging circle groups and open circles. Eventually, the two levels of dialog can be expected to feed back on one another, each enhancing the value of the other. While Wisdom Councils are capable of producing breakthrough solutions to important community problems, distributed dialog provides a way for people generally to participate directly in the community's emerging democratic process. OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY (OS) Open Space occupies a middle ground between whole-system dialog and distributed dialog. It is a way of enabling a large group of people to self-organize a conference, or a community gathering. Anyone can volunteer to host a breakout session on any topic they choose, and people then join whichever sessions they prefer. As with Wisdom Councils, the participants choose their own topics, but with OS any number of people can participate, and many topics can be pursued in parallel. OS can be used to create a democratically-enlightened version of a town hall meeting, thus providing a very direct forum for participatory democracy. In the standard OS formula, the question of process is left up to each session host. We believe the effectiveness of OS might be enhanced by encouraging the use of the circle process in sessions, and by having facilitators on hand to help with more intensive sessions if invited to do so. Information about OS can be found on the web: http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi? http://www.opencirclecompany.com/papers.htm In order for an OS event to be effective in a community, there needs to be a large number of people in the community who are enthusiastic about participating. This is more likely to be achievable after some resonance has been created by the Wisdom Council process and by whatever distributed dialog has been going on. When there is sufficient resonance, OS can be a very effective way to accelerate the process of community convergence. As with Wisdom Councils, OS events are most successful when sufficient time is allocated, 3-5 days being optimal. The investment of time required for whole-system dialog events might seem like a lot to ask, but that must be balanced against the kind of outcomes that can be expected. If long-standing community divisiveness can be overcome, and if chronic or acute problems can be addressed successfully, then the few days invested are negligible by comparison. OTHER DIALOG PROCESSES As stated earlier, this framework does not offer a fixed formula, but rather a starting point -- 'kindling processes'. As participation emerges in the community, we can expect process forms to evolve, and to be used in new ways. Besides those we have mentioned, there are many other processes that a community might find useful for various purposes. There are many kinds of facilitation and many formats in which they can be employed. A fairly comprehensive summary can be found on the co-intelligence website: http://www.co-intelligence.org/CI-Practices.html. As a community begins to identify its shared priorities and concerns, through Wisdom Councils, circles, and other dialog processes, it can make sense to convene specialized Councils with the express purpose of delving into a democratically-identified problem and coming up with recommendations to the population. Citizens Deliberative Councils are designed just for this purpose. There are several kinds of these CDCs, with various ways of selecting participants, and employing various processes and time frames, depending on the kind of problem being addressed. In some cases the Council will have access to expert testimony, and will be provided with other investigative tools that it can use in the pursuit of its task. Once again, we can turn to Tom Atlee's site for comprehensive summary of available CDC methods: http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-CDCs.html ____________________________________________ -- -------------------------------------------------------- Escaping the Matrix website http://escapingthematrix.org/ cyberjournal website http://cyberjournal.org subscribe cyberjournal list mailto:•••@••.••• Posting archives http://cyberjournal.org/show_archives/ Blogs: cyberjournal forum http://cyberjournal-rkm.blogspot.com/ Achieving real democracy http://harmonization.blogspot.com/ for readers of ETM http://matrixreaders.blogspot.com/ Community Empowerment http://empowermentinitiatives.blogspot.com/ Blogger made easy http://quaylargo.com/help/ezblogger.html