3. A Global Citizens’ Deliberation on Democracy
The DDCA Cohort’s Working Group for A Global Citizens Deliberation on Democracy[GCDD] is tackling the next piece of practical global architecture required for democracy to combat autocracy. Its purpose is to create space for effective and useful citizen’s deliberations at a global or near-global scale in order to facilitate the Summit for Democracy and citizens engaging with and listening to each other .It will also be widely acclaimed for correcting the oddity that a global Summit for Democracy does not itself yet have a legitimate and independent means of reaching out and listening to the views of citizens in the world.
We ask the Summit team to act upon the aim that a Global Citizens Deliberation is created so that citizens themselves can examine democratic issues put to them by the Summit and its team which will then receive and respond to the recommendations.
These deliberations could, of course, cover an enormous range of topics, for example, how we support new democracies threatened by neighbouring autocracies, how democracies themselves could work more closely together to deliver coherent democratic support, a means by which specific countries or continents can put Marshall style plans together to express their own democratic needs, how the Summit itself might be improved, examining issues around devolution, written constitutions, the role of Artificial Intelligence or social media in democracy, and so on. Choices of topic is a decision for the Summit itself. Once effective methodologies have been tested and proven the Summit could extend the GCDD beyond the work of the DDCA Cohort and [while still using the techniques of deliberative democracy] could encompass and support the work of any or all Cohorts and the Summit itself.
To help the Summit begin this work we offer a clear direction of travel, ready to be worked up into concrete proposals by our team of experts and a detailed sense of initiation in response to the summit or participating countries wishing to take up this approach. This is then the beginning not the end of our process. In addition to this concept note of the working group, the Cohort are also committed to continue its work of examining many excellent formats deliberation could take which could work wholly or partially online or through many of the tested and successful simple or hybrid models of citizens engagement .Reports and recommendations on this ongoing work will be fed from the working group to the Summit staff as requested. We ask the Summit team to use its position to take forward this idea with the Cohort by convening or sharing the message with participating countries, and reporting progress to next year’s Summit
Making the Case
Deliberative approaches to the questions and issues citizens face offer the time, information and conditions to explore complicated topics and provide a picture of the public’s considered judgments on the way forward. Empirical research generally supports the key claims of deliberative democratic theory, enabling deliberative democracy to be deployed in both the diagnosis of democratic ills and in the development of effective responses to the contemporary crisis of democracy.
Deliberation can be summed up as “Democracy in good conditions”. It incorporates inclusive participation that encompasses citizens and leaders, mutual justification, listening, respect, reflection, and openness to persuasion. Good deliberation takes time and effort but is something a plethora of examples shows us people want to get involved in and in which citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions.
These methods have a strong track record, having been frequently used at scale up to national and occasionally trans-nationally with representative samples of the public and across language barriers. The advent of facilitation using artificial intelligence will only increase the possibilities of engaging ever larger numbers. Here are just 5 of many possible models:
- EC Conference on the Future of Europe: https://audiovisual.ec.europa.eu/en/video/I-218898?&lg=EN/EN
- The Chile 400
- The Irish Citizens Assembly: https://citizensassembly.ie/en
- The Meta “Community Forum” https://about.fb.com/news/2022/11/improving-peoples-experiences-through-community-forums/
- The Global Assembly on the climate and ecological crisis: https://globalassembly.org/report
Such efforts are valuable for exploring the public’s considered judgments and in many cases for the first time enabling sometimes distant international institutions to engage with, listen to and where appropriate act on recommendations. They make contributions to policy processes and help policymakers with difficult questions. They can also bring about change on issues such as low trust in government and public disaffection .Introducing deliberative elements to policy processes ensure that care and time is taken on sometimes difficult issues, so it can generate smart and sustainable solutions and creatively move beyond impasse. Perhaps above all it reunites the partnership of citizens, elected representatives and international institutions. All of these have a duty to restore mutual trust, deliberation provides the means.
We can put a range of tools at the summit’s service, to meet any key ambitions. Imagine the first question for the Summit for Democracy to ask it’s GCDD being: What would the people of the world (or at least the world that is free enough to permit participation), think should be done about the global challenges facing democracy?
Properly established and funded over the next year the GCD would continue long into the future as a working legacy of the Summit even should the Summit itself, for whatever reason, not continue.
An agenda of experimentation
There is a rich diversity of forms of deliberation .Thousands of citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries, citizen panels, deliberative forums, Deliberative Polls and consensus conferences have now been conducted; these all involve diverse participants (ideally randomly selected), facilitated dialogue, and an emphasis on norms of civility.
What would a global deliberation of the public accomplish? How could it be organized?
We envision continuing experimentation and adaptation of a wide diversity of deliberative formats, - our working group has developed ideas based around both Deliberative Polling and a Citizens’ Assembly model based perhaps on the CoFoE platform to a global or near global scale. There is room for a multitude of deliberative forms and our colleagues on the DDCA Cohorts Working Group for a “What Works Center for Deliberative Democracy” have played a leading part in advocating ,evidence basing and advising on that .To the expert eye there may be differences in methodologies there is however much that they share in common ,above all, a rigorous impartiality and independence and highest possible standards of integrity upon which the legitimacy of deliberation is founded.
Standard public opinion polling will usually represent the public’s yes/no impressions of sound bites and headlines, with little opportunity to think about the complexity and trade-offs posed by difficult choices. Citizen deliberation adds the element of thoughtful reflection based on an evidence-based discussion of competing reasons for one policy or another and with the opportunities to listen to the voices of fellow citizens. The resulting considered judgments are often markedly different from initial polls and show what the public -given the chance-really would think about an issue under facilitated good conditions.
As already noted, there are many models already for deliberation by the public. We propose an agenda of experimentation where a variety of models can easily be convened and built on. Such projects can give rise to the global, and thoughtful expression of world public opinion on the challenges facing democracy.
Our work in 2023 and onwards builds on our start-up proposal initially made to the March 2023 Summit. Our first model is that the Global Citizens Democratic Deliberation takes pre-existing polling methods but builds upon that infrastructure to facilitate a global deliberation by random and representative samples. Our second model uses the methodologies of Citizens Assemblies.
Our first proposal in this experimentation is to apply a Deliberative Polling model something like the design of the current Stanford Deliberative Poll, a near-global stratified random sample of the world’s social media users conducted with Meta about the ground rules for conduct in virtual reality. The project divided the world into nine regions, sampling 34 countries in multiple languages. A total of nearly 7,000 deliberators and 6,000 control group members allow for inferences about the considered judgments of people in all 9 regions as well as globally—after an entire weekend of deliberation conducted in different time zones around the world and in local languages. The project employed new technology (the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform) to convene and organize the discussions of the scientific samples in video-based small group discussions of ten or so in each group and it will deliver the conclusions of the near global sample, both before and after deliberation, both by region of the world (each of nine) and globally. Since this is a working model of global deliberation that is ready to be replicated on the issues of democracy, we propose the Summit team should start an agenda of experimentation with this model.
More thinking on this is available to the Summit team but in essence all such Citizens Assembly and Deliberative Polling processes require an advisory committee that would vet the formulation of policy options to be considered and balanced (and evidence-based) briefing materials that express the pros and cons of those options. There is both an initial questionnaire on recruitment and a final questionnaire at the end so that the changes of opinion on the options are evident. The questionnaires are confidential to protect the respondents from social pressure to go along with the crowd. The six or seven thousand participants are divided into small groups of ten to deliberate over a weekend-long deliberation with questions from the small groups directed to panels of competing experts who might offer different perspectives on the policy options. This process has been tested more than 120 times in countries around the world, in many cases with the online technology used in the most recent Meta project (as well as with the Chile 400 already mentioned). It works well with smartphones which have done so much to close the digital divide in the global south. Good survey research partners can be recruited nearly everywhere to provide support for those drawn in the samples, subsidies for connectivity, child care etc to make it possible for the samples to be as representative as possible are also necessary.
Our second proposal is for the Summit to put to work the methodologies of a Citizens’ Assemblies model. Citizens’ Assemblies are now tried and tested the OECD quoted 600 successful examples in recent years including the Conference on the Future of Europe, and multiple examples in countries such as Ireland, France and Germany.
The key principles of this model are that a representative group is chosen in a Democratic Lottery; access to diversity of sources including many of their own choosing (key to overcoming mistrust of experts); vastly extended time for genuine deliberation (commonly 40+hrs over 3-4 months); an open question; a free self-written response showing their reasoning and the evidence relied upon, and above all an agreed process for political implementation so outcomes happen.
The Global Citizens’ Assembly can commence at any time in the year that follows the Summit and run for 3-4 months and use tech enabled solutions for reach. We suggest it should answer a question that would benefit from a global response, suggested by the S4D and make recommendations for action to the summit, although it will also likely produce outcomes that will have national implications.
If successful the Assembly concept could be repeated within the year, this could include other S4D Cohorts keen to inform and legitimise their work by thoughtful citizens’ engagement It would report to the Summit for Democracy[S4D] via the Deliberative democracy and Citizen’s Assembly Cohort[DDCA Cohort].
The Assembly members will be regular citizens from many countries, chosen as a microcosm of the population of the planet. Our initial Proposal is to recruit a stratified random selection (broad match to Census) of 40-50 people for 5 nations from different continents. The process is modular so can be run at the National level, with a subset of participants from each national group brought together to distil final recommendations at a single global event. Five countries participating [the number can be varied with experience] would be ‘visibly global ‘and logistically manageable.
The global Assembly will in itself model the ideal of what “democracy in good conditions” can look like; respectful deliberation, citizens engagement and constructive partnership with legislatures and governments. The assembly will be conducted to the highest standards of independence, impartiality and transparency. The Recommendations - as amended, rejected or agreed by the Summit - will be transmitted to all Summit nations for consideration and implementation as appropriate.
The first Global Citizens ‘Assembly will be delivered for less than $1M. The process is modular: a room of 35-43 people for a high quality 6 meeting day process costs US$200k-$250k to operate (the largest single cost being third party facilitators). In less developed countries this cost is US$40-50k.
Whilst Citizens’ Assemblies on a (near) global scale have experienced little experimentation, and we have a low number of cases, we do have a series of examples and starting points that will enable successful implementation and that identify further areas for consideration, including:
· How would global questions relate to national governments and what agreements if any might they make to consider the recommendations of the assembly relevant to them?
· What capacity and infrastructure already exists, e.g. in OECD countries that we might engage with or be enlisted to support these efforts?
In summary, these two models go to the core intent of President Biden commissioning the Summit to physically demonstrate a practical innovation in democracy’s battle against autocracy. They are also complementary to our other DDCA Cohort Commitments on global democratic infrastructure, enabling all nations to support a Declaration of support for deliberative democracy, a global What Works capability, a Marshall Plan for democracy starting in Central& Eastern Europe which the Cohort has prepared. All other Cohorts should be welcome and encouraged to utilise this infrastructure and assets.
The DDCA Cohort has access to the greatest possible concentration of global expertise to oversee the delivery of the first Global Citizens’ Deliberation. It could be offered by the Cohort ,the Summit team or by institutions such as USAID/ the State Department/European Commission /UN /NATO to strategic geographies, or as an open offer.
If there is interest from Summit organisers , the Cohort using it’s access to global experts will produce the overarching global plan with a reference design for any group of countries to operate.
It now is for the Summit team to take forward and experiment with both of these equally valid methodologies and to add to our debates the voice of the citizens of the planet.
Global Citizen’s Deliberation Working Group
This is being led for the Cohort by Ceri Davis, Director of the Deliberative Democracy Centre at National Centre for Social Research [UK].
Members of the group are Jane Suiter, Dublin City University ,The Irish Citizens’ Assembly [Ireland] Jim Fishkin and Alice Sui from Stanford Centre for Deliberative Democracy[USA], Graham Allen, Convenor Citizens’ Convention on UK Democracy[UK]; Iain Walker Exec Director newDemocracy[Australia]], Kimmo Grönlund, Åbo Akademi University, [Finland].Tomás González Olavarría,Tribu, [Chile]. Yasunori Sone, Professor Emeritus, Keio University, [Japan] Tom Asher OMB [US] Min Reuchamps, Louvain University [Belgium]
Postscript.
Separate from the above proposals but complementary to it is our work to support and promote the wide [but as yet unanswered] call for the development of the NATO Centre for Democratic Resilience to strengthen the democratic culture and practises of the NATO countries and their neighbours. The DDCA Cohort facilitated by the Summit team could supply much of the deliberative democracy and citizen assembly expertise necessary for the creation and impact of such a Center.
This concept enjoys widespread support including bipartisan US House support and Congressional resolution, being raised in the UK Parliament, and being the policy of the NATO Parliamentary assembly. Achievement of the NATO Center for Democratic Resilience will be helped if the Summit team resolves to support to encourage the efforts to progress it.
Conclusion
We, the working group members, are proud to be a part of the DDCA Cohort, to contribute to the 3 Working Groups and to support the Summit process and team as well as the Summit for Democracy event itself. Part of our project is to help take the Summit concept to its next stage, and bring cutting edge global institutions to the use of deliberative democracy and thereby evolve and strengthen democracy. We ask that the Summit team engages with us, improves our work and where appropriate endorse, encourage and take to implementation the practical steps we have outlined above.
Appendix Two-Summit for Democracy: Democracy Cohort Outcomes.
Summit for Democracy: Democracy Cohort Outcomes
FACT SHEET
MARCH 28, 2023
https://www.state.gov/summit-for-democracy-democracy-cohort-outcomes/
Strong Institutions
Deliberative Democracy and Citizens’ Assemblies
The Deliberative Democracy and Citizens’ Assemblies cohort , co-led by the Government of Ireland, the European Commission, and the newDemocracy Foundation, focused on providing citizens with a meaningful role in public decision-making through citizens’ assemblies by bringing together community representatives.
Key outcomes include:
· Recommendations for holding informational workshops for elected representatives; advocating for the adoption and distribution of the guidelines in the OECD ‘Deliberative Wave’ report; conducting a national-level citizens’ assembly; proposing a ‘Marshall Plan for Democracy’ to support countries with fragile democratic institutions; initiating a Global Citizens Assembly on Democracy; and establishing a global ‘What Works’ Center to support governments’ adoption of deliberative processes.