One of the options not considered (the cynical might say because it wouldn’t be so prone to the expertification of everything and control fetish Kevin Rudd has) for the 2020 summit was a deliberative democracy exercise. There’s an argument that you get really good outcomes from “citizen juries” and their like – because you’ve got people who aren’t so bogged down in current debates that they can’t see the wood for the trees. Crikey, I think, have actually come up with the way to salvage the 2020 summit:
Here’s a suggestion that just might save the whole weekend: run with the Alisa Camplin approach. Swap the names of the groups. Have the medicos talk about education and training. Have the economists talk about indigenous issues. Have the security types discuss rural and regional issues. Get the welfare and social inclusion types in the “Strengthening Communities” group to discuss the economy. Get the actors and directors to … OK, just leave them where they are.
If these people are “the best and the brightest”, take them outside their comfort zones and get them talking without the same scripts they’ve been using for years. We might see genuinely new ideas or new approaches presented by people not locked into the comfort of groupthink, but forced to use their brains to grapple with something new.
It’s interesting to see the responses of members of political parties when proposals for citizen juries and other examples of sortition (randomly selected deliberative democratic forums) are proposed.
Some years ago I suggested that random selection of student union councils might be worth considering as an alternative to elections. I attracted one Labor Left response which said that I was proposing that student unions be run by “randomly selected Trots”, and one Labor Right response which was purely personal abuse.
The next year I raised the idea within the Greens. The balance of responses were positive, but one individual (who is no longer a Greens member in good standing) said that sortition would be a “recipe for mediocrity”. None of the three responses I have cited made any attempt to argue rationally against the idea.
The Crikey proposal puts its finger on what I perceive as a flaw in the working groups as currently constituted. The environmentalists and environmental scientists have been (mostly) appointed to the environment group, the indigenous people have been (mostly) appointed to the indigenous group, the econocrats have been (mostly) assigned to the economics groups, etc. Apart from the question of expertise and getting people to think outside their comfort zone, this approach also reinforces the disciplinary and sectoral compartmentalisation and lack of integration which is the bane of conventional public policy processes.
Hmmm, I’m a big fan of deliberative polling, which is essentially what 2020 could be, and what you’re talking about.
Buuuuuut, a) Deliberative polling hinges very heavily on people _actually_ being informed before they start talking. Not making them experts when they enter the room, but not asking a cellist from Mt Druitt what she thinks about banana tariffs in qld, without educating her about the issues.
b) I’m a fan of deliberative polling first and foremost for democratic reasons. You can make an argument for, but I’m not entirely convinced that good policy is the inevitable outcome. Goodish, I’ll grant, but not good necessarily.
Far too good an idea to pass muster. Get the actors to talk about education. They know a lot about learning scripts, and have experienced something about the human experience in different roles.
Actually that is a good idea. Potentially an excellent idea. But this will be happening in Canberra and lateral thinking is punishable by death there.
>
I didn’t realize that so many tertiary students subscribed to the political theories of Leon Trotsky. Oh sorry that’s right. The ALP define a ‘Trot’ as anyone who doesn’t blindly obey the ALP. I forgot. Silly me.
Really? That’s so surprising. After all the ALP Right is so well known for their gentility, excellent manners, commitment to democracy and interest in other people’s views. Not to mention their commitment to physical fitness and a healthy diet.
patrickg, I was taking for granted the informing, educating aspect of deliberative polling.
WTF is with the Westpac ad? Clearly not an April fool’s joke, although it should be. Was there a discussion here about running ads? It may be a neccessary economic decision to let the capitalist economy prop up this site – but bank ads? Give me a break! It’s offensive in the extreme and massively hypocritical.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/03/26/faq-whats-with-the-ads-on-lp/
Kim:
That is bloody brilliant!
One of the reasons ABC LateLine [a.k.a. The Professor Show] had scorn poured on it by my colleagues was that any experts [or quasi-experts] on it were never taken outside their comfort zones.
Who knows what insights will emerge if people with an interest in one field are allowed into discussions in another field.
Oh, the old Oblique Strategies strategy. Amazed so few have cottoned onto it so far.
“Abandon normal instruments”
And the classic Eno Oblique Strategy.
“Do not do what everyone else is not doing.”
“Do not do what everyone else is not doing.”
Fucked that one up didn’t I? Or did I not not fuck it up?
Was supposed to read:
“Not doing the thing that nobody had ever thought of not doing.”
…
“What mistakes did you make last time?”
“Do something boring”.