“The point of political equality is not merely to create spaces free from domination, but also to engage all members of a community equally in the work of creating and constantly recreating that community.”
Some years ago, when Christopher Moore, my partner at CDR Associates and I were asked to facilitate a major public dialogue on issues of wildlife management in Alaska; we tried to construct a process that would offer a significant opportunity for people to discuss contentious issues with each other. Even in this highly politicized atmosphere, it was not hard to develop a structure in which everyone could offer input, but getting people to engage in meaningful conversations with those they had genuine disagreements with and with whom they seldom spoke directly was another matter. One of our efforts involved using a modified version of a circle process—something labeled (inaccurately)—a Samoan Circle. We ran into a great deal of resistance from some of the participants, because they did not want to talk—what they wanted to do was to deliver a public statement, which would be duly recorded in some official record or another (and then promptly forgotten). As one of the activist said: “I did not come all the way to Alaska to participate in some childish process, I just want to deliver my statement and go home.”
Growing governmental efforts to engage the public in decision-making do not seem to have led to a public that feels more listened to or more able to participate in constructive dialogue with those they disagree with. If anything, that goal seems more elusive than ever, and yet is absolutely essential if we are to contend with the major issues we face globally, nationally, and locally.
Public participation procedures in decision-making have been around for a long time—and their use seems increasingly prevalent. They permeate all aspects of governmental decision- making. There are public meetings to gather input about location of public facilities, school closures, transportation planning, proposed changes in regulations, annexation decisions, and just about every other public decision a local governmental entity makes. In many jurisdictions, elected bodies are required to deliberate in the open and it is not even permissible for more than three or more elected officials to talk privately about official business. Sometimes these are simply input procedures—with no real capacity to promote dialogue or seek consensus, but there are many diverse approaches that seek to encourage genuine interaction and consensus building as well.
But along with the growing efforts to provide for public participation, there also appears to be a growing sense of alienation from government, a belief that public officials are not genuinely responsive to their constituents or interested in hearing what they think. Or at least that is what a growing chorus of angry voices seem to be saying—particularly in the current US election. What is going on here? Why do what appear to be extensive and genuine efforts to give people a direct voice in decision-making procedures only seem to make people more skeptical about the genuine commitment of government officials to take their views into account?