An Experimental Framework for Community Democracy
5 March 2007
Latest version of this document online:
http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
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”
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-28.htm
Introduction
There are many definitions of democracy, most of them based on elections and representation, and most of which do not result in governments doing what the people really want or need. 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? If so, would their decisions be wise ones? And would people have the time to participate, given how busy everyone seems to be.
It would be foolhardy to claim outright that these questions can all be answered in the affirmative, and yet there is considerable reason to believe that this kind of direct democracy might be achievable – even when there are strong differences in the community.
In the field of group process and facilitated dialog, there are proven methods that show remarkable results, as regards achieving agreement in very diverse groups and producing outcomes that are wise and sensible. There are even ways to solve the problem of available time!
Can these processes be used in a community setting so as to enable the emergence of a sensible ongoing community consensus regarding local agendas?
The purpose of this paper is to suggest an experimental framework for investigating this question directly, by applying these known methods in existing communities (towns or neighborhoods).
The framework suggested here has been developed through discussions with some of the leading researchers and practitioners in this field. We have tried to select those dialog processes that show the most promise for community awakening.
This framework could be described as ‘fostering dialog in the community’, but that refers only to the tip of the iceberg. The kind of dialog we are talking about here goes quite a bit beyond ‘sharing ideas’, and ‘achieving mutual understanding’. It is about going deeper, bringing out the most urgent concerns of the participants, and tapping their creative energies in addressing those concerns together. It is about awakening the collective wisdom inherent in a group, and facilitating the emergence of a sense of collective empowerment, a sense of We the People as an intelligent agency / actor in the community.
Most important, this kind of dialog is about inclusiveness. It is not about ‘bringing together the enlightened’ nor about ‘educating the unenlightened’. It turns out that everyone, regardless of their beliefs or philosophies, has a ‘piece of the puzzle’, a ‘part of the answer’.
Our society encourages us to fear the ‘other’, and to think in terms of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’. But consider this: you don’t need to agree on religion to build a barn together. Similarly, agreement on worldviews is not needed to work together to create real community and to make it a better place to live. As in ecology, diversity adds strength and richness.
We’ve done our best in putting this framework together, but any real experiment will be breaking new ground, and we encourage any group pursuing such an initiative 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 together. 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.
We hope this framework may offer new hope, and effective tools, to community activists and concerned citizens everywhere. We are all in this together, and it’s high time we begin working together from that consciousness.
see below...
An Experimental Framework for Community Democracy
Moderator: Super Moderators
The Primary Tools
“Choice-creating” dialog and Dynamic Facilitation (DF)
Jim Rough, of Port Townsend Washington, developed a very powerful method of facilitation while working as a consultant for corporate clients. He calls this method Dynamic Facilitation, and it is now being taught and practiced widely, in corporate settings, communities, activist groups, etc.
The kind of dialog that occurs in a DF session is unique in its combination of benefits, and Jim has given it a special name, choice-creating dialog, to distinguish it from ‘deliberation’, ‘problem solving’, ‘consensus’, ‘debate’, etc.
Unlike many facilitation methods, which attempt to guide the conversation in certain ways, DF follows the spontaneous energy of the group. Rather than taking turns in any strict sense, the facilitator gives attention to whoever seems most in need of expressing themself at the moment. (Everyone does get their share of time eventually.)
This process can seem very chaotic at times, and directionless, but at the end of the day following the energy turns out to be a very efficient way for the group to function. Efficiency, as measured by quality of outcomes per time invested, is one of the strong points of DF.
By paying attention to those who have an urgency to speak, people are encouraged to speak about what is most important to them, and to speak from their hearts. In this way the participants begin to see one another as fellow humans, rather than as just ‘speakers’, or as ‘allies’ or ‘foes’. Even where strong differences / polarization exists, people are able to get past that.
Eventually, the perspective of the group shifts to a mode I refer to as harmonized dialog. That is, the participants begin to see things this way: “We are all fellow human beings, and each of us has valid concerns that deserve to be considered. Our shared task is to seek solutions to our problems that take everyone’s concerns into account.”
It may take a while to get to this stage of harmonization, and there may be backsliding at times, but when the group is operating in this way it is capable of doing some very creative work.
When people are not using their energy to defend their position or argue for their side, that energy is released to creatively address whatever problems are on the table. When everyone is focusing on the same problem, with the same understanding of the concerns involved, then their combined creative energy and ideas add up to something greater than the sum of the parts. New synergies are discovered; ideas that seemed opposed can be arranged into new combinations and reveal new possibilities.
This is what Jim means by choice creation. The outcome is that breakthrough solutions are often discovered in DF sessions for problems that seemed ‘impossible’ to solve – either because they were technically difficult, or because they embodied long-standing community divisions. DF helps to overcome both kinds of difficulties.
When a group creates a solution together in this way, their support for the outcome is much stronger than with standard ‘consensus’. They don’t just agree on a solution, they are typically enthusiastic about what they have achieved together. Unanimity is not identified as a conscious goal, but emerges naturally from the dynamics of the collaborative process.
For more information about DF:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynami ... ation.html
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/resour ... w&rid=1586
http://www.diapraxis.com/dfmanual.html
see below:
“Choice-creating” dialog and Dynamic Facilitation (DF)
Jim Rough, of Port Townsend Washington, developed a very powerful method of facilitation while working as a consultant for corporate clients. He calls this method Dynamic Facilitation, and it is now being taught and practiced widely, in corporate settings, communities, activist groups, etc.
The kind of dialog that occurs in a DF session is unique in its combination of benefits, and Jim has given it a special name, choice-creating dialog, to distinguish it from ‘deliberation’, ‘problem solving’, ‘consensus’, ‘debate’, etc.
Unlike many facilitation methods, which attempt to guide the conversation in certain ways, DF follows the spontaneous energy of the group. Rather than taking turns in any strict sense, the facilitator gives attention to whoever seems most in need of expressing themself at the moment. (Everyone does get their share of time eventually.)
This process can seem very chaotic at times, and directionless, but at the end of the day following the energy turns out to be a very efficient way for the group to function. Efficiency, as measured by quality of outcomes per time invested, is one of the strong points of DF.
By paying attention to those who have an urgency to speak, people are encouraged to speak about what is most important to them, and to speak from their hearts. In this way the participants begin to see one another as fellow humans, rather than as just ‘speakers’, or as ‘allies’ or ‘foes’. Even where strong differences / polarization exists, people are able to get past that.
Eventually, the perspective of the group shifts to a mode I refer to as harmonized dialog. That is, the participants begin to see things this way: “We are all fellow human beings, and each of us has valid concerns that deserve to be considered. Our shared task is to seek solutions to our problems that take everyone’s concerns into account.”
It may take a while to get to this stage of harmonization, and there may be backsliding at times, but when the group is operating in this way it is capable of doing some very creative work.
When people are not using their energy to defend their position or argue for their side, that energy is released to creatively address whatever problems are on the table. When everyone is focusing on the same problem, with the same understanding of the concerns involved, then their combined creative energy and ideas add up to something greater than the sum of the parts. New synergies are discovered; ideas that seemed opposed can be arranged into new combinations and reveal new possibilities.
This is what Jim means by choice creation. The outcome is that breakthrough solutions are often discovered in DF sessions for problems that seemed ‘impossible’ to solve – either because they were technically difficult, or because they embodied long-standing community divisions. DF helps to overcome both kinds of difficulties.
When a group creates a solution together in this way, their support for the outcome is much stronger than with standard ‘consensus’. They don’t just agree on a solution, they are typically enthusiastic about what they have achieved together. Unanimity is not identified as a conscious goal, but emerges naturally from the dynamics of the collaborative process.
For more information about DF:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynami ... ation.html
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/resour ... w&rid=1586
http://www.diapraxis.com/dfmanual.html
see below:
The principle of the social microcosm
The legitimacy of the traditional jury process is based on this principle.
Twelve randomly selected citizens are intended to be a representative social microcosm of the whole community (peers). The assumption is that twelve is a large enough number to ensure that most of the significant sentiments and concerns present in the community will be present in the jury as well.
The requirement of a unanimous verdict is intended to ensure that none of these sentiments and concerns are ignored in reaching the verdict. The hope is that the jury will reach the same verdict that the whole community would have reached, if everyone had time to consider the case in depth – and time to reach agreement.
The jury, by the way, is the oldest institution in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic democratic tradition, pre-dating the earliest parliaments. And twelve, as a ‘good microcosm size’, can be traced back to classical times.
Consider then what would happen if twelve random citizens from a community were to engage in a Dynamically Facilitated dialog session. As with the jury, we can reasonably assume that most of the sentiments and concerns of the community would be present in the group.
As DF enables the group to begin to operate in a harmonized way, all of those concerns will be taken into account as the group seeks creative solutions to some self-selected community problem, a problem that has urgency for the group, and presumably for the community as a whole. If the group succeeds in finding an agreed solution to that urgent problem, we can reasonably assume that the solution would make sense to the community generally, and perhaps even be received with enthusiasm.
This principle of the social microcosm addresses the time problem involved in public dialog and self-governance. If microcosm groups are able to inject sound ideas into everyday dialog, that could greatly accelerate the emergence of a shared community perspective. It is much easier to make progress and reach agreement in discussions, of whatever kind or size, if there are some good ideas on the table.
We anticipate that a positive feedback loop could be expected to develop, where good ideas from the microcosm spark community enthusiasm & dialog in the macrocosm. This interaction between microcosm and macrocosm could then lead to a convergence of public understanding and agenda – an emergence of We the People consciousness in the community.
see below:
The legitimacy of the traditional jury process is based on this principle.
Twelve randomly selected citizens are intended to be a representative social microcosm of the whole community (peers). The assumption is that twelve is a large enough number to ensure that most of the significant sentiments and concerns present in the community will be present in the jury as well.
The requirement of a unanimous verdict is intended to ensure that none of these sentiments and concerns are ignored in reaching the verdict. The hope is that the jury will reach the same verdict that the whole community would have reached, if everyone had time to consider the case in depth – and time to reach agreement.
The jury, by the way, is the oldest institution in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic democratic tradition, pre-dating the earliest parliaments. And twelve, as a ‘good microcosm size’, can be traced back to classical times.
Consider then what would happen if twelve random citizens from a community were to engage in a Dynamically Facilitated dialog session. As with the jury, we can reasonably assume that most of the sentiments and concerns of the community would be present in the group.
As DF enables the group to begin to operate in a harmonized way, all of those concerns will be taken into account as the group seeks creative solutions to some self-selected community problem, a problem that has urgency for the group, and presumably for the community as a whole. If the group succeeds in finding an agreed solution to that urgent problem, we can reasonably assume that the solution would make sense to the community generally, and perhaps even be received with enthusiasm.
This principle of the social microcosm addresses the time problem involved in public dialog and self-governance. If microcosm groups are able to inject sound ideas into everyday dialog, that could greatly accelerate the emergence of a shared community perspective. It is much easier to make progress and reach agreement in discussions, of whatever kind or size, if there are some good ideas on the table.
We anticipate that a positive feedback loop could be expected to develop, where good ideas from the microcosm spark community enthusiasm & dialog in the macrocosm. This interaction between microcosm and macrocosm could then lead to a convergence of public understanding and agenda – an emergence of We the People consciousness in the community.
see below:
Whole-system dialog: Wisdom Councils
These considerations, about DF and microcosms, are what led Jim Rough to his remarkable invention, the Wisdom Council.
Twelve (or a few more or less) citizens are selected at random and invited to participate in an extended DF session (a Council), typically 1-4 days in duration. Jim calls this whole system dialog, as the microcosm is dialoging on behalf of the whole system, the whole community.
If the Council event is publicized widely in the community, and its outcomes publicized – as called for in the Wisdom Council guidelines – that provides a channel for the good ideas to enter into everyday dialog. In addition, as part of the format, an open public gathering is convened following the Council session, where the participants tell their stories of their experiences in the session, and where the outcomes of the session are reported. The people are then invited to split up into breakout groups and discuss their responses to what they have seen.
Many Wisdom Councils have been convened, in different parts of the world, and the results have been very promising. Some participants have spontaneously chosen the phrase “We the People”
rk moore
These considerations, about DF and microcosms, are what led Jim Rough to his remarkable invention, the Wisdom Council.
Twelve (or a few more or less) citizens are selected at random and invited to participate in an extended DF session (a Council), typically 1-4 days in duration. Jim calls this whole system dialog, as the microcosm is dialoging on behalf of the whole system, the whole community.
If the Council event is publicized widely in the community, and its outcomes publicized – as called for in the Wisdom Council guidelines – that provides a channel for the good ideas to enter into everyday dialog. In addition, as part of the format, an open public gathering is convened following the Council session, where the participants tell their stories of their experiences in the session, and where the outcomes of the session are reported. The people are then invited to split up into breakout groups and discuss their responses to what they have seen.
Many Wisdom Councils have been convened, in different parts of the world, and the results have been very promising. Some participants have spontaneously chosen the phrase “We the People”
rk moore
Richard K Moore may be available in mid-October as a Fantastic Forum Guest Blogger. He will be visiting here in the Seattle area. A session would be set up in a topic here for Q and A - in an 'almost live' format.
You may want check out some of the articles and information Moore has written during his journey through the Matrix, and how he is arrived at this idea of a harmonization project and Wisdom Councils.
Here is Richard's new blogspot:
http://governourselves.blogspot.com/
Will keep you updated in this thread regarding the availability and schedule for the Guest Blogger thread - planned for mid October.
You may want check out some of the articles and information Moore has written during his journey through the Matrix, and how he is arrived at this idea of a harmonization project and Wisdom Councils.
Here is Richard's new blogspot:
http://governourselves.blogspot.com/
Will keep you updated in this thread regarding the availability and schedule for the Guest Blogger thread - planned for mid October.