Save Democracy. Kill the Panel Discussion!

Democracies cannot function without open and vibrant public debate. As democratic societies around the world are under pressure, rethinking the ways we shape our public discourse is urgent. Unfortunately, discussions between political leaders and the public have been dominated by old rituals far too long. If we say that fighting for a free press is crucial, we also have to start liberating our public debates from useless interactions and dominant hierarchies. Step one: eliminate the panel as the predominant form of discussion.
You might find yourself on seat 12 in row M, following a panel discussion. The programme sounded promising but it has turned out to be one of the most meaningless things you have done in weeks. It is not you. This is the devastating effect that panels have, on you, on speakers, on us, on our public discourse: they seduce and kill. Thus, in order to survive as open societies and functioning democracies, we must wipe them out. Completely. I will explain why.
Let me first describe to you the characteristics of this monster that we have been feeding for far too long. A group of three, sometimes as many as ten guests are seated at one end of a room. They are often behind a long table or on combinable seats with little stands between them. The rest of the space is packed with rows of much less comfortable chairs.
Panel discussions are one of the most common forms of public debate. They are simple to organise, participants are seated equally next to each other and they easily take root in an urban landscape of venues with high stages and fixed chairs, like conference centres, theatres and cinema halls. The panel as a discussion format for public deliberation arose in the US in the thirties and in Europe in the fifties and sixties. Nowadays, at academic and many other types of conferences, most interactions take the shape of a panel.
The ability to debate any theme in a public setting is vital for the functioning of our democracies. People in power need to be held accountable, not only in the voting booth, but also during the election cycle off-season. The Australian political scientist John Keane calls this practice ‘Monitory Democracy’. NGOs, debate centres, media and other organisations play an important role in this. Especially in centres of power, like London, Brussels or Washington D.C.. Inviting Members of Parliament, Ministers or Commissioners to take part in public discussions on themes they deal with daily, is crucial. The problem arises when they accept the request.
In order to have meaningful debate, participants must be challenged to make both their standpoint and the underlying arguments clear. Of all possible formats, such as forum debates, dialogues and town-hall meetings, the panel discussion supports this goal the least.
The core of the problem is the typical setting: speakers, who have in the best case opposing or conflicting views, face an audience and not each other. In other words, panel discussions amplify the wrong opposition: speakers against listeners instead of speaker versus speaker.
This has two devastating effects. First, when panel members do not seek mutual conflict, smooth teamwork rears its head. ‘I think you’d better pose that question to my honourable neighbour.’ The better the speakers in the panel already know each other, the greater the chance this will happen, stilling the waves of any dynamic exchange.
Second. A panel setting, marked by a table or row of comfortable chairs often facing seats arranged with military order, tends to function as the ‘monkey-rock’ of public debate. Speakers are on top, organisers and moderators hang around them, the ones who are invited to make remarks occupy the first row, and the rest watch the show from a distance.
In other words: panels are a powerful tool to consolidate and facilitate existing hierarchies. With the next conference, positions easily shift: speakers become moderators, moderators become invited commentators and first-rowers climb the podium and take their places behind the table. Why is this problematic?
You might suggest that the ones in power positions, the great speakers and sharp commentators, should be given the podium. Yes. But not with this level of comfort. That should be given to the people who pay for the tickets. They make space in their agendas, hoping to learn, be surprised, be angry and to confront the ones on top of the rock.
We live in times of hyper-opinion; people make claim after claim without investing time in proper argumentation; an effect reinforced by social media. A well-organised public debate is essential to discuss important issues with key players and a diverse audience. If you manage to bring people together who strongly disagree with each other, you have done a great job. But all this effort will be for nothing if you fall back on the form of the panel discussion.
Have you found yourself confronted with a long table and many chairs as you’re waiting to be seated on the podium? Or have you been invited as a speaker for a ‘tough debate’ but you suspect it is a panel discussion in disguise? Then leave. Or reorganise the setting on the spot: pull the chairs from their rows, dismantle the stage and do not go home until all the important issues have been debated with as many people sharing their ideas as possible.
Only then can we fight the monstrous ritual of listening for one and a half hours to the same old songs, before drinks are served. Democracy needs public debate. But only when we are willing to challenge the dominant hierarchies and standpoints can that public debate be truly open. If not, all we are left with is a ‘karaoke democracy’: our public discourse only echoes positions we already know and fails to question and confront those beliefs in order to achieve a more open society.
An earlier version of this article was published in the Dutch newspaper Trouw.
