A somewhat tongue-in-cheek assessment of deliberative public engagement

When should deliberative public engagement be considered?

Governments should consider deliberative public engagement when big decisions need to be made, especially ones that impact a lot of people and which require difficult choices and trade-offs.

Governments actually consider deliberative public engagement when issues are politically dangerous, so if there’s a backlash they can distance themselves from it and say: “That’s what they said. I don’t agree.”

OK, maybe that is just a little bit too cynical. Because it is always possible that, if they resource it properly (as unlikely as that might sound), the deliberative process may just create some consensus, or develop some solutions to complex problems.

Which also happens to dampen down political risk. A win all round.

Let’s start with public engagement on the New Zealand flag referendum and the rebuilding of Manhattan after 9/11. These are two examples where politicians could see, no matter what they did, they would be criticised by some group or other, so much better to establish a process that can get the buy-in of the community and take the heat off them.

These two examples have one other thing in common as well, which is that people feel passionately about them, but the material impact on the economy, or on infrastructure, or on day to day life, is actually almost zero. So, politicians can feel safe in handing over power to the public, because it has very little “real” impact on the real world and on their power. That makes the “handing over” the issue to the public far more likely to happen.

But, to be less cynical, other issues which have real impact on people’s lives (rather than just on their emotions) can also benefit from deliberative public engagement. Examples that fall into this category are participatory budgeting, pre-birth testing, and abortion.

It’s just that it takes politicians to be brave enough to hand over this type of real power.

Assuming government is able to put aside politics and power concerns (quite a big assumption, but let’s talk hypothetically for a moment) then, as a general rule, the greater the number of people who are impacted by a decision, and the more complex the decision, the more reason for deliberative public engagement.

Similarly, the narrower the impact, the more it makes sense to have narrower engagement. For example, if government wants to review rules about the carriage of dangerous goods by air, it would make more sense to consult technical experts, airlines, logistics companies, and industries that rely on aircraft to move dangerous goods than using time and resources to engage broadly and deliberatively. Maybe they should still engage deliberatively, but narrowly.

Also, there has to be no urgency to the decision-making. For example, the Christchurch earthquake had a broad impact affecting half a million people from all walks of life, but running a deliberative public engagement to determine the emergency response would have been too slow. That doesn’t mean to say that the public shouldn’t have been able to provide input into the response as it was ongoing, but a deliberative response, with the time-frames that requires, was not the right one.

International diplomacy and security are other areas that might make deliberative public engagement tricky. The Russian hacking and interference in the US elections (and maybe our own too, who knows?) impacts everyone in the country. But I’m not sure there would be the political will to open up deliberative public engagement on how to deal with that issue. A public information campaign perhaps, but this seems to me to be an example of when there are genuine reasons for the government to stay firmly in control of the response.

And there is also no point running a deliberative public engagement if the government already has a predetermined position, because, if so, citizens will be skeptical about how much weight will be given to their input, and will think they are wasting their time. And, to be honest, why should they if their efforts will be unrewarded?

In summary, governments should engage publicly and deliberatively on issues that people feel strongly about, or which are complex and have a significant impact on the lives of a broad range of people, as long as they have the time to engage effectively, there are no significant international diplomatic or security issues at stake, and they do so early in the decision-making process.

What are two pros and two cons of small-group online deliberation compared with small-group face-to-face deliberation? — Participants’ perspective

From my experience, online deliberation just isn’t as good. For a start, it’s much more time intensive. That’s partly because it just takes a lot more time to write up complex thoughts than it does to just start talking and clarify as you go.

And this also takes some skill. Not everyone is able to write their thoughts, ideas, and beliefs in a way that others can easily read and understand.

But then, on the other hand, for some people, speaking up in public, especially if they want to present opinions that are different from others, can be difficult, so “hiding” behind a computer screen can give them some confidence. OK, I’ve changed my mind. Online really is better than face to face.

But a skilled F2F moderator can also draw people to say what they want to say. And this is much easier to do face to face, where the moderator can read body language and bring quiet people into the conversation.

But, having said that, the online writing process does give time for reflection, which is generally missing from a face to face to encounter.

But then, some people actually think best when talking, extroverts especially, weird as that seems to an introvert like me, as we come up with our best ideas when we’re alone and shut out the world.

So, in conclusion, online is way better than face to face. Except in situations where face to face is way better than online.

What are two pros and two cons of small-group online deliberation compared with small-group face-to-face deliberation? — Sponsors perspective

More people can get involved online, so you can get a broader range of views, especially from people who find it difficult to get to a central point and engage.

But then, more people drop out when online, and it can be harder to keep them involved. And it’s difficult to know if they have dropped out because they just aren’t interested, or if they actually have something they really want to contribute but feel they can’t.

In face to face engagement it’s much harder to drop out, unless you’ve got the courage to get up and walk out of the room. Tough to do. I’ve done it during a few movies, but never to a live performance. (In those cases, just don’t bother coming back after the intermission, or, in the case of deliberative public engagement, wait for the break, scoff down the tea and biscuits, then make a run for it).

But ultimately, the sponsors should use the process that gives them the best results. Which — at the end of the day — means both.