Public engagement through a deliberative process

The process of public engagement in a democratic society can be viewed as an outcome of good governance. Public engagement in policy formulation encourages participation from the public and stakeholders, increases government transparency and accountability in the development of policies. Participation, accountability and transparency are characters of good governance and public engagement encompasses these characteristics. But in an era big data, ease of accessibility to information through the internet and increase online communication platforms, there is so much information available that the public can access that can influence their views of a particular policy issue. Public engagement has to be deliberative and be able to link the expression and therefore contextualize communicative plenty and in the early in the process of policy development.

Deliberative public engagement early in the policy development stage broadens the understanding of the issue and one way this can be achieved is through providing materials about the issue which can influence opinions and views of the public through early engagement. It creates a sense of ownership for the public and stakeholders having participated in the process from the beginning. Early engagement also increases government accountability and transparency in the development of the policy by engaging with the public through the process, a characteristic of good governance and therefore increases public confidence in government and increases public interest to participate. Deliberative public engagement early in the policy development process can be meaningful and an effective process when the engagements process itself is deliberative and with a defined engagement road map with clear outcome objectives.

Deliberative public engagement in the early stages of a policy formulation can identify issues early on that can be either rectified or further discussed through the process of public engagement to reach a compromise. Through an early deliberative engagement the public at the end the policy process should not only express their views and opinions but also be able to listen to the views and expression of other participants and reflect on what has been mentioned through the process. In Deliberative public engagement there should be space for views, the space to be heard and views to be reflected upon and then progresses on through the process. Therefore it is important that deliberative public engagement should take place early on in policy development as views may transform over time and duration of the engagement process.

The process of deliberative public engagement can be executed through face to face deliberations or online deliberations either in small groups or in large groups. Two benefits of having a small group online deliberation compared to a small group face to face it that;

i. Information is manageable in small group and readers are not overwhelmed by information. The small groups allow the participant to express their views, read what others have expressed and reflect on what has been said. The moderator or facilitator manage the discussions and develop common grounds from the discussions.

ii. Not everyone has good public speaking skills or are able to easily convey their thoughts meaningfully in a face to face discussion, hence online deliberations create the avenue for people to convey their views in depth. In smaller groups participants are confident to express their views.

However, there are disadvantaged as well to having small group online deliberation compared to face to face;

i. From a participant view point a small online group may be considered as not been representative. One may argue that the group is too small to be representative of the public views. For example, in an online deliberation a participant may comment when they are free and this can impact the outcome of the deliberation given the size of the group especially if there are time frames that need to be met and progress to the next stage of engagement. Therefore the process is not representative and deliberative if participants do not contribute by expressing their views, do not read and have the time reflect on what others in the group have written.

ii. Another disadvantage is the turnaround time for comments. Although the group being small the turnaround time to reaching an agreement is likely to be delayed if the moderator or facilitator drawing up a consensus is depended upon every group members comments and views, whereas in a small group face discussion are timely, free flowing and views are expressed, listened to and reflected and further discussed to reach a compromise and this is done fairly sooner compared to an online deliberations. Reaching a compromise in a small online group may not be sooner compared to a small face to face group.

Overall, any public engagement on policy issues should be done through a deliberative process that is defined with clear objectives and involves wider public participation. The pro and cons of spaces for expressing views should be though out well before implementation of an engagement plan.