Building consensus online
From:
James Gilmour
Date:
2008 Feb 08 14:27 UTC
Short link
Michael has misunderstood what I wrote - or at least, what I intended. My
first point was that I do not think the level of
participation in this particular exercise would be anything like as high as the
75% Michael originally suggested. The lack of
consensus is a second (but perhaps not secondary) issue.
I would not be at all hopeful that the suggested rational approaches to dealing
with the lack of consensus set out in Michael's last
message would prevail. The divisions on this particular issue run very deep
and produce visceral responses. When the issue is like
this one, in politics, as in love and war, "all is fair".
So I would foresee those most opposed to "the constitution project" pursuing at
least four lines of opposition:
1. register a vote against whatever is proposed.
2. start a counter "petition" to oppose the whole constitution-writing
exercise.
3. submit "wrecking amendments" to every proposal - these can be dressed up to
look quite reasonable but would make the end product
inoperable and so, useless.
4. engage in a vicious "dirty tricks" campaign against the proponents of the
constitution and against the whole project.
They will certainly not exclude themselves in silence, nor will they care at
all about being unfair to those who disagree with their
views. Their objective will be, quite simply, to win - and they will use any
means they think will help them towards that
objective.
James
Michael Allan > Sent: 08 February 2008 12:10
> James Gilmour wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Open Constitution (Europe, 2010)
> > >
> > > Europeans begin openly drafting a constitution. ...
>
> > Participation in this project would be horribly skewed and
> completely
> > unrepresentative of the electorate at large. Reason: if a
> referendum
> > on UK continued membership of the EU were held now, I would not be
> > surprised if more than 50% voted to leave the EU. ... there is
> > considerable unhappiness about "the project" in several other EU
> > countries as well. So I should not expect too much positive
> > participation in this one - maybe some very negative participation,
> > and I should expect the "antis" to be the most vociferous.
> They would
> > certainly not be contributing toward building a consensus!
>
> James's concern is not the levels of participation (as Pete's
> was), but a failure of participants to acheive a consensus
> (or legitimate
> consensus) owing to a premise or *context* dispute. Those
> who dispute the context have no formal channel in which to
> express their dissent. Either they exclude themselves from
> the process, in silence (being unfair to themselves), or
> register a spoiler vote in protest (being unfair to others).
>
> In answering, I hope to show that the process itself contains
> a solution. The process we are speaking of is Miles's B-3,
> which is based on open, grassroots consensus. The solution
> lies in the fact that openness extends beyond participation,
> to include the framing of new contexts. To illustrate, allow
> me to relate two additional scenarios. These might follow
> from the previous three. In scenario 4, a solution is found
> by shifting and narrowing the context; in scenario 5, by widening it.
>
>
> 4. Open Foreign Policy (United Kingdom, 2012)
>
> An economics student in the UK, being opposed to EU
> membership, decides that his opposition is best expressed in
> the context of UK foreign policy. He sketches a foreign
> policy draft that centers on withdrawal from the EU. He
> posts the draft on his Web site, and initiates an open
> election for it.
>
> At the same time, he withdraws his vote from the open
> election for the European Constitution (3). Although he is
> opposed to membership for the UK, he does not wish to spoil
> the election for the other EU members. If they wish to have
> a constitution, then that is their affair.
>
> Other voters begin to follow his example. They withdraw
> their protest from the context of Europe (where it was having
> no effect on UK policy), and register it more effectively by
> voting for a foreign policy that entails EU withdrawal.
> Others voters disagree with this proposed policy shift, and
> vote for alternative drafts that would maintain EU membership.
>
> Aside from withdrawing their pointless protest votes in the
> EU's constitutional election, some dissenters turn around and
> recast their votes in *favour* of various constitutional
> drafts. They choose drafts, in particular, that would grant
> the UK a larger degree of autonomy within the union. In
> doing this, they are hedging their bets against the event of
> continued membership. More important, they are providing
> other EU members with concrete proposals to consider;
> proposals that are taken seriously in light of the new
> foreign policy election in the UK. The effect of the new
> election is therefore to neutralize the context dispute that
> had poisoned the old EU election. It now proceeds on a more
> rational footing.
>
>
> 5. Open Constitution (World, 2012)
>
> Meanwhile, a resident of France (call her Marianne) is also
> thinking about the election for the European Constitution.
> She does not agree with the statement (3) that "Europeans are
> defining for themselves what Europe is, and what it means to
> be European." She doubts that the EU really respresents
> Europeans, at large. In the election, she has voted against
> the constitution.
>
> Marianne is heir to the universalism of the French
> Revolution. She does not feel that the values of Europe can
> be contained in Europe, any more than the ideas of the
> Revolution could be contained in France. Instead of a
> European Constitution, she would rather participate in
> something that seems more hopeful. So she drafts a page of
> HTML, with the title:
>
> Universal Constitution
>
> But what to put underneath? It cannot be left blank. A
> constitution ought, she reflects, to have a preamble about
> shared values. She thinks about this, and writes, "We
> believe in democracy..."
>
> The effort to reach a consensus at that scale would have a
> positive effect on the EU constitutional dispute. It would
> put the EU and its member states in a clearer context. It
> might also have a positive effect on other disputes. It
> might, for example, bring the globalization protestors off
> the streets and into rational, constructive dialogue.
>
> --
> Michael Allan
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1265 - Release Date: 07/02/2008
11:17