Post in Building consensus online
Topic Navigation
Useful Links
Building consensus online From: Simon Smith Date: 2008 Feb 08 18:35 UTC Short link
Michael Allan wrote: "Those who dispute the context have no formal channel in which to express their dissent." Isn't this essentially because we're imagining a scenario where an exercise in deliberative democracy is expected to endorsed or rejected in a yes/no referendum? But why should an extended, open eParticipation process culminate in a one-off (e)Voting event? The consensus-building mechanisms being explored in this thread would have to allow for much more nuanced decision-making where dissenters are presented with a constructive outlet. By the way, the EU now hosts a series of discussion forums on the future of Europe on the Your Voice in Europe<http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewforum.php?f=9>site. I'm not sure there's much there yet to refute James Gilmour's pessimistic view. Simon Smith
On 08/02/2008, James Gilmour <jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk> wrote: > > 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 > > > > Member profile for James Gilmour: > http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/jamesg > > > ----------------------------------------- > > Group home for Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation: > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult > > Replies go to members of Online Consultations, Dialogues, and > E-Participation with all posts on this topic here: > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/63ec9QT9FIeeGNu0l8PdvB > > For digest version or to leave Online Consultations, Dialogues, and > E-Participation, > email <email obscured> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*. > > Online Consultations, Dialogues, and E-Participation is hosted by > Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. >
☺