CivicEvolution and legitimacy
From:
Brian Sullivan
Date:
Feb 13 17:20 UTC
Short link
My working definition of consensus:
Consensus: when the affected stakeholders consent to a plan of action to
address a problem.
So: We can move forward as a group and address the problem.
Because
* A majority think the proposal will help solve the problem.
* The decision was made in a fair and transparent process.
* The reasons for the decision are based on terms that are capable of
reflective acceptance by those subject to the decision (Dryzek)
* We can all live with it, even if we don't particularly like the decision.
* Some of us may dislike this decision very much, but we do consent to,
and are committed to the process by which we as a group arrived at the
decision. (meta consensus)
CivicEvolution is premised on a transparent process open to all affected
stakeholders. I am less concerned with numerical and theoretical
representativeness than I am concerned with
1. Encouraging actual civic engagement, as opposed to simple
(non-reflective) voting
2. Opening the decision making process up to all voices
3. Providing a mechanism through which new ideas and solutions can
percolate up from the grassroots and gain exposure and support.
So my definition of legitimacy includes
1. A transparent process that was open to all voices
2. A decision based on terms capable of reflective acceptance by others
3. My fellow citizens/stakeholders were strongly involved in the
decision making process, they were heard, and the policy reasonably
reflects their voices.
4. I could have had a voice in this process if I desired to be involved.
Depending on the nature and scope of the decision/proposal legitimacy
may require a plebiscite, or it may be enough to provide a solid idea
with (relatively) broad community support that a public servant (eg
school board) can implement.
Speaking of implementation, this will be the most interesting challenge
of CivicEvolution. I seek to build a library of best practices and case
studies so teams can benefit from the experience of others to find the
most effective ways to reach out to their communities and influence
their public servants.
I have more faith in community engagement and activism than I do in
non-reflective aggregated voting. I live in California where every
election is a battle of special interest money saying "Yes on 67" ,"No
on 67" and I imagine most people have no sense what any of them are
about. I certainly don't want to do away with our referenda, but
something is seriously amiss. It is for this reason that I don't think
a better voting system is enough of a solution.