Post in Building consensus online

Feb 08 12:10 UTC

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.