5 March 2007
Richard K. Moore - rkm@quaylargo.com
Author: Escaping the Matrix: how We the People can change
the world
Latest version of this document online:
http://cyberjournal.org/DemocracyFramework.html
We've lived so long under the spell of
hierarchy – from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses – that
only recently have we awakened to see not only that 'regular' citizens have the
capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global
crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to
survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move
toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of
solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated,
and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
–
Frances Moore LappŽ, ÒTime for Progressives to Grow UpÓ
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-28.htm
There are many definitions of democracy, most of them based on elections and representation,
and most of which do not result in governments doing what the people really
want or need. This paper envisions a direct form of democracy, in which the
people of a community decide together, on an inclusive basis, the major
policies and programs of their community. It is quite reasonable to ask if this
is possible, and if it is desirable: Is it possible for the people of a
community to reach consensus decisions? If so, would their decisions be wise
ones? And would people have the time to participate, given how busy everyone
seems to be.
It would be foolhardy to claim outright that these
questions can all be answered in the affirmative, and yet there is considerable
reason to believe that this kind of direct democracy might be achievable
– even when there are strong differences in the community. In the field
of group process and facilitated dialog, there are proven methods that show
remarkable results, as regards achieving agreement in very diverse groups and
producing outcomes that are wise and sensible. There are even ways to solve the
problem of available time! Can
these processes be used in a community setting so as to enable the emergence of
a sensible ongoing community consensus regarding local agendas?
The purpose of this paper is to suggest an
experimental framework for investigating this question directly, by applying
these known methods in existing communities (towns or neighborhoods). The
framework suggested here has been developed through discussions with some of
the leading researchers and practitioners in this field. We have tried to
select those dialog processes that show the most promise for community
awakening.
This framework could be described as Ôfostering dialog
in the communityÕ, but that refers only to the tip of the iceberg. The kind of
dialog we are talking about here goes quite a bit beyond Ôsharing ideasÕ, and
Ôachieving mutual understandingÕ.
It is about going deeper, bringing out the most urgent concerns of the
participants, and tapping their creative energies in addressing those concerns
together. It is about awakening the collective wisdom inherent in a group, and
facilitating the emergence of a sense of collective empowerment, a sense of We
the People as an intelligent agency / actor
in the community.
Most important, this kind of dialog is about inclusiveness. It is not about Ôbringing together the enlightenedÕ
nor about Ôeducating the unenlightenedÕ. It turns out that everyone, regardless
of their beliefs or philosophies, has a Ôpiece of the puzzleÕ, a Ôpart of the
answerÕ. Our society encourages us to fear the ÔotherÕ, and to think in terms
of ÔusÕ vs. ÔthemÕ. But consider this: you donÕt need to agree on
religion to build a barn together.
Similarly, agreement on worldviews is not needed to work together to create
real community and to make it a better place to live. As in ecology, diversity
adds strength and richness.
WeÕve done our best in putting this framework
together, but any real experiment will be breaking new ground, and we encourage
any group pursuing such an initiative to remain open to whatever energy and
direction emerges in their community as the experiment unfolds. Real democracy
is not about a formula, but rather about the dynamic emergence of peopleÕs
participation in determining their own destinies together. This experimental
framework is not meant to suggest the eventual form of that participation, but
is intended rather to provide kindling to help ignite the emergence.
We hope this framework may offer new hope, and
effective tools, to community activists and concerned citizens everywhere. We
are all in this together, and itÕs high time we begin working together from
that consciousness.
ÒChoice-creatingÓ dialog and Dynamic Facilitation (DF)
Jim Rough, of Port Townsend Washington, developed a very
powerful method of facilitation while working as a consultant for corporate
clients. He calls this method Dynamic Facilitation, and it is now being taught and practiced widely, in
corporate settings, communities, activist groups, etc. The kind of dialog that
occurs in a DF session is unique in its combination of benefits, and Jim has
given it a special name, choice-creating dialog, to distinguish it from ÔdeliberationÕ, Ôproblem solvingÕ,
ÔconsensusÕ, ÔdebateÕ, etc.
Unlike many facilitation methods, which attempt to
guide the conversation in certain ways, DF follows the spontaneous energy of
the group. Rather than taking turns in
any strict sense, the facilitator gives attention to whoever seems most
in need of expressing themself at the
moment. (Everyone does get their share of time eventually.) This process can
seem very chaotic at times, and directionless, but at the end of the day following
the energy turns out to be a very efficient
way for the group to function. Efficiency, as measured by quality of
outcomes per time invested, is one of the strong points of DF.
By paying attention to those who have an urgency to
speak, people are encouraged to speak about what is most important to them, and
to speak from their hearts. In this way the participants begin to see one
another as fellow humans, rather than as just ÔspeakersÕ, or as ÔalliesÕ or
ÔfoesÕ. Even where strong differences / polarization exists, people are able to
get past that. Eventually, the perspective of the group shifts to a mode I refer
to as harmonized dialog. That is, the participants begin to see
things this way: ÒWe are all fellow human beings, and each of us has valid
concerns that deserve to be considered. Our shared task is to seek solutions to
our problems that take everyoneÕs concerns into account.Ó
It may take a while to get to this stage of harmonization, and there may be backsliding at times, but when the
group is operating in this way it is capable of doing some very creative work.
When people are not using their energy to defend their position or argue for their side, that energy is released to creatively address
whatever problems are on the table. When everyone is focusing on the same
problem, with the same understanding of the concerns involved, then their
combined creative energy and ideas add up to something greater than the sum of
the parts. New synergies are discovered; ideas that seemed opposed can be
arranged into new combinations and reveal new possibilities. This is what Jim
means by choice creation. The
outcome is that breakthrough solutions are often discovered in DF sessions for
problems that seemed ÔimpossibleÕ to solve – either because they were
technically difficult, or because they embodied long-standing community
divisions. DF helps to overcome both kinds of difficulties.
When a group creates a solution together in this way,
their support for the outcome is much stronger than with standard ÔconsensusÕ.
They donÕt just agree on a solution, they are typically enthusiastic about what
they have achieved together. Unanimity is not identified as a conscious goal,
but emerges naturally from the dynamics of the collaborative process.
For more information about DF:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/resources.php?action=view&rid=1586
http://www.diapraxis.com/dfmanual.html
The principle of the social microcosm
The legitimacy of the traditional jury process is based on
this principle. Twelve randomly selected citizens are intended to be a
representative social microcosm of the whole community (peers). The assumption is that twelve is a large enough
number to ensure that most of the significant sentiments and concerns present
in the community will be present in the jury as well. The requirement of a
unanimous verdict is intended to ensure that none of these sentiments and
concerns are ignored in reaching the verdict. The hope is that the jury will
reach the same verdict that the whole community would have reached, if everyone
had time to consider the case in depth – and time to reach agreement. The
jury, by the way, is the oldest institution in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic
democratic tradition, pre-dating the earliest parliaments. And twelve, as a
Ôgood microcosm sizeÕ, can be traced back to classical times.
Consider then what would happen if twelve random
citizens from a community were to engage in a Dynamically Facilitated dialog
session. As with the jury, we can reasonably assume that most of the sentiments
and concerns of the community would be present in the group. As DF enables the
group to begin to operate in a harmonized
way, all of those concerns will be taken into account as the group seeks
creative solutions to some self-selected community problem, a problem that has
urgency for the group, and presumably for the community as a whole. If the
group succeeds in finding an agreed solution to that urgent problem, we can
reasonably assume that the solution would make sense to the community
generally, and perhaps even be received with enthusiasm.
This principle of the social microcosm addresses the
time problem involved in public dialog and self-governance. If microcosm groups
are able to inject sound ideas into everyday
dialog, that could greatly accelerate the
emergence of a shared community perspective. It is much easier to make progress
and reach agreement in discussions, of whatever kind or size, if there are some
good ideas on the table. We anticipate that a positive feedback loop could be
expected to develop, where good ideas from the microcosm spark community enthusiasm & dialog in the macrocosm. This interaction between microcosm and macrocosm
could then lead to a convergence of public understanding and agenda – an
emergence of We the People consciousness in the community.
Whole-system dialog: Wisdom Councils
These considerations, about DF and microcosms, are what led
Jim Rough to his remarkable invention, the Wisdom Council. Twelve (or a few more or less) citizens are
selected at random and invited to participate in an extended DF session (a
Council), typically 1-4 days in duration. Jim calls this whole system dialog, as the microcosm is dialoging on behalf of
the whole system, the whole community.
If the Council event is publicized widely in the
community, and its outcomes publicized – as called for in the Wisdom
Council guidelines – that provides a channel for the good ideas to enter into everyday dialog. In addition, as part of the format, an open public
gathering is convened following the Council session, where the participants
tell their stories of their experiences in the session, and where the outcomes
of the session are reported. The people are then invited to split up into
breakout groups and discuss their responses to what they have seen.
Many Wisdom Councils have been convened, in different
parts of the world, and the results have been very promising. Some participants
have spontaneously chosen the phrase ÒWe the PeopleÓ to express the sense of
collective empowerment they experienced. There is an emotional dimension to the
experience, even a sense of personal transformation, and the enthusiasm revealed
in the Council membersÕ reports tends to be contagious: the public gathering
often gets enthusiastic about the potential of dialog, and tends to Ôget itÕ
about We the People consciousness. The public event serves as a channel into
everyday dialog not only for the ideas generated, but also for the enthusiasm
and sense of empowerment experienced.
So far, however, most of these Wisdom Councils have
been one-off events. There has not yet a series of Wisdom Councils in the same
community, and no chance for a micro-macro feedback loop to develop. The core
proposal of this experimental framework is to move forward with the Wisdom
Council concept, and convene such a series, with due care given to informing
the community and promoting the post-session public gatherings. Newspapers,
public radio stations, kiosks, flyers – and websites – all can be
used as channels into everyday dialog, depending on the size and nature of the
community.
For more information on Wisdom Councils:
http://www.thataway.org/exchange/categories.php?&cid=136&last_selection=category
Distributed dialog: the circle process
IÕve mentioned whole-system dialog and everyday dialog,
referring to what happens in a Wisdom Council, and what might happen around the
breakfast table, or in a lunchroom or pub. But consider this: if enthusiasm
begins to emerge in a community, around empowerment and dialog, people are not
going to be content for the dialog to be carried on entirely by proxy
(microcosm groups), or in informal chats. People are likely to want to get
together with others, perhaps in their homes or in cafes, and participate
personally in meaningful dialog around
the emerging issues.
The circle process
is a simple meeting format, not requiring a facilitator, that can deepen
conversation, encourage listening, and minimize unproductive debate. A token,
or talking stick, is passed
around the room, giving each person a turn to talk each time the token goes
around. Whoever has the token
speaks, and everyone else gives the speaker their full attention.
This process, though simple, may be difficult at
first, as most of us are accustomed to chiming in whenever a response occurs to
us regarding someoneÕs comment. It takes people a while to learn to still their
minds and really listen. As people become comfortable with the process, a space
of deep listening can be created. In
this space, people begin sharing more deeply, from their hearts. When this
happens the token can be set aside for a while, and people can speak when
inspired to do so. If focus deteriorates, the token can be taken up again.
Another core proposal of this experimental framework
is to encourage the creation of circle-process events in the community. Groups
of people might meet together regularly, perhaps in their homes, or circle
events might be scheduled in public places, open to whoever shows up. Neighborhood
circles would make sense, as a way to build a sense of community at the
neighborhood level. And here again the principle of inclusiveness applies: if a
circle includes diversity, rather than just the like minded, it is more likely
to contribute to the development of an inclusive sense of community, where
everyoneÕs concerns are respected.
A more detailed discussion of circle groups and the
circle process can be found on the co-intelligence website:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-listeningcircles.html
Open Space Technology (OS)
Open Space occupies a middle ground between whole-system
dialog and distributed dialog. It is a way of enabling a large group of people
to self-organize a conference, or a community gathering. Anyone can volunteer
to host a breakout session on any topic they choose, and people then join
whichever sessions they prefer. As with Wisdom Councils, the participants
choose their own topics, but with OS any number of people can participate, and
many topics can be pursued in parallel. OS could be used to create a
democratically enlightened version of a town hall meeting, thus providing a
very direct forum for participatory democracy.
In the standard OS format, the question of process is
left up to each session host. We believe the effectiveness of OS might be
enhanced by encouraging the use of the circle process in sessions, and by
having facilitators on hand to help with more intensive sessions if invited to
do so. Information about OS can be found on the web:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?
http://www.opencirclecompany.com/papers.htm
In order for an OS event to be effective in a community,
there needs to be a large number of people in the community who are
enthusiastic about participating. This is more likely to be achieved after some
community convergence has been created
by the Wisdom Council process and by whatever other dialog has been going on.
When there is sufficient interest, OS can be a very effective way to accelerate
the process of community convergence. As with Wisdom Councils, OS events are
most successful when sufficient time is allocated, 3-5 days being optimal.
The investment of time required for Wisdom Councils
and OS events might seem like a lot to ask, but that must be balanced against
the kind of outcomes that can be expected. If long-standing community
divisiveness can be overcome, and if chronic or acute problems can be addressed
successfully, then the few days invested by the participants are negligible by
comparison.
Other dialog processes
As stated earlier, this framework does not offer a fixed
formula, but rather a starting point – kindling processes. As participation emerges in the community, we can
expect process forms to evolve, and to be used in new ways. Besides those we
have mentioned, there are many other processes that a community might want to
adopt or adapt for various purposes. There are many kinds of facilitation and
many formats in which they can be employed. A fairly comprehensive summary,
with links to detailed information, can be found on the co-intelligence
website:
http://www.co-intelligence.org/CI-Practices.html
Let me begin with an excerpt from our opening quotation:
ÒThe changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are
so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves,
regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct
engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to
directives from on high.Ó
It is not that the system has problems, rather the
system itself is the problem. Consider for
example two of the symptoms: global warming and environmental degradation. In
order to do anything effective about these symptoms, the whole basis of our
economy would need to be transformed. Perpetual Ôeconomic growthÕ, as a
paradigm, can only be achieved by continuing with high rates of energy
consumption and the further devastation of our life-support systems. And yet
there is no way that our political leaders could abandon the growth paradigm.
It is built into the way corporations work, financial institutions operate,
employment is provided, etc. etc. Our ÔleadersÕ wouldnÕt know where to begin
making real changes, even if they were able to think in such terms.
In the world of computer software, there comes a time
when an operating system outlives its usefulness, and a new one must be written
from the ground up. That is the situation we now find ourselves in as a global
society. If the world is to be saved, we need to create a whole new basis for
society – a new way of making decisions, a new way of addressing our
problems, a new kind of economics, a new relationship to our environment. This new basis cannot be achieved by
reforming the current system; we need to rebuild from the bottom up, from the
grassroots.
The achievement of democracy is not only about
bringing power to the people, as opposed to wealthy elites. It is also about
unleashing our collective creativity and resourcefulness so that we can begin
the process of creating healthy societies. We the People are the only ones with the will and the capacity to
undertake this necessary task. We have a responsibility to ourselves and future
generations to address this task. Our first step is to find one
another, to hear one another, to become a we, as a family is a we.
Appropriate tools exist for coming together, and we need to begin learning how to use them.