Deliberative democracy isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ type of deal. Deliberative processes can come in multiple packages, and deliberative elements can be integrated into a range of different engagement approaches. However, a truly deliberative process is built around some simple core principles, and it’s risky to call a process ‘deliberation’ if it doesn’t truly hit the mark.
Labelling a process deliberative when it’s not really deliberative can result in the host organisation being criticised and/or the process being attacked. This defeats the purpose of deliberative engagement, which, when designed properly, has high levels of integrity, independence and transparency. These processes aim to build trusted public decisions, so it undermines their very intent if public trust is eroded in the deliberative model.
While we design and deliver full deliberative processes, we also run engagement processes that leverage deliberative principles, and engagement approaches that aren’t very deliberative at all. All of these options have their time and place. The conditions have to be right, and deliberation isn’t always the answer to every engagement dilemma (learn more about when to deliberate and when not to here).
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether a process is deliberative or not, as long as it’s fit for purpose, and as long as the organisation is being honest and transparent about what approach is really being undertaken.
So, what are the principles of deliberative democracy, and how would we know if a process wasn’t truly deliberative?
PRINCIPLE 1
A clear, plain English challenge or question is placed before a group. This remit goes to the core of the issues and provides a strong and open platform for discussion about the trade-offs.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
It is unclear what the dilemma or problem being shared is.
Multiple lower level questions are asked that go ‘around’ the main issue or speak to low-impact elements of the problem.
There’s no internal agreement around what the big challenge or problem is that the organisation wants feedback on.
Participants are being asked to respond to something that doesn’t clearly state what the trade-offs are (i.e. what needs to be balanced or considered as part of this issue).
People are provided information or asked questions that are very general or bureaucratic.
PRINCIPLE 2
Detailed, in-depth information provided from multiple, diverse sources is provided to the participants to help them understand the dilemmas.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
Information comes from one source or limited sources (usually prepared by the host organisation) and/or only covers one side of the issue.
Participants can’t request further information or new sources of information to help them participate.
The organisation has done internal work or research that has not been released for public consideration.
People are asked questions without notice or don’t have sufficient access to information – they are expected to indicate what they’re thinking when they haven’t been thinking about the issue yet.
PRINCIPLE 3
A random sample of people affected by the decision are actively recruited to participate. Key filters are used to help stratify this sample to ‘represent’ the broader demographics.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
Participants ‘self-select’ – whoever wants to turn up attends.
Engagement success is focused on or measured by how many people are involved rather than the diversity of voices and perspectives included and how representative those views were.
Only known networks are used and people involved are ‘‘usual’ voices that are more likely to be heard in mainstream activities.
Only people that occupy one end of the opinion spectrum take part – those that are strongly for or against a certain issue or outcome.
PRINCIPLE 4
The process is built to ensure maximum involvement from all participants, and includes the time and support needed to allow for deliberation. Thinking is built up from individuals to smaller groups to the whole group. The issues are weighed up and discussed before final recommendations are made.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
Face to face time together is limited (i.e. less than 3 days), particularly where the issue is complex.
The format is about debate, not deliberation, sessions feel more like a public meeting, and louder voices prevail.
No time is available between sessions to consider work so far or reflect.
Sessions aren’t professionally or independently facilitated, and people don’t have an equal opportunity to contribute or are ‘led’ by those running the session.
There is no opportunity for participants to build critical thinking skills, explore differing views or consider multiple sides to an issue.
The group has no opportunity to make sense of it’s own work or data – someone takes outputs away and reports back to the decision makers on their behalf.
The group doesn’t move towards a considered, supported collective position (majority agreement), instead remaining fragmented in the realm of personal opinion.
PRINCIPLE 5
The group’s recommendations have weight. Their report is considered at the highest level of decision making and responded to directly. The group presents its report and recommendations directly to the decision-makers.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
The ‘promise’ made to participants is weak, vague or low-impact.
The promise being made isn’t signed off at a high level by the ultimate decision makers and/or isn’t publicly stated.
Participant’s don’t have an opportunity to access or present their outputs to key leaders and decision makers.
There’s no commitment from the host organisation to respond directly to recommendations made by the participants, and the steps for considering these outputs are not transparent.
There’s no evidence of how decisions were influenced by outputs.
PRINCIPLE 5
Participants prepare their own thinking and report ‘from scratch’. They are not given a draft position for review or asked to comment on a pre-prepared document. They agree their own recommendations and detail them in the report, which is presented, unedited, to decision makers.
Indicators that a process might not be truly deliberative include:
Outputs are scribed and/or analysed by the facilitators or organisation representative (not the participants’ themselves).
Outputs are channelled into specific responses to a set of detailed questions or prompts.
The organisation or facilitators write up the group’s report.
All the work’s already been done or a draft position has been developed and feedback is sought (rather than a collective group response to a problem)
The group’s report is edited by the organisation.
The group’s report isn’t made public or published immediately following the final day of deliberation.
WANT MORE DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY RESOURCES?
Because we love supporting others to enhance their engagement practice, we’ve developed a huge range of free resources. For deliberative engagement resources, a good place to start is our ‘what is deliberative engagement?’ page – there’s lots of links to further reading and resources here. You can also check out or free downloads page and our free video section.
Additionally, the newDemocracy Foundation (nDF) website contains a large selection of interesting and helpful resources and research papers, including this research note on how deliberation differs from usual political discussion. The nDF recently published the Democracy Beyond Elections Handbook - a guide to designing deliberative processes that lead to trusted public decisions.
The Real Democracy Now podcast is full of interesting episodes talking about deliberative engagement or ‘mini publics’.
The Sortition Foundation has lots of interesting videos and resources about ‘doing democracy differently’ via citizens’ assemblies (citizens’ juries) and processes based on ‘sortition’ or selection by lot.
ENJOYED THIS POST?
Stay in the know! Get new posts, actionable ideas and fabulous free resources delivered to your inbox - subscribe to our monthly e-newsletter 'the Discussion'.