Dr. Ian O'Flynn is Lecturer in Political Theory at Newcastle University. He recently worked with James Fishkin, Robert Luskin and David Russell on a deliberative poll on the future of education policy in Northern Ireland. Information on this poll is publicly available via the Center for Deliberative Democracy's website.
Arthur Lupia claims that deliberative polls ‘can have beneficial effects, but only under specific conditions and with rather limited goals in mind'. There is some truth to this claim. Deliberative polls create a public that has never existed and probably never will exist. Political groups are not comprised of random samples, information is rarely balanced, safe deliberating spaces are generally hard to find, and so forth.
However, Professor Lupia seems to have overlooked something of very great importance. Although deliberative polls may create a public that has never existed, they remind us of what democracy is (supposed to be) all about.
Democracy is rule by the people. But as has often been pointed out, there would be little point in arguing for democracy unless we could also show that ordinary people are capable of ruling - that they are capable of learning about complex issues and of taking the views of others into account in formulating their opinions. Deliberative polling shows that democracy is possible, even if it is not always possible everywhere.
Viewed in this light, the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll is an enormously exciting venture. If its results turn out to be anything like the results of other deliberative polls, we will see significant gains in knowledge, mutual understanding and respect.
There are no guarantees, however. For one thing, much depends on who exactly turns up on the day. The sample may be a fairly exact microcosm (in terms of nationality, ethnicity, class, age, gender, social and political outlook, etc). But if it is not, critics may argue that the poll's findings are unrepresentative. For another, there are no guarantees that the powers-that-be in Europe will actually act upon its findings.
As James Fishkin and Robert Luskin have often pointed out, deliberative polls do not push consensus or even right answers. Yet the trouble is that politicians, and particularly civil servants, do not like uncertainty. If they find the poll's results congenial, then well and good. But if they do not find them congenial - if people's informed views differ from their own - will they still be prepared to enact them?
If the poll is widely publicised, politicians and civil servants may find it difficult to ignore its findings. They may decide to ignore them anyway, but then they run the risk of deepening Europe's democratic deficit. The media can play their part in ensuring that ‘there is a clear, effective line of communication between EU policy makers and citizens across borders' (Jürgen Habermas, arguably the most influential deliberative theorists of the past two decades, would certainly approve!). But it is not clear that the Tomorrow's Europe team have as yet secured sufficient coverage. Instead, we are merely told that the poll ‘should be broadcast by various national televisions'.
Despite these concerns, there is reason to be optimistic. According to this website, ‘this is the first time that a Deliberative Poll is conducted with a transnational sample'.
This is not quite true. In January of this year, James Fishkin, Robert Luskin, David Russell and I conducted a poll in Northern Ireland on the vexed topic of shared education. (Professor Lupia might like to know that the findings of our poll are publicly available).
Northern Ireland is not only a divided society, but a bi-national society with important transnational features. The Northern Ireland conflict is a conflict between two national communities straddling an international border. And yet the people who took part in our poll did learn a great deal about the complexities of education policy. More importantly, they learned a great deal about one another and about what it might mean to build a future in which all of their children could freely and equally share.
If deliberative polling can work in a transnational context like Northern Ireland, there is no principled reason to think that it cannot work for Europe. Our poll did not, pace Professor Lupia, ‘lead to enflamed stereotypes and an amplification of social inequalities'. On the contrary, the overall trend was towards greater moderation within and across national blocs.
There is one final comment that I wish to make here. A number of years ago, the Irish were vilified in sections of the European press for failing to ratify the Nice Treaty. Apparently, the Irish, who had benefited so greatly from EU membership, were now being selfish and ungrateful in return. Yet the Irish did not see things in this way. For them, the problem was not that they would have to give up some of their new-found privileges. Rather, the problem was that no one, including their own government, had taken the time to explain the issues to them or helped them to form a balanced opinion on the question before them. Faced with voting for something that they did not understand, they did the only sensible thing: they voted ‘no'. As I indicated above, the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll presents a very different vision of democracy and of democratic engagement. I hope and trust that it will be a success.
