deliberative democracy

Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University, the mastermind of deliberative polling, kicks off dLiberation's coverage with a look at the thinking behind deliberative democracy, and the ways in which such a method of public consultation may be able to help the European Union both address its democratic deficit and its current ongoing stagnation:

There is a basic, and recurring problem of public consultation-if we ask elites, we have deliberation without political equality. If we ask the people directly, we can have political equality but usually without deliberation. Can we have both... can we have a method that represents everyone under conditions where the people can become informed and can think through difficult issues?

"Political machinery does not act of itself. As it is first made, so it has to be worked, by men, and even by ordinary men. It needs, not their simple acquiescence, but their active participation" - John Stuart Mill, Considerations On Representative Government (1861)

One of the prime aims of deliberative polling is to get around the problem of rational ignorance, the tendency of voters in a democracy to ignore issues that affect them due to the perception that their vote, just one in millions, can have little impact. Without an informed public that feels that its opinion counts, the accountability of any government - or in the case of the EU, proto-government - is greatly diminished. When the electorate in question is nearly half a billion strong, and when the issues on which they are voting are as complex as those involved with the EU, rational ignorance becomes an even greater problem.

With calls for a UK referendum on the new EU reform treaty continuing to grow, the objections to such plebiscites raised by Amato and Giscard d'Estaing at the Tomorrow's Europe launch bear considering.

Amato argued that the referendum calls are designed purely to embarrass Gordon Brown, Giscard that for one EU member state to hold back all the rest would be just as undemocratic as not holding a vote at all, as the will of the European majority would be subverted.

No one seriously believes that a UK referendum on the reform treaty is winnable. If a vote is held, Britain will be forced to veto, and the EU will have to try yet again.

At the top end of national political power for four decades, President of France 1974-1981, the husband of the daughter of a Count and (supposedly) a descendant of the kings of France with a family tree that can be traced back to Charlemagne - you don't get many more perfect examples of the political elite than Giscard d'Estaing.

When he was put in charge of the Convention on the Future of Europe, the body that eventually drafted the aborted EU constitution, it was one of the most idiotic PR moves in the EU's history - not only was there no way that a politician so senior could possibly understand the needs of the ordinary citizen, but Giscard is also a proponent of that dangerous beast a "United States of Europe", an extreme form of the ideal which all but the most fervent EU-enthusiasts have long since abandoned as unrealistic.

Two-time Prime Minister of Italy Giuliano Amato should, on paper, be a classic pro-EU figure. Currently serving as Interior Minister in the government of former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi, he was also Vice-President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which from 2001-2003 drafted the text of the now semi-abandoned EU Constitution.

With the new Reform Treaty still containing the vast majority of the contents of the constitution that Amato helped to draft, you'd think he'd still be all for it - and the assumption would be that, after the shock of the French and Dutch referendums, he'd be opposed to any further referenda on the new treaty. But as it turns out, it's not quite as simple as that.

Even the most fervently pro-EU person on the continent would not try to argue that the European Union is fine as it is. Hence the failed Constitution, hence the new (or perhaps not so new) Reform Treaty. The arguments over Europe's future have instead come because no one seems to be able to agree what kind of reform should take place, with all member states wanting something different.

A member of the European Parliament since 1979, Danish politician Jens-Peter Bonde is certainly an EU-sceptic - but not quite in the classically British sense of seemingly instinctive flag-waving patriotism. He may well co-chair the European Parliament's Independence and Democracy Group with UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, yet his centre-left EU-scepticism is based on decades of in-depth analysis - and rather than a desire to pull out of the union, a genuine hope for radical reform backed up by a democratic mandate.

As first Vice-President of the European Commission and Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, Margot Wallström is one of the highest-profile members of that group of 27 appointed politicians that make up the EU institution most often attacked as undemocratic and unaccountable.

As the initial source of almost all EU legislation, it is also the European Commission which is usually the first target of the many criticisms leveled at the workings of the European Union, and the EU institution that most agree is the most in need of serious reform. It's a problem of which Wallström seems fully aware - not least because she has come in for more than her fair share of criticism thanks to her high public profile.

Seated amidst the grandeur of the Bibliotheque Solvay in Brussels, the Tomorrow's Europe event launched with a debate over such small and easily-answered topics as the nature of democracy and the future of the European Union. The very topics, in fact, that this blog hopes to discuss over the coming weeks.

With a panel featuring everyone from world statesmen to distinguished academics, it's easy to get overwhelmed, so who are they all? Well, from left to right in the above photo:

Courtesy of EUXTV, a neat YouTube-powered report on the Tomorrow's Europe project.

More from me about Monday night's launch event to follow shortly...

A gray sky hung over Brussels yesterday evening as we all piled in to the century-old Bibliotheque Solvay in the heart of Parc Leopold, the hilly oasis of green tucked alongside the European Parliament in Brussels, for the official launch of the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll. Whether the clouds would part or the rain begin to fall it was impossible to say.

Much the same could be said for the current state of the EU. In the last two years, since the rejection of the European Constitution by French and Dutch voters, the European Union has likewise been decidedly overcast, its future unclear.

openDemocracy has published a lot of material on deliberative democracy - including on this blog, which last year extensively covered the European Citizen Consultations.

But what about a participative people's tribunal? A few weeks ago I was forwarded details about the People's Tribunal on the World Bank Group in India - a participative initiative aiming to provide a just forum for people who have suffered because of projects and policies funded or promoted by the World Bank Group; the Tribunal is an opportunity to express their grievances and propose alternatives (more...).