Difference between revisions of "G1000"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
Dror.kris89 (talk | contribs) (→First Stage) |
(→References) |
||
| (29 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
A number of Belgian citizens decided to organize a platform for the citizens to participate and become more involved in politics. They believed that elected officials – due to their preoccupation with their political survival and careers – are quite conservative and lack the courage to make tough decisions as well as compromises. Rather, it is the ‘ordinary’ citizens who have more liberty to attempt innovative solutions. The organizers believed that they could utilize the internet to develop a project that would “breathe new life” into the Belgian democracy. The organizers sought not to create an alternative to the elected government and parliament, but rather to develop a new citizen platform to complement the existing political structures. | A number of Belgian citizens decided to organize a platform for the citizens to participate and become more involved in politics. They believed that elected officials – due to their preoccupation with their political survival and careers – are quite conservative and lack the courage to make tough decisions as well as compromises. Rather, it is the ‘ordinary’ citizens who have more liberty to attempt innovative solutions. The organizers believed that they could utilize the internet to develop a project that would “breathe new life” into the Belgian democracy. The organizers sought not to create an alternative to the elected government and parliament, but rather to develop a new citizen platform to complement the existing political structures. | ||
| − | == | + | ==Recruitment== |
| − | + | For the first stage - deciding the agenda - the G1000 organizers turned to the general public in an online survey to choose issues. | |
| + | |||
| + | After the agenda was decided, the organizers began the recruitment process to gather participants for the Group Dynamic. The plan called for 1000 participants to gather around 30 tables for deliberation on the three chosen issues. The organizers realized that the deliberation's legitimacy could be based either on the principle of diversity or of the quality of representation. The G1000 team decided that diversity, as opposed to representativeness, would be the central principle behind the recruitment process. The way to achieve this diversity was through randomization. Random Digit Dialing was used to reach out to the potential participants (with a penetration rate of 99% of the populace). The random recruitment was checked versus demographic quotas was found to be quite reflective of the general Belgian public with regards to age and gender quotas. In addition, the organizers allotted 10% of the recruitment for targeted recruitment of difficult to reach groups (such as the homeless, or immigrants). | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the end, they succeeded in gathering a group of participants that was both diverse as well as representative of the demographic quotas found in the general populace. (There was one planned exception to this representativeness: although the general Belgian populace consists of about 60% Dutch speakers and 40% French speakers, participation in the G1000 was split evenly between the two language groups. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There was a drop-out rate of about 30% - however this was expected by the organizers and was not taken to heart. | ||
==Deliberation== | ==Deliberation== | ||
===First Stage=== | ===First Stage=== | ||
'''Public Agenda Setting''' | '''Public Agenda Setting''' | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | During this first phase, all citizens were invited to submit issues of public concern to an online database. A list of the top 25 issues submitted was then compiled by the organizers. The public was then invited again to vote on these 25 issues to decide which were of the prime importance to discuss and solve. With the votes counted, the top three issues were: '''social security''', '''immigration''' and the '''redistribution of wealth'''. These three issues would form the public agenda for the initiative. | ||
===Second Stage=== | ===Second Stage=== | ||
| + | '''Group Dynamic''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this stage, over 700 participants were gathered into many small groups to begin group deliberation on the three selected issues. The organizers understood that managing the group dynamics was “crucial for success” and therefore developed a highly-structured program with specially trained mediators. The deliberative program would have to maximize inclusion – to make sure every participant could contribute (both for the initiative legitimacy as well as adhering to the goal of a diversity of opinions). A script was developed with a variety of activities so as to “minimize the social thresholds for fully participating in the discussions”. This was meant to adhere as close as possibly to the ‘ideal deliberative procedure’ with equality among participants as well as freedom from external influences. | ||
| + | The deliberation began with a short introductory round followed by lectures by ‘experts’ to help educate the citizens about the issues and define the problems at hand. This continued deliberation took the form of various exercises and different modes of discussions (different interaction styles, differing group sizes) to attempt to mitigate any “cognitive diversity” among the participants. Throughout the deliberative process, stages of “concrete inputs” were included to give a tangible structure (with results) for the participants to remain motivated and connected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Third Stage=== | ||
| + | '''Citizen's Panel''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | After completing the Group Dynamic stage, a further 32 participants were randomly selected from the original 700 to take part in the third stage: the Citizen’s Panel (32 was considered a number “large enough to ensure both maximal diversity and optimal group dynamics”). At this stage, the participants met together over three weekends to develop policy recommendations based on the group deliberations. The final question the participants decided to handle was ‘how to adress [sic] labour issues and unemployment in our society’. A comprehensive policy paper was formulated with a list of recommendations for the government (which had – by then – been formed). However, the recommendations were simply that – non-binding advice that the government could choose to read and implement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The full report drafted by the Citizen's Panel can be read here[http://www.g1000.org/documents/G1000_EN_Website.pdf#page=52]. | ||
==Aftermath== | ==Aftermath== | ||
===Reactions=== | ===Reactions=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Overall, reaction was positive. The participants and the wider public generally showed a high satisfaction with the decisions made by the deliberating mini-public. According to a posttest survey, “participants felt like they had sufficient opportunities to express their opinions and that they could participate without restraints.” Over 90% felt that other participants had been sincerely interested in their opinions, and 75% felt that they had been treated with great respect. More than 75% “felt that good decisions were made at the G1000.” These results suggest a high level of satisfaction in the quality of the deliberations.[http://participedia.net/de/cases/g1000-belgium] | ||
| + | |||
| + | Unfortunately, later surveys showed low satisfaction with the final results. The Citizens’ Panel successfully formulated their policy paper, yet most of the politicians regarded the recommendations with skepticism and there was no commitment to implementing any of the suggestions. Ultimately, there was disappointment among the participants due to the lack of implementation. | ||
| + | |||
===Assessment=== | ===Assessment=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | This case highlights what Joshua Cohen wrote – the lack of concrete and tangible influences can reduce the motivation of the citizens, potentially pushing them back into a state of ‘rational ignorance’. (Another interesting finding by the organizers is a possible refutation of the belief that deliberation causes participants to change their opinions and ‘bridge gaps’; although there definitely was a changing of participants’ opinions, the organizers write that it is “not clear the full extent” of the change, and that it may be more due to “group composition” than the deliberation itself [Inter-group, 2014: 113].) | ||
| + | |||
| + | While the low satisfaction from the lack of formal influence may taint the overall legitimacy of the G1000 project, there are still longer-term positive effects and “indirect” impacts which we can only begin to realize (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 4). First, there was a high level of public awareness of the initiative. The Belgian public was generally supportive of the initiative’s procedure – including those who had not participated directly (This may partially be due to the organization of parallel panels done online to allow further participants to be involved). In addition, the G1000 “sparked” a more general debate about democracy and the role of citizens in politics (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 15). The initiative now acts as a “point of reference” regarding promoting deliberative democracy – one that some Belgian political parties began referring to (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 15). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Thus, we see mixed results from the G1000 initiative. On one hand, the building of the mini-public was quite successful. Also, the organizers managed to create freedom and equality among the participants during the deliberative process. On the other hand, the choice to remain unconnected from formal political institutions may have allowed for easier deliberation, but ultimately prevented practical results and hurt the overall legitimacy of the project. However, the organizers succeeded in general public awareness of and support for the idea of public deliberation and participation – perhaps a ‘baby-step’ in the ‘right direction’. One last important point to note is that – even though there was wide support for the project – most of the Belgian public was still cautious regarding applying the recommendations as law (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 4). This highlights the current skepticism and uncertainty regarding deliberative democratic innovations. | ||
| + | |||
===Similar Projects=== | ===Similar Projects=== | ||
| + | ==External Links== | ||
| + | *The official site of the G1000 [http://www.g1000.org/en/] | ||
| + | *Paper written by the organizers after the event with analysis and conclusions [http://www.rethinkingbelgium.eu/rebel-initiative-files/events/seventh-public-event-g1000-european-citizens-initiative-malaise-democracy/G1000-Background-Paper.pdf] | ||
| + | *Case summary at Participedia.net [http://participedia.net/de/cases/g1000-belgium] | ||
| + | *Case summary at deliberative-democracy.net[http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=178:g1000&catid=1:general&Itemid=68] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Ananlysis== | ||
| + | [[G1000 - Analysis]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[category: cases]] | ||
Latest revision as of 04:45, 30 March 2016
The G1000 was a large-scale citizen's conference that took place in Belgium in 2011. 1000 citizens participated in a 3-stage event to discuss various issues facing the country and draft a list of proposed solutions. The event's organizers were well-versed in Deliberative Democratic theory and implemented many of the aspects discussed by the researchers and theoreticians.
Contents
Background
Belgian Parliamentary Crisis
In 2011, a parliamentary impasse left Belgium with no functioning government for over 500 days. The political crisis left the country on edge with tensions between the two linguistic groups (the Dutch-speaking Flemish community and the French-speaking Walloons). In addition, there was a general feeling of powerlessness due to the impasse and dysfunctional government.
A number of Belgian citizens decided to organize a platform for the citizens to participate and become more involved in politics. They believed that elected officials – due to their preoccupation with their political survival and careers – are quite conservative and lack the courage to make tough decisions as well as compromises. Rather, it is the ‘ordinary’ citizens who have more liberty to attempt innovative solutions. The organizers believed that they could utilize the internet to develop a project that would “breathe new life” into the Belgian democracy. The organizers sought not to create an alternative to the elected government and parliament, but rather to develop a new citizen platform to complement the existing political structures.
Recruitment
For the first stage - deciding the agenda - the G1000 organizers turned to the general public in an online survey to choose issues.
After the agenda was decided, the organizers began the recruitment process to gather participants for the Group Dynamic. The plan called for 1000 participants to gather around 30 tables for deliberation on the three chosen issues. The organizers realized that the deliberation's legitimacy could be based either on the principle of diversity or of the quality of representation. The G1000 team decided that diversity, as opposed to representativeness, would be the central principle behind the recruitment process. The way to achieve this diversity was through randomization. Random Digit Dialing was used to reach out to the potential participants (with a penetration rate of 99% of the populace). The random recruitment was checked versus demographic quotas was found to be quite reflective of the general Belgian public with regards to age and gender quotas. In addition, the organizers allotted 10% of the recruitment for targeted recruitment of difficult to reach groups (such as the homeless, or immigrants).
In the end, they succeeded in gathering a group of participants that was both diverse as well as representative of the demographic quotas found in the general populace. (There was one planned exception to this representativeness: although the general Belgian populace consists of about 60% Dutch speakers and 40% French speakers, participation in the G1000 was split evenly between the two language groups.
There was a drop-out rate of about 30% - however this was expected by the organizers and was not taken to heart.
Deliberation
First Stage
Public Agenda Setting
During this first phase, all citizens were invited to submit issues of public concern to an online database. A list of the top 25 issues submitted was then compiled by the organizers. The public was then invited again to vote on these 25 issues to decide which were of the prime importance to discuss and solve. With the votes counted, the top three issues were: social security, immigration and the redistribution of wealth. These three issues would form the public agenda for the initiative.
Second Stage
Group Dynamic
In this stage, over 700 participants were gathered into many small groups to begin group deliberation on the three selected issues. The organizers understood that managing the group dynamics was “crucial for success” and therefore developed a highly-structured program with specially trained mediators. The deliberative program would have to maximize inclusion – to make sure every participant could contribute (both for the initiative legitimacy as well as adhering to the goal of a diversity of opinions). A script was developed with a variety of activities so as to “minimize the social thresholds for fully participating in the discussions”. This was meant to adhere as close as possibly to the ‘ideal deliberative procedure’ with equality among participants as well as freedom from external influences. The deliberation began with a short introductory round followed by lectures by ‘experts’ to help educate the citizens about the issues and define the problems at hand. This continued deliberation took the form of various exercises and different modes of discussions (different interaction styles, differing group sizes) to attempt to mitigate any “cognitive diversity” among the participants. Throughout the deliberative process, stages of “concrete inputs” were included to give a tangible structure (with results) for the participants to remain motivated and connected.
Third Stage
Citizen's Panel
After completing the Group Dynamic stage, a further 32 participants were randomly selected from the original 700 to take part in the third stage: the Citizen’s Panel (32 was considered a number “large enough to ensure both maximal diversity and optimal group dynamics”). At this stage, the participants met together over three weekends to develop policy recommendations based on the group deliberations. The final question the participants decided to handle was ‘how to adress [sic] labour issues and unemployment in our society’. A comprehensive policy paper was formulated with a list of recommendations for the government (which had – by then – been formed). However, the recommendations were simply that – non-binding advice that the government could choose to read and implement.
The full report drafted by the Citizen's Panel can be read here[1].
Aftermath
Reactions
Overall, reaction was positive. The participants and the wider public generally showed a high satisfaction with the decisions made by the deliberating mini-public. According to a posttest survey, “participants felt like they had sufficient opportunities to express their opinions and that they could participate without restraints.” Over 90% felt that other participants had been sincerely interested in their opinions, and 75% felt that they had been treated with great respect. More than 75% “felt that good decisions were made at the G1000.” These results suggest a high level of satisfaction in the quality of the deliberations.[2]
Unfortunately, later surveys showed low satisfaction with the final results. The Citizens’ Panel successfully formulated their policy paper, yet most of the politicians regarded the recommendations with skepticism and there was no commitment to implementing any of the suggestions. Ultimately, there was disappointment among the participants due to the lack of implementation.
Assessment
This case highlights what Joshua Cohen wrote – the lack of concrete and tangible influences can reduce the motivation of the citizens, potentially pushing them back into a state of ‘rational ignorance’. (Another interesting finding by the organizers is a possible refutation of the belief that deliberation causes participants to change their opinions and ‘bridge gaps’; although there definitely was a changing of participants’ opinions, the organizers write that it is “not clear the full extent” of the change, and that it may be more due to “group composition” than the deliberation itself [Inter-group, 2014: 113].)
While the low satisfaction from the lack of formal influence may taint the overall legitimacy of the G1000 project, there are still longer-term positive effects and “indirect” impacts which we can only begin to realize (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 4). First, there was a high level of public awareness of the initiative. The Belgian public was generally supportive of the initiative’s procedure – including those who had not participated directly (This may partially be due to the organization of parallel panels done online to allow further participants to be involved). In addition, the G1000 “sparked” a more general debate about democracy and the role of citizens in politics (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 15). The initiative now acts as a “point of reference” regarding promoting deliberative democracy – one that some Belgian political parties began referring to (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 15).
Thus, we see mixed results from the G1000 initiative. On one hand, the building of the mini-public was quite successful. Also, the organizers managed to create freedom and equality among the participants during the deliberative process. On the other hand, the choice to remain unconnected from formal political institutions may have allowed for easier deliberation, but ultimately prevented practical results and hurt the overall legitimacy of the project. However, the organizers succeeded in general public awareness of and support for the idea of public deliberation and participation – perhaps a ‘baby-step’ in the ‘right direction’. One last important point to note is that – even though there was wide support for the project – most of the Belgian public was still cautious regarding applying the recommendations as law (Moskovic, Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016: 4). This highlights the current skepticism and uncertainty regarding deliberative democratic innovations.
Similar Projects
External Links
- The official site of the G1000 [3]
- Paper written by the organizers after the event with analysis and conclusions [4]
- Case summary at Participedia.net [5]
- Case summary at deliberative-democracy.net[6]