Observing the Deliberative Poll

An observer blogs on the POWER2010 Deliberative Poll.

Richard Benson: I am writing this blog as an observer of the Deliberative Poll over the weekend, when a bunch of very ordinary people (my wife included) came together for two days to discuss ideas for improving our democracy.

Each had been given a document, which gave background information on 58 different topics which had been proposed as a result of a 3 months process in which over 4000 submissions were made by interested members of the public.

Having been split into small groups of around 12, the first part, with guidance from a trained facilitator, was a round table discussion of various subjects, such as parliament, voting, political parties, etc.

The task was to identify a series of questions, to be put, subsequently, to a panel of experts, the end result of which would be a much deeper understanding of this complex subject, and a list of proposals for further public consideration.

It took a little while for the members of the group which I observed, to work out how they could address each of the listed topics, in a collaborative way. Never the less, they were soon making good progress.

Realising that the subjects were inter-related and that any answer to one topic could influence what they thought on others, they soon began to identify questions which they needed to put to the panel of experts.

Different groups had often identified similar issues to put to the experts, and it was interesting to see how, often, the experts were able, in general to agree on advice or conclusions.

It was also interesting that the experts were sometimes unable to agree, which I suppose should not be surprising. Another interesting point which arose from the expert discussions was the diversity of ways in which different countries addressed issues and how sometimes the experts were unable to give examples of how subjects were treated in different countries.

Another clear impression which I received from the experts was that of how far removed current processes are from what I, and I think many of the participants would regard as being efficient ways of managing government.

They frequently described government actions which led to totally different outcomes from those apparently desired by the public and parliament, and the impression which I gained was that there are too many instances of Government contriving solutions which suited Government, rather than the public.

I await with interest the short list which will be put to the public, and even more, what the overall public reaction will be, as well as reaction from politicians prior to the election.

I have found the whole exercise to be fascinating, and I hope that it can lead to real change.