Deliberative Democracy: A Feasible Solution for Reforming Societies
By: Nikki-Lynn Marshall and Luc Shay.
Edited by: Alyssa Dizoglio.
Gianpalo Baiocchi’s paper ‘The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democracy’ discusses the political theory of Deliberative Democracy and its proven success in the city of Porto Alegre, the capital city of Rio Grande do Sol. Deliberative Democracy, a concept first introduced by Joseph Besette, is a modern form of democracy based on public collaboration and deliberation. It differs from traditional democracy through its use of consensus-decision making and majority rule. Although this alternative political system boasts numerous advantages, many of which were seen by Porto Alegre, it is important to note that the success of such a radical system of government is limited to small cities and towns as a result the many practical issues that would arise if the model were to be implemented into a large city or nation.
Porto Alegre presents a model of how deliberative democracy can work if it is implemented properly. The city adopted the new political system in 1989 under a 10-year plan. Successful aspects of this implementation included both neighborhood-based deliberation and a parallel organization set up to operate alongside a municipal council. The system was found to produce significantly superior outcomes in comparison to traditional democracy. For example, allowing citizens to participate in political decisions lead to more fair and rational decision-making. The dispersion of political power lead to progress that reflected the public’s desires rather than those of a small group of people who maintained all of the power. Including common citizens in political decision-making led the government to discuss critical issues that may have never been discussed if it were not for including the common voice. For example, during the 10-year plan, sewer and water connections in the city increased from 75% to 98%. Similarly, the number of schools in Porto Alegre has quadrupled since 1986 (World Bank). By giving a voice to the people that are most affected by government decisions, critical issues are resolved in a way that benefits these people, as opposed to having the same issues influenced by political corruption or ploys for power. The biggest proof of success however is that, since the completion of the plan in 1999, 100 other Brazilian cities have now adopted similar political systems.
While there are many advantages of deliberative democracy, the system works best within certain parameters. If the model were implemented, for example in a much larger city or even a nation, many problems would likely arise. One problem is that the large number of opinions would make the whole deliberation process less efficient. A second problem is the issue of expertise. In traditional democracies professionals understand the realm of politics in which they must operate, they understand the different laws, regulations, and workings of the political system, and thus can at times get things done more effectively. Lastly, a disadvantage that Baiocchi points out is that, even though deliberative democracy helps to create beneficial institutions, there is no quality assurance once they have been created.
Despite the few practical disadvantages of this model, in the correct environment the system would benefit society as a whole, as well as create a more efficient, modern way of government, as has been the case in Porto Alegre. As Porto Alegre’s government continues to operate under a system of deliberative democracy it will be interesting to track the long-term results of such a system in contrast to traditional democracy as well as in contrast to other new age development theories such as charter cities.
See Also:
‘The Porto Alegre Experiment and Deliberative Democracy’- Gianpalo Baiocchi
‘New Ways of Deepening Democracy: The Deliberative Democracy’- Carmen Sacho
‘Daring democracy — Porto Alegre, Brazil’- Rebecca Abers
Categories: Institutions
Discussion
Heather Brutz September 27th, 2012 at 08:14
Nick Tourville September 27th, 2012 at 09:16
A new idea introduced to the UK and other European cities as well employs similar communities called transition cities. These communities are eco friendly and small, and with the concept of deliberative democracy, encourages political involvement of all people. So far, these cities have been received positively by its citizens.
Luke Rebecchi October 1st, 2012 at 15:02
So, I happened to be involved with Occupy Boston last year. General Assemblies were held weekly, and they followed a consensus decision-making model. It was slow, and inefficient. However, such is an indictment of the participants, not the process. Too often, what should have been constructive debate instead provided an opportunity for everyone and their mother to ‘express themselves’. The encampment became a haven for privileged citizens to make known amongst their friends their understanding of Marx and Bakunin, and our work suffered. Tactics traditionally a part of direct action (marches, sit-ins etc.) became to ingratiated in the decision-making process.
If rules limiting that behavior could be consented upon, deliberative democracy could be very successful in the United States.
It is also important to note that deliberative democracy is not only a process for reconciling differences amongst self-concerned individuals. Economics places too much of a focus on the individual. In reality, you and I both have multiple identities beyond I. Deliberative democracy has proven more efficient than expected in the past because the participants make decisions not just as I, but as a student, as an American, as a Christian, as a plethora of other identities (that a lot of people share). Finding common ground is of utmost importance.
Jonathan Burns October 1st, 2012 at 23:31
Two questions I have:
First, when this specific model works as a “10 year plan”. What exactly happens after the the 10 years are up? Is there a new model? Do they renew the same one?
Also, I agree that, as you stated, it would be difficult to implement in a country or very large city. I was wondering if, in your research, you came across any attempts of this happening? Perhaps just in a city larger than Porto Alegre. If so, how did it turn out?
Benjamin Virkus October 2nd, 2012 at 20:29
Everything has been said already! It appears the a deliberative democracy would be too slow to handle the needs of a large country, or even a small state. The needs and opinions of the people are too many and varied. It’s a shame, however, that there exists no middle ground of a deliberative democracy. If only the Government officials elected would put the people who elected them over themselves. It would seem as if the Government doesn’t trust the collective opinion of its citizens (and with all of the crazies, who can blame them?).
I would love to see the idea evolve into something that can be adapted to a larger scale. A country is cannot operate efficiently without happy citizens. And what can make someone happier than being heard and getting what they want?
I was raised Quaker and so have more experience with consensus decision-making than the average person. My experience is that the process is very slow but the outcomes are very strong, because everyone’s viewpoint was considered. However, the process can be easily derailed if you have someone who isn’t committed to the spirit of consensus decision-making and is just pushing to get their own way.
The decision-making process in Porto Alegre does not sound like consensus decision-making. Indeed, it didn’t sound that different from what theoretically happens in many towns in cities in the United States (though they probably have better participation rates in Brazil). There are public meetings to get input from various constituents. Elected representatives sit on boards that make decisions about how resources are allocated. The main difference seems to be the actual level of participation. How many public meetings about changed routes for public transportation have you seen but not gone to because you were busy? How closely does the average person communicate with their City Council representative or County Commissioner? But it isn’t that we don’t have the opportunity to take part in these processes as residents in the United States; most of us choose not to.