Maximizing Informed Decision-making in B.C.

October 24, 2019

Electoral reform. Harmonized Sales Tax. Transit funding. Referendums have become regular tools for decision-making in British Columbia and the result has often been increased political and regional division, confused voters and a platform for extreme ideas.

In the time of fake news, ideological biases and the rapid spread of misinformation, voters often have difficulty finding relevant, reliable and concise information to help them assess the policy issues that appear on their ballots. Is there a way to consult the public without divisive rhetoric and poor-quality public discourse? And when is a referendum an appropriate tool to do so?

Dr. John Gastil opened the gathering by proposing that BC is a prime place to spearhead innovation in deliberative democracy. Dr. Gastil presented the example of the Oregon Citizens鈥� Initiative Review, which convenes a citizens鈥� jury to deliberate and provide impartial advice to voters as part of an official state referendum process. Participants discussed the value of developing a range of high quality, effective processes for deliberative democracy that are scalable for different issues, levels of government, budgets and timelines.

The following is a brief summary of the resulting themes, with a goal to inspire future innovation in public participation beyond the traditional referendum.

1. INCREASE FAMILIARITY AND CONFIDENCE AMONGST BOTH CITIZENS AND DECISION-MAKERS

Participants discussed the importance of consistent exposure to high-quality, effective deliberative democracy processes to demonstrate value for decision-makers and citizens, and to grow expectations for a greater culture of engagement.

2. CREATE ACCOUNTABILITY

Ensuring transparency and accountability about the impact of deliberative democracy on government decision-making process was also seen as paramount to increasing citizens鈥� trust. Participants discussed how referendums may not always be the best tool to ensure accountability and informed judgement: alternatives include requiring legislative assemblies to directly respond to recommendations from deliberative processes, providing citizens with professional staff support to draft legislation that legislators must vote on, asking citizens to evaluate government action following an engagement process or linking deliberative processes to the work of legislative committees.

3. EQUIP WITH REAL RESOURCES AND POWER

Participants raised questions around who decides how to choose and frame the issues that will be explored through deliberative democracy processes. Similarly, Gastil noted that deliberative bodies could be equipped with real resources and power, such as the ability and funding to commission public opinion polls.

4. ENSURE INCLUSION AND ACCESSIBILITY

Several groups touched on the barriers to participating in deliberative democracy, including financial and time constraints, or barriers to communication. Ideas to increase inclusion and accessibility included offering compensation to participants, providing online options for engagement and selecting participants to reflect the diversity of the general population.

5. DEVELOP SYSTEMS FOR EFFECTIVE, REPLICABLE PROCESSES

Participants suggested creating a template, toolkit, or set of principles to guide institutions in executing deliberative democracy processes. Some participants suggested creating a provincial body that could help to create standards, ensure the use of evidence-based information to guide discussions and implement initiatives in a consistent manner. This body could also be available to assist local government or to be hired outside of the province to maintain its internal capacity and exchange knowledge with the national and international community.

Go to Resources Page

Download the PDF

丁香园AV

Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue