Deliberative Democracy as a Tool for Successful Environmental Politics

How would people’s opinions about environmental issues change if they were informed of their causes and consequences, engaged in finding a solution, and attentive to the implementation of their relevant policies? James Fishkin, director of Center for Deliberative Democracy and professor of communications at Stanford University, seeks to answer this question by implementing deliberative democracy practices through Deliberative Polling^® and deliberative assemblies. A deliberative democracy is one in which a proper representation of a population (including all ideologies, races, religious affiliations, economic status, etc.) comes together to discuss issues, debate options, learn together, and reach solutions. Some of the main obstacles in gaining support for many environmental causes are uninformed citizens and lack of tolerance for opposing political parties or interest groups. In a deliberative or discursive democracy, these barriers are nonexistent.

Fishkin, credited with founding the modern school of thought of deliberative democracy, sees this type of politics as a joining of political equality and deliberation. It can and should take place in what he calls “deliberative assemblies.” These assemblies generally focus on one or two topics at a time. The assembly group is carefully gathered in order to fairly represent the population of which they represent, impartially briefed prior to their discussion, given opportunities to listen to and question an array of experts, and are able to express their own opinions and discuss with others before reaching any conclusions. This process enables “ordinary citizens” to be their own politicians.

In their book, Deliberative Environmental Politics: Democracy and Ecological Rationality, Walter F. Baber and Robert V. Bartlett believe that the very essence of democracy is deliberation, rather than simply voting, and that this type of democracy is absolutely necessary to make environmental protection a cultural norm. They think that if citizens are knowledgeable of the state of the earth and our connection to it and are given the opportunity to discuss their concerns in a manner that discourages discrimination and intimidation and encourages discussion and teamwork, that this process has the potential to lead to environmentally sound policies and societal framework.

James G. Speth, author of The Bridge at the Edge of the World, devotes a chapter (entitled “A New Politics”) to suggest a deliberative/discursive democracy as a method to overcome the destructive habits of our current political system and to pave the way to a society that lives in harmony with our natural earth. He argues that we need a “revitalization of life and democracy at the local, community, or bioregional levels.” Speth believes that to achieve this new environmental politics, we will need to broaden the agenda to a full range of relevant issues (including human rights, social problems, economic inequalities, and political reforms), get political through community deliberative assemblies and grassroots organizing, and build the movement to a larger scale.

A greener future is in store for us if we can simply harness the political will and communication abilities that lie within every one of us “ordinary citizens.” As these great political theorists have concluded, “careful critical engagement has the potential to steer us toward proper understandings of the world.”