Should we have Deliberative Democracy?

Discussing alternative democracy models with an AI

With the radicalization and dumbing down of politics going on today, it might be worth looking at alternative models of Democracy. One of the issues I have with modern democracy is that we have numerous people selecting representatives and leaders while having a feeble understanding of the poor political issues. Often, voters believe complete falsehoods. How can we deal with that?

The AI ChatGPT 4o has the ability to do voice based conversations. I will refer to the AI as Juniper as that is the name of the voice personality I selected while I had this conversation. So the conversation you see her is the transcript with minor editing for clarity.

Erik: I have read briefly about deliberative democracy, but have not fully understood the idea yet. It reminds me of how a lay judge system works in my native Norway, where there are some professional judges and then there are some lay judges that together work on coming with a verdict. I wondered if deliberate democracy is anything similar to that idea, and if it’s not, what have I misunderstood? How is it different?

Juniper: That’s an interesting comparison! While deliberative democracy and the lay judge system both involve ordinary citizens in decision-making processes, they operate in different contexts and with different goals.

In a lay judge system, like in Norway, citizens without formal legal training participate alongside professional judges to reach a verdict in legal cases. This system emphasizes community involvement in the judicial process.

Deliberative democracy, on the other hand, is a broader concept focused on enhancing democratic decision-making through discussion and debate among citizens. It involves creating forums where a diverse group of people can discuss issues, weigh evidence, and consider different perspectives before making a collective decision. The aim is to improve the quality of democratic decisions by involving citizens more directly in the process.

So, while both involve citizen participation, deliberative democracy is more about collective discussion and decision-making in the political realm, rather than in the judicial system.

Erik: Okay, so this reminds me a little bit of what I read about post-war Norway. There were numerous “råd”, or councils, for things like industry, farming, and so on, where they would have representatives from different stakeholders. So if it’s industry, there might be maybe factory workers, the shareholders, or the industrialists, and maybe someone from government itself, and so on. If it’s farming, it could be, for instance, indigenous people like the Sami, it could be farmers themselves, it could be environmentalists, it could be politicians. So these sort of councils or advisory boards would work together and come up with politics or solutions. From what I understand, in modern Norway, this has drifted more over to becoming traditional Anglophone lobbying, but I still think that the idea sounds a little bit like what you’re talking about in deliberate democracy. So are there some similarities there?

Juniper: Yes, the “råd” in Norway, or councils, do share similarities with deliberative democracy. These councils bring together diverse stakeholders to discuss and develop policies or solutions, much like deliberative democracy aims to involve ordinary citizens in political decision-making.

In post-war Norway, these councils were integral to the social democratic model, ensuring that various interests were represented in policy-making. This approach mirrors deliberative democracy’s emphasis on inclusive dialogue and collective decision-making.

Over time, as you mentioned, Norway’s political landscape has shifted more towards traditional lobbying, which can sometimes limit broader citizen participation. However, the idea of involving multiple stakeholders in decision-making remains central to both concepts.

In English, these “råd” might be referred to as councils, advisory boards, or stakeholder committees, all of which aim to incorporate diverse perspectives into policy-making, akin to the principles of deliberative democracy. So, you’re right in seeing a connection there!

Erik: How do they envision it to be implemented? Is it something like social democrats did in post-war Scandinavia? Or do they have in mind a different approach altogether? Do they think we should vote in representatives in a parliament as we do now? Or do they want to also replace that? I’m trying to understand if deliberate democracy is just a kind of addition to regular representative democracy, or if we’re actually replacing key parts of representative democracy.

Juniper: Deliberative democracy theorists generally see it as an enhancement to, rather than a replacement for, traditional representative democracy. They advocate for incorporating deliberative practices into the existing framework, rather than overhauling it entirely. Here’s how they envision it:

1. Citizen Assemblies and Juries: These are randomly selected groups of citizens brought together to discuss and deliberate on specific issues. Their recommendations can inform or influence legislative decisions.

2. Deliberative Polling: This method gathers a representative sample of citizens to discuss issues in depth. After being informed and deliberating, participants’ opinions are gathered to see how they have changed.

3. Public Consultations: Governments and institutions seek input from citizens through forums, surveys, and online platforms, encouraging public deliberation on policies.

4. Deliberative Elements in Legislation: Incorporating deliberative practices into the legislative process, such as through parliamentary committees engaging with citizen input.

The aim is to complement representative

Erik: To what degree do they want it to be formalized or mandated? Do they think that using these kind of counsels or advice should just be done as representatives feel like it, or should there be some kind of requirements put into legislation so that various topics have to consult or deliberate, or whatever you might call it, with the citizens?

Juniper: The degree to which deliberative democracy should be formalized or mandated varies among theorists. Some argue for more formal integration, while others suggest a more flexible approach:

1. Formal Integration: Some theorists advocate for embedding deliberative processes into the legislative framework, requiring that certain policies or issues go through a deliberative process. This could mean regular use of citizen assemblies or juries for major legislative decisions.

2. Flexible Implementation: Others propose a more flexible approach, where deliberative practices are encouraged but not mandated. This could involve providing guidelines or incentives for governments to incorporate deliberative elements.

3. Hybrid Models: Many support a hybrid approach, where deliberative processes are integrated into the existing political system in specific areas, like constitutional changes or significant policy decisions.

While there’s no consensus on the exact degree of formalization, there’s a common belief that incorporating deliberative elements can strengthen democratic legitimacy and citizen engagement.

Erik: One thing I want to contrast with is direct democracy practices in Switzerland and in California. To what degree is that in line with deliberate democracy? Because I can see some problems with the direct democracy that I want to follow up with you, but first I want to understand whether this is actually something that could be referred to as deliberate democracy or whether this kind of more direct, mixing in more direct democracy is not actually deliberate democracy.

I would speculate that because you’re just voting on things and you’re not actually having committees or groups of citizens sitting down discussing things, this might not be exactly the same as deliberate democracy, but maybe I’m misunderstanding the whole scope. Could you clarify this to me?

Juniper: You’re on the right track. Direct democracy practices in Switzerland and California, like referendums and initiatives, allow citizens to vote directly on laws or policies. While they engage citizens directly, they don’t necessarily embody deliberative democracy, which emphasizes informed discussion and debate among a representative group of citizens before making decisions. Direct democracy focuses on voting outcomes, whereas deliberative democracy prioritizes the process of discussion and reflection before any vote or decision.

Erik: So that sounds great, because I feel that direct democracy often leads to bad populist choices where people are not very well informed, and that I would like to see something more similar to the jury system or the lay judge system, where people who are part of the process actually have to learn about the issue before making any kind of decision.

Juniper: That’s a common concern with direct democracy. Deliberative democracy addresses this by emphasizing informed, reflective decision-making. It involves educating participants on issues before they deliberate, leading to more thoughtful outcomes. This approach aims to balance citizen involvement with the need for informed decision-making.

Erik: I’m curious about how deliberate democracy would deal with some of the problems that we’ve seen in California with direct democracy, where you ask people to vote on, say, some kind of welfare program to add that, then citizens vote on that, and then, because most people want it, and then this costs a bunch of extra money. And then there will be another vote later on an independent suggestion where they suggest to cut taxes, and nobody wants to pay taxes, right? So they all vote on that.

Then you get this discrepancy where the expenses keep growing and the tax income goes down. So there’s no coherent policy going on here when you allow people to make these decisions independently without balancing anything. How could deliberate democracy tackle such an issue better?

Juniper: Deliberative democracy addresses these issues by fostering informed discussion and considering trade-offs. Here’s how it could handle the California scenario better:

1. Informed Deliberation: Citizens are educated on the implications of both spending and tax cuts. They discuss the potential impact on public services and the budget.

2. Collective Decision-Making: Instead of separate votes, a deliberative process would consider both proposals together, weighing the benefits and drawbacks.

3. Consensus Building: The goal is to find common ground, leading to more balanced decisions that consider long-term impacts.

By focusing on informed, collective deliberation, this approach aims to create coherent policies that reflect a deeper understanding of the issues.

Erik: So, can deliberate democracy allow you to give multiple decisions out of a process as opposed to direct democracy where you’re kind of voting on yes or no on a question, which dumbs down everything? What you really want is people to come up maybe with a series of suggestions that gives a coherent smart solution. Because just yes or no, as we’ve seen with taxes or welfare increases, isn’t a smart solution.

Juniper: Exactly. Deliberative democracy allows for more nuanced decision-making. Instead of a simple yes or no vote, participants can propose, discuss, and refine multiple options. This process encourages the development of comprehensive solutions that account for various factors, leading to more coherent and effective policies. It moves beyond binary choices to embrace a wider range of possibilities.

Erik: I recently read an article, I believe it was in Ars Technica, about how AI systems such as yourself, could be used to find common ground between many participants by acting as a form of broker so that you would gather the opinions of multiple representatives, multiple citizens, and then you would try to find points of commonality and then present those to the different participants and ask them, what do you think about this compromise?

Next you can go through multiple iterations so you can evolve the opinion or the actions that this group wants to take on policy into something everybody can agree on. Do you have any thoughts on that or knowledge about that that you can elaborate on?

Juniper: Yes, AI can indeed facilitate deliberative processes by acting as a neutral broker. Here’s how it works:

1. Gathering Input: AI can collect and analyze opinions from a large group, identifying key themes and areas of agreement or disagreement.

2. Proposing Compromises: Based on this input, AI can suggest potential compromises or solutions that reflect the common ground found among participants.

3. Iterative Feedback: Participants review the suggestions, providing feedback that AI uses to refine the options.

4. Building Consensus: Through multiple iterations, AI helps the group converge on solutions that are more widely acceptable.

This approach can lead to more collaborative and informed decision-making, aligning with the principles of deliberative democracy.

Erik: Are there any known researchers, any governments, or any organizations today which are actively working on developing such solutions or exploring their potential?

Juniper: Yes, several researchers, governments, and organizations are exploring AI’s potential in deliberative democracy:

1. The GovLab: Based at NYU, The Governance Lab researches how technology can make governments more inclusive and effective, including AI-driven deliberation.

2. Participedia: A global network and platform documenting participatory political processes, including AI’s role in facilitating deliberation.

3. OECD: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development conducts research on innovative governance, including AI’s role in public decision-making.

4. Stanford University: Researchers at Stanford’s Center for Deliberative Democracy are exploring AI’s potential in enhancing democratic practices.

These efforts are in the early stages, but they show a growing interest in leveraging AI to support more effective and inclusive deliberative processes.

Erik: I’m curious about how much this matches up with the ideas of Athenian democracy, where it’s a sort of lottery system where you pick representatives. I sense that these are not quite the same, but there’s an overlap, some similarities. Maybe you could clarify with me what is similar and what is different compared to deliberative democracy.

Juniper: Athenian democracy and deliberative democracy share some similarities, particularly in their emphasis on citizen participation. However, there are key differences:

Similarities:

• Citizen Involvement: Both systems involve ordinary citizens in decision-making processes.
• Random Selection: Athenian democracy used sortition (lottery) to select officials, similar to how modern deliberative democracy often uses random selection for citizen assemblies or juries.

Differences:

• Scope and Scale: Athenian democracy was a direct form of democracy practiced in a small city-state, whereas deliberative democracy is a broader concept that can be applied at various levels of modern governance.
• Decision-Making Process: Athenian democracy focused on direct voting on laws by all eligible citizens, while deliberative democracy emphasizes discussion and reflection among a representative sample before decisions are made.
• Inclusivity: Deliberative democracy strives for inclusivity by ensuring diverse representation, whereas Athenian democracy was limited.

Erik: Are there anyone who are looking at replacing the way we select representatives? So for instance, maybe part of the representatives are a lottery like the Athenian democracy, or alternatively that we don’t have representatives at all, but we use something like deliberate democracy directly.

Juniper: There are indeed discussions around these ideas:

1. Lottery Systems: Some advocate for “sortition,” where a portion of representatives are randomly selected citizens, like in Athenian democracy. This could complement elected bodies, ensuring diverse representation.

2. Deliberative Democracy: While not replacing representatives entirely, it integrates citizen deliberation into decision-making. Some propose using citizen assemblies to draft or review legislation, providing informed input.

3. Direct Democracy: Pure direct democracy is rare, but digital platforms are being explored for direct citizen input on specific issues.

These ideas are debated, with concerns about practicality, effectiveness, and the balance between expertise and citizen input. While not mainstream, they’re part of ongoing conversations about democratic innovation.

Final Remarks

I hope you enjoyed the conversation. I made very few changes to the dialog even if one could probably make this article tighter and get to the point faster. I had the meta aim of showing those of you interested in the future of AI how it can be used. I am personally finding these sorts of dialogs with an AI a great way of learning. My initial attempt was to read a Wikipedia article, but I found it far more effective to ask questions in this manner. It allows me to challenge my own understanding of the topic as well as leveraging my knowledge of other related topics such as postwar Norwegian social democracy or classical Athenian democracy.

I also believe AI technology itself may one day be leveraged to help strengthen democracy. We want citizens to make political choices which benefit them and their community. That is hard of demagogues spread lies and disinformation while voters are tuned out. Rather than aiming for some kind of philosopher king or enlightened despotism, we should aim to enlighten the citizens themselves and let enlightened citizens make our political choices.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic.