How can we increase the contribution of deliberative processes to the transformation needed to tackle big challenges?
Citizens assemblies and other deliberative and participatory processes have the potential to make a significant contribution to intractable challenges like climate and ecological collapse, profound inequity, and social fracturing. This potential will only be realised if we are intentional about it, and view participatory processes in the context of a wider ecosystem of action and change.
Systems change is a set of interventions that drive change in a system (an organisation, a city, a sector or a society). Much of that is about relationships and shifting power dynamics, which is where dialogue and deliberation can make a critical contribution.
If we define systems change as the emergence of a new pattern of organising and power as a relational dynamic not a given state; then changing systems is all about also shifting power dynamics. Then in order to change systems and power dynamics we need to change the nature of our relationships and our ways of relating.
Our deliberative processes are often not set up to do this. In the words of Claire Mellier and Stuart Capstick’s recent work on climate assemblies and systemic transformation. “Many processes have struggled to address the system level aspects of the climate and ecological crisis, its connection to other crises and societal issues or the trade-offs inherent in a transformed and sustainable future”
Having spent over 20 years working on systems change, and now designing and overseeing these processes at Involve, I offer a working hypothesis on how our approach can contribute more to systems change. I hope that this builds on previous work, particularly from Mellier and Capstick. I have two main builds: that it is generally not the processes themselves that are going to drive transformation, but what happens around the processes. How ready the system is to change? How attuned we are to the patterns happening around the deliberation? and what do we need to ensure that the outcomes are understood, used and built on? And placing even more emphasis on power and the need for better tools and understanding of how power dynamics and relationships shift.
The hypothesis is in the form of a 10 point plan, described below. It is a work in progress, shared with a view to seeing what others think, and a commitment to iterating and developing it collaboratively.
The 10 point plan for systems change in deliberative processes
Before a process
- Understand the ‘impact ecosystem’/ the system. In advance of any process it is important to understand what else is happening, the role a process is playing and where any outputs will land. If your aim is bigger transformation then understanding the factors, initiatives, patterns and interrelationships is even more important, including who has the power and resources to create the change. Taking time to map the system, engage with different actors and co-create the question and inputs with the community is crucial.
- Centering power: Understanding power dynamics is important in any deliberative process, and even more so if you are looking to really shift how power is used and distributed (the heart of systems change). There are a range of tools that enable commissioners/ organisers to explore their own power and how that works alongside other’s power, or lack of it. At present that seems cursory as it is a complex and uncomfortable space. However, preceding a dialogue with honest conversations about the level of power sharing that can happen and how to address the barriers that will arise will increase impact for those commissioning and participating.
- Set Intention. In the majority of processes, systems change is a hope, an assumption, rather than an intent. A contribution to systems change is not generally the ultimate aim - implicitly or explicitly. As Mellier and Capstick highlight commissioned processes or ‘invited assemblies’ are more likely to result in policy change, but that change is constrained by a limit to scope and who sets the agenda. They inform rather than challenge existing power structures, and in the worse cases lend legitimacy to existing decisions because it is difficult to challenge power if you hold it. However, many assembly questions are already asking questions about a system and the desire to change it. Southampton Climate Assembly asked about the City’s transport system, for example. Existing understood systems provide a useful boundary. They also create limitations that can restrict our discussions to the symptoms rather than causes, and do not acknowledge the nested and interrelated nature of systems. Being intentional about drawing the boundaries and creating the question to allow for bigger ambition, across a range of actors, is an opportunity for greater transformation. This, balanced against the need for practical outcomes, combined with power analysis and system mapping will enable a more intentional approach to what is in and out of scope.
Within a Process
- A deeper role for participants Mellier and Capstick recommend that citizens have more freedom to set the agenda and that they are supported with a scaffolding of critical thinking - preparing participants for depth, polarities and applying systemic mindsets. This is currently difficult to make time for and may require different forms of recruitment, contracting and onboarding to ensure people are included in, and prepared for, the depth of conversation and the journey they will embark on.
- Bringing different inputs and learning into the deliberation. The inputs into any deliberative process shape the nature of the dialogue. These can be designed to allow people to go deeper into the challenges that they are exploring - using the iceberg model to see the mental models that underpin a particular behaviour, for example, gets us closer to root causes. Bringing in futures tools, different ways of knowing and expanding how participants pay attention to things will also support deeper reflection and connection with their fellow members.
- Design and facilitation practice underpinned by the capabilities of systems change. The School of Systems Change describes seven capabilities that underpin a systems approach. One of them is engaging and facilitating, central to any deliberative approach, and with space to go further - working with different group dynamics to highlight tensions and polarities and invest deliberative time in them, for example. A re-examination of where participants are asked to focus to allow for this will be needed. As facilitators we also need to pay attention to our inner condition and how we are showing up - systems change is as much a way of being, as a way of doing.
What happens afterwards
- Overcoming the power buffer. The best of processes unravel when they hit the ‘power buffer’ - the sophisticated systems that are designed to maintain the status quo and that may well mean not taking on recommendations from residents or others that are new or different. The upfront power analysis should set strategies for this that need to be sustained long after the dialogue has left town.
- Accountability and feedback loops. Feedback to participants and key actors on what has happened after any dialogue is a core principle of deliberative practice. How you building accountability for action will depend on the type of dialogue. In a commissioned process there should be at least one accountable party. This can be less clear or take more work in a claimed space, such as a people’s assembly. Regardless transparency and feedback loops are critical. In a current dialogue on positive low energy futures with Lancaster University, we are using modelling and scenarios to provide feedback on the implications of recommendations within the process that is proving powerful in both understanding what’s acceptable and emboldening participants to recommend more. Following the process, a commissioner should at least report on what happened and for systems level work this will need to be maintained over a period of years.
- Understanding impact for the short, medium and long term. Evaluation that enables us to understand the wider change that is happening, is humble and contribution based is needed. This is a live question in the systems change community and doesn’t have an easy answer. Involve is using an impact framework, based on KNOCA’s that includes mindset change which is a start, but there is an opportunity to test new approaches here.
- Longer term governance. CAST suggest some form of standing assembly or panel for specific issues is a key way to addressing the root causes of the issues that we face. If an assembly or panel is working together on a clear issue for 18-24 months they have the opportunity to learn the skills of systems thinking, build the trust needed to go deeper into the issues together, work through tensions and polarities and ideally start to model new ways of being together.
Many of these actions are routes to increasing impact at whatever level of the system you are working. We need to be paying more attention to the before and after regardless.
In many processes some of this is happening already - It is certainly something that we are trying to do more of at Involve. But there are challenges such as a prevailing system that is often resistant to these types of approaches, and the time and resources needed for different types of conversations. That means that it is easier to experiment with the individual points rather than the whole.
We hope that by bringing the different steps together we can test and evolve them and start to see how they work as a set of interventions. We would welcome your thoughts, comments and builds as we continue this conversation and please get in touch if you want to collaborate on developing this approach further.