Deliberative systems thinking is an approach to understanding and analysing democracy that is concerned with how different perspectives are represented and interact within society. Rather than focusing exclusively on the extent to which individuals and communities are represented within institutions, it is equally concerned with the range of views present and how they interact.
The work of deliberative theorists such as Jane Mansbridge and John Dryzek moves from seeing deliberation as happening in a series of disconnected, one-off processes to thinking about the characteristics of a deliberative democratic system. In doing this, they move from thinking about the role that deliberation can play within individual public engagement processes and institutions towards thinking about the whole democratic system and what capacity it needs to have to be thought of as democratic. Central to this understanding is the role that power, as well as control of debates and narratives, plays in strengthening or undermining deliberative democratic control by members of the public.
Where does it come from?
Deliberative system thinkers recognise that for all but the smallest of populations genuine democratic involvement and control at every stage of the decision-making process is almost impossible. A systems perspective is grounded in realism. So this thinking does not seek for all individual elements or institutions within the system to be deliberative, but the system as a whole must be. This removes the focus of attention away from trying to democratise every institution or decision within a democracy. The systems approach instead focuses attention on trying to understand how different institutions interact, and which institutions and interactions have the most chance of increasing the deliberative capacity of the system as a whole.
What is important in deliberative systems thinking?
Deliberative theorists place strong emphasis on the discourses - or narratives - that are present within the different components of the system. Their concern focuses on the extent to which competing discourses exist, which can be openly engaged with by anyone within a given space. This is an important shift from the idea of representation of individual voters, to placing equal weight on the importance of representation of ideas.
One of the criticisms of deliberative processes where participants are selected though sortition is that their main focus is on building common agreement. And that by doing this, the process marginalises already marginalised viewpoints and communities in favour of the majority. But deliberative systems thinkers highlight the importance in deliberative democracy of broadening the range of debates and narratives that are considered, of opening up the issues under discussion rather than closing them down. The question for deliberative systems thinkers is when is deliberation appropriate and when would other forms of decision-making be more democratic?
What are the components of a deliberative system?
Adapting the work of the democratic theorist John Dryzek, Involve has created seven components of the UK’s democratic system, describing and analysing the condition of each in turn. This includes the spaces where collective decisions can be taken, restrictions on what can be said within these spaces, accountability, and a reflection on power in these spaces.
Each of the seven components is made up of a number of different elements or institutions. Most deliberative theorists agree that while individual elements need not be deliberative in nature, the system as a whole can be judged on its deliberative nature.
You can read this in Room for a View, available to download below.