Democracy in its ideal form doesn’t exist in Halifax, or to my knowledge, anywhere else in the world. But that hasn’t stopped a couple of democratic experiments from cropping up locally. Each group is trying to find a functional system that makes collective decisions – but they’re doing it in very different ways.
Occupy Nova Scotia’s experiment aims to make decisions by 90 percent consensus; HRM’s consultations on cost, design and location of the new stadium aim to collect opinions through the world café method.
Which one is winning at democracy? And how does the ideal form of each system compare to the reality?
World Café method
Neither decision-making style is native to Nova Scotia, or even Canada. Both are currently being tested in social petri dishes all over the world, and each social experiment has the potential to produce a new form of democracy.
The World Café method was created in California in 1995. It aims to find an accurate picture of an issue by gathering collective wisdom. In its ideal form, this method is demanding and needy. It requires:
- A diverse population
- Genuine questions that don’t already have answers
- A café environment to facilitate conversation
- Lots of time and patience
- The honest pursuit of knowledge
The reality in Halifax is quite different. HRM is using the world café method for the stadium consultation process, and the city’s motivation is not the most honest pursuit of knowledge. Time is a factor; the pressure is on, since HRM wants to host the 2015 FIFA Women’s World Cup. Money is also a factor; HRM has spent nearly half a million dollars on the consultation process and FIFA bid so far.
HRM is using the world café method to gather opinions, and if you look closely, those opinions won’t decide if Halifax gets a stadium. The questions HRM has asked haven’t been authentic; they had assumptions built in, it seems. And diverse perspectives haven’t been consulted; most of those who attended were white, over 40, and about 80 percent were male. More than half of the people consulted in Phase 1 already had some level of personal or financial interest in seeing a stadium built.
HRM’s world café method is a flawed version of the original. This local experiment not only fails to function ideally – it fails to function at all.
OccupyNS method of consensus
The modern version of this model was shaped in the Middle East by the Arab Spring, in Europe during protests against the Global Financial Crisis, and on Wall Street where Occupy began.
I witnessed it most recently at the OccupyNS General Assembly on Sunday night at Grand Parade. About 50 people clustered on the steps in the cold, while police watched from the cenotaph. This group represented social class, race, and gender more accurately than those who attended stadium consultations, with one exception: people tended to be from lower income backgrounds. That’s one great thing about the Occupy model of democracy: it puts more emphasis on the minority viewpoint. The whole point is to counter the decisions made by affluence.
The consensus model requires:
- A population that wants to make cooperative decisions (General Assemblies)
- That everyone gets a vote
- 66 percent consensus for issues of lesser importance
- 90 percent consensus for issues of greater importance
- Ideally, everyone gets to speak on an issue
- Facilitators take opinions and massage them into proposals that could pass
Just for fun, let’s see how Occupy Nova Scotia would have handled the stadium debate. It would be considered a major financial decision, so would require 90 percent consensus.
If a participant proposed building a stadium, meeting facilitators would use everyone’s opinions to craft a proposal. Then they'd test the temperature of public opinion. Ideally, everyone would get a chance to speak, or share their opinion by using hand signals. The idea, “let’s build a stadium,” would be shaped over long cooperative discussions, then put to a vote. If more than 11 percent are against, the motion will not pass. It’s a very different process than HRM’s world café method, because proposals are crafted by the group, and then put to referendum.
This local experiment has limits too. Consensus functions best in small groups. As the group grows larger, it takes longer to make decisions. And in the Halifax group, there are urgent social concerns. On Sunday, participants at OccupyNS considered having council representatives make decisions. Occupy Wall Street has already moved to that model. Occupations can’t function in their ideal form for much longer, and people in petri dishes all over North America are beginning to address this.
HRM’s stadium consultation gives weight to affluent opinions, and filters out dissent. Occupy gives weight to minority views, but functions best in small groups.
If I had to pick a winner, it would be Occupy; the participants are trying their best to function ideally against the social, philosophical, and mayoral odds. HRM doesn’t appear to truly value diverse opinions.
