Time to Listen Up and Talk Through Conflict with the Deliberative Process.

What is so complicated and head-spinningly chaotic about public policy isn’t its dense text. It’s entanglement with a wide spectrum of political stances, beliefs, and interests — which always contradict one another. The problem isn’t a lack of expertise; on the contrary, overdependence on experts or policymakers to dissolve conflict and binary opposition will only intensify frictions between disputing parties. After all, conflict resolution requires communication and listening skills, not mere technicality. 

“Communication” is the beating heart of public policy. Policies that address complicated conflict become even more tangled due to “communication” that carries a tinge of hostility and perpetuates the “good guys vs bad guys” binary and the us/them binary. This distracts people from discovering a common ground for all parties, and only deepens their conviction that their “opponents” will never be open to discussion. That the panacea for conflict is the total elimination of discontent, even though such a miraculous cure never exists in the first place, and complicated issues demand all parties involved to listen to each other well and come together to an understanding.

In such a situation, the deliberative process matters a lot. To deliberate is to engage in a public discussion and consultation. It is rooted in the intentionality of opinion exchange. We aren’t simply there to talk about our needs. Rather, we partake in a discussion, with our hearts kept open and ready to embrace facts and conflicting perspectives, and to learn from others. This process helps us see humanity as well as commonality in our “opponents,” instead of arguing with each other to death.

But the deliberative process isn’t that simple. It requires sensitive ears and delicacy in collective decision-making, as different stakeholders might approach the subject from a completely different angle. 

Faced with such challenges, Sam Kaner and his team decided to theorise a “diamond of participatory decision-making” for Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. According to Kaner et al., the deliberative process can be divided into 3 steps:

1. Divergent Thinking
   The first step towards the deliberative process emphasises the necessity of accommodating diverse points of view. Opinions that diverge from the mainstream of thoughts or refuse to follow decision makers’ line of logic are always excluded from the policymaking process. This creates ‘false consensus,’ or the pretence of absolute unanimity. The reality is, contradicting opinions are being silenced.

   To prevent false consensus, today’s policymakers can open up a space and wield a variety of toolkits in support of diversity of opinions. This space lies within our surroundings, in our quotidian routine, such as a monthly village meeting, public hearings, emails delivered to public bodies, newspaper op-eds, and online articles, or even the usage of social listening tools to gather social data about public opinions from different online platforms. 
   
   However, when policymakers attempt to hear what the people have to say, the next challenge is the overwhelming volume of data. The second step is here to help you with this clutter. 

2. Groan Zone
   Invented by Sam Kaner, the idea of the Groan Zone refers to the phase in which we finally have to deal with complicated matters. This is when we start to feel uncomfortable, awkward, and hopeless. This is why we want to rush through the step and do everything in our power to end it. “Listening for understanding” is the key element of this step. 
   
   Although public consultation is efficient in garnering myriads of opinions, it fails to incorporate captured opinions into a listening process and turn them into the common ground of thoughts. This process requires sensitivity and throws many more questions into the direction of policymakers. For example, can the public voices be truly heard through public hearings? Will online public hearings help people listen to each other more deeply? Can we turn the cacophony of dissidents who refuse to listen to one another into something else? Where does listening to understand take place, and how can we make it happen? These are but some challenges that policymakers have to bear in mind when designing public hearings.
   
   There are some facilitation techniques available right now. For example, listening to each other and finding the common ground will proceed with efficiency only when the numbers of participants are not too many. Facilitators also have to listen carefully and make space for each participant to speak their truth, and to hear truth from others. Responsible organisations also have to abandon their adherence to ‘public relations’ that authorise decision-makers to control the narrative, and adopt the principle of ‘public participation’ that nourishes communication within a horizontal structure of power.

3. Convergent Thinking
   The third step, “convergent thinking,” is about deciding on a common ground for fundamental principles, and translating them into action. When people come to an agreement, the binary opposition will be transcended, and they will see the complexity of issues with their own eyes, while searching for a common ground to go forward. 

Reference:

• Sam Kaner’s Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making
• Martín Carcasson’s “Tackling Wicked Problems Through Deliberative Engagement”