Common Sense California

• Self-Government in Peril
• The Promise of "Deliberative Democracy"
• Common Sense California

Self-Government in Peril

Since the founding of the United States, Americans have held a core belief: no aristocracy, no ruling class, no elite should be allowed to control our government. Rather, the people, through democratic processes embedded in a system of elected representation, must control the government. Our political processes, from our beginnings as a nation, have been filled with shortcomings and malfunctions. But we have never wavered from our dedication to self-government.

We live in an era of mounting doubt that self-government is still possible in our political system. Ordinary citizens see the ideological extremes, both left and right, and big money interests controlling the agenda of elected officials. In California, the large majority of eligible voters hold preferences in the center of the political spectrum. But they see a legislature dominated by strong ideologues in both political parties and find themselves unheard in public policy debates and ever more frustrated. And the example of the California Legislature is far from unique.

We have been swept up in a vicious cycle: (a) loss of public trust in representative institutions feeds a perception of governmental ineffectiveness and waste and (b) in turn, the perception of inept government stokes the loss of trust. The citizenry still wants good schools, sound fiscal management, clean water and reliable transportation systems. But they doubt the ability of government to provide these essentials. And these public doubts are found throughout the population and are not held solely by political conservatives and libertarians. We have lost the sense that we "own" our government and that we have the power, envisioned in the Declaration of Independence, to change it.

Our elected representatives have their own discontents. They are assaulted by "stakeholders" with narrow and often selfish interests. They see no constituency for the "public interest" and that very term has fallen into disuse. As government officials they are confronted by complex problems and agonizing trade-offs. They see a public that wants services but fails to understand how difficult it is to make large governmental organizations respond and taxpayers unwilling to pay more taxes to governments seen as wasteful.

The Promise of "Deliberative Democracy"

Recognizing the vicious cycle of eroding trust and perceived governmental ineffectiveness and faced with intractable public controversies from re-zoning a defunct shopping center to reforming the public schools, many governments now seek more public "input" before adopting budgets or changing laws or regulations. When the level of conflict results in political gridlock, some government agencies have now turned to mediating among warring groups, such as developers, environmentalists and local residents. Sometimes these forms of "public engagement" improve communication, provide good ideas and help undergird constructive action. But these often useful forms of engagement leave either government officials and/or established interests and organizations, rather than average citizens, at the center of decision-making and action.

It is doubtful that conventional forms of public engagement can reverse the vicious cycle of eroding trust and perceived government ineffectiveness because these forms do not really create an "ownership" role for ordinary citizens. We see the importance of developing modes of public participation that:

• Put average citizens in consequential decision-making roles rather than leaving leadership solely in the hands of government officials or organized groups (the example of the role of citizens in the jury process is an apt one in this regard)
• Provide balanced information and competing arguments as a foundation for solving public problems
• Encourage civil deliberation and real dialogue among persons selected in a process that assures representation of many viewpoints and backgrounds including those who would ordinarily disagree with one another
• Facilitate creative thinking and compromise to fashion constructive and pragmatic solutions to issues ranging from how to collect trash to the reform of the health care system
• Connect the results of such deliberative citizen engagement to the workings of representative government so there is concrete action and not solely conversation

The most dramatic example of these ideas at work in North America is provided by the Citizens' Assembly of British Columbia. Created by the Province of British Columbia, the Citizens' Assembly is a group of 160 randomly selected citizens created to reform their electoral system. In 2004 the Citizens Assembly met periodically over a year to study alternative electoral systems, hold public hearings and deliberate about wholesale reform. Their proposal was far-reaching and won wide public trust because it had been developed by "regular" citizens and not elected officials or a blue-ribbon panel. Placed before the voting public in May 2005 the Citizens Assembly's proposition received a 58% yes vote. The British Columbia example is a small one but it is significant. It shows a path toward renewed citizen ownership of and responsibility for the working of democratic processes in a republican form of government.

The Citizens Assembly built on work over the past 30 years that is called "Deliberative Democracy." The development of deliberative democracy has emerged from governments and independent organizations including Viewpoint Learning, AmericaSpeaks, the Stanford Center on Deliberative Democracy and Public Agenda. The range of work that has been carried out by these organizations and others is remarkable. Deliberative democracy projects have been carried out in small towns and major cities (and, indeed, in several major cities simultaneously through the use of electronic hook-up). Projects have been carried out in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, and several different European nations. The topics addressed have ranged from the allocation of a city budget in Eugene, Oregon and Menlo Park, California to the planning for recovery from Hurricane Katrina. to the question of integrating Catholic and Protestant youth in the schools of Northern Ireland. The size of the participating groups has ranged from a few dozen to more than a thousand persons. The amount of attention paid by the media to these processes has ranged from zero to major attention on national television.

Common Sense California

Common Sense California is the only statewide, citizens' organization in our nation's largest state committed to the use of "deliberative democracy" techniques to solve public problems and build trust between citizens and government. Our role is to:

• Educate the California public and government officials about the promise of the tools of deliberative democracy
• Assist governments and non-profit organizations to identify where there is a pressing need for new and more deliberative forms of public engagement, to identify the most appropriate professionals in the field (such as Viewpoint Learning, AmericaSpeaks, the Stanford Center for Deliberative Democracy, and Public Agenda) to carry out their plans and aid them in the search for financial support.
• Helping to create the political support and media coverage that increases the probability that a considered public voice will be heard by public officials and will shape government action.

Enduring and creative solutions are best found through respectful dialogue among Democrats, Republicans and the rapidly growing portion of the population that does not identify with either major party. California is already a state of 37 million people where no ethnic group constitutes a majority. Effective action in the public interest must build upon a foundation of broad-based citizen understanding and action that includes dramatic improvements in participation within and among communities of color¹.

On February 23-24, 2007 seventy-eight civic leaders, journalists, elected officials, foundation officers, academics and students gathered for a two-day conference on deliberative democracy in California². The conference was held at Pepperdine University and co-hosted by the Pepperdine School of Public Policy and Common Sense California with additional sponsorship by the New America Foundation.

The conference deliberations helped establish our focus for 2007-2008 on demonstrating the value of hearing the citizen voice at both the state level and in the context of meeting local and regional needs. Our top three priorities are:

• Helping to organize and launch a series of "town meetings" around California that will give representative groups of Californians a clear voice in the current debate about improving and extending health care in our state.
• Experimenting with the use of the Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR). The CIR is intended to provide a sounder basis for public votes on the ballot initiatives that play a powerful role in setting public policy. The CIR would enable a representative group of citizens to study specific initiatives in great depth, to hear and cross-examine proponents and opponents of ballot initiatives, to deliberate in an open-minded process and to make a recommendation to fellow voters through the information pamphlets already distributed to all voters. (For the current proposal under discussion in the State of Washington, see www.cirwa.org).
• Identifying, encouraging, supporting and networking local and regional efforts to solve difficult public problems through the use of one or more techniques of "deliberative democracy." Among the early examples of the projects we are encouraging are: (a) Threshold 15/10 that seeks to expand the housing supply in San Mateo County, (b) an effort to bring Santa Barbara and Ventura counties into constructive dialog on traffic issues and the future of Highway 101 and (c) a plan to engage the residents of the Pasadena School District in new and more constructive ways to address the tough choices faced by this important urban school system.

In order to respond to these priorities, Common Sense California is establishing an office in conjunction with the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University. Our efforts thus far have been made possible by extensive volunteer efforts and the financial contributions of the Whitman Institute, the Wallace and Alexander Gerbode Foundation, the Blue Shield Foundation and the Rosenberg Foundation in Northern California and the Sidney Stern Memorial Trust in Southern California and individual donors from several different regions.

April 10, 2007