Anticipating the Challenges to the Obama Vision of Bottom-Up Democracy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
www.globalagoras.org Anticipating the Challenges to the Obama vision of Bottom-up Democracy Summary of Results from a Webscope application with an international panel (November, 15 to December 13, 2008) http://obamavision.wikispaces.com Prepared by: Alexander N. Christakis and Gayle Underwood Aleco Christakis Gayle Kevin Dye Reynaldo Trevino Philadelphia Tom Flanagan LLauraaura Harris Underwood Boston, MiMexico City, Crete Boston, Heiner Benking Peter Jones Albuquerque, Michigan Massachusetts Mexico Massachusetts Berlin, Larry Fergeson Toronto, New Mexico Ken Bausch Germany Nicosia, Paul Hays Canada Atlanta, Cyprus Sanda, Japan Craig Lindell Janet McIntyreGeorgia New Bedford, Perth, Massachusetts Australia Roy Smith Norma Romm LdLondon Pretoria, PtiiParticipant s AtiiAnticipati ng the Chall enges to the United Kingdom South Africa Obama vision of Bottom‐up Democracy Anticipating the Challenges to the Obama vision of Bottom-up Democracy Summary of Results from a Webscope application with an international panel (November, 15 to December 13, 2008) Prepared by: Alexander N. Christakis and Gayle Underwood Introduction An international panel of thirteen experts/stakeholders in e-democracy and structured dialogue were engaged for three weeks in an asynchronous and synchronous virtual interaction employing the technology of the Webscope wiki. The panel was invited to use the Structured Dialogic Design (SDD) process focusing on the following triggering question: “In the context of Obama's vision for engaging stakeholders from all walks of life in a bottom-up democracy employing Internet technology, what factors do we anticipate, on the basis of our experiences with SDDP, will emerge as inhibitors to the actualization of his vision?” [Note: Participants interested in the process of the disciplined dialogue employed in the Webscope wiki approach should visit www.harnessingcollectivewisdom.com ]. Results A summary of the work products of the international panel includes (all these products are in the public domain and are posted for review in: www.Obamavision.wikispaces.com These are: • The list of fifty-nine inhibitors generated during Round 1 when the participants respond individually and silently to the triggering question. • The record of the discussion for clarification of the meanings of the fifty-nine inhibitors (posted as Table 2 in Round 2 of the Websope wiki). • The pattern displaying the classification of the fifty-nine inhibitors in thirteen similarity clusters with such labels as: Equity and Access, Facilitation, Paradigm shift, and other labels for clusters (see Figure 1 in the Websope site displayed in Round 3). • The results of participants voting, on an individual and subjective basis, for the five inhibitors of higher relative importance in the context of the triggering question (see Table 3 at Round 4). www.globalagoras.org • The Root Cause Map of thirteen inhibitors of higher relative importance displaying the enhancement relationship among them, and drawing a distinction between strong and weak leveraged inhibitors (see Figure 2 at Round 5). Interpretation of Figure 1 and Table 3: The significance of structuring the fifty-nine inhibitors in thirteen similarity clusters is that the meanings of the inhibitors proposed by the participants become more transparent when seen in relation to other similar ideas. For example, by focusing on Cluster 2: Equity and Access, one can visualize the characteristics of the ideal model of bottom-up democracy where no citizens will be denied access because of lack of understanding of how to use the technology to participate. By studying the inhibitors assigned to the various categories the reader gets a good appreciation of the challenges to be addressed in realizing the vision of an ideal bottom-up democracy, where the voices of all the citizens will be heard on an equitable manner. It should be recognized, that the thirteen clusters exhibited in Figure 1 represent the dimensionality of the problematic situation (Problematique) that is being addressed by the international team The systemic principle of requisite variety demands that the design and development of a strategy for the actualization of the bottom-up democracy ideal should take into consideration all of the 13 dimensions identified in the problem definition inquiry of the group, as shown graphically in Figure 1: http://obamavision.wikispaces.com/file/view/Figure_1- _Amended_Classification_of_59_Inhibitors_to_Bottom-up_Democracy.pdf In addition to making the meaning of the fifty-nine inhibitors more transparent, Figure 1 helps in the identification by the participants of the inhibitors of higher relative importance by means of individual and subjective voting. It is easier and more reliable for the participants to vote on the relative importance of the fifty-nine inhibitors by using the pattern of Figure 1. As shown in Table 3 (See Round 4 of the Webscope wiki), forty-one inhibitors received one or more votes. If the same five inhibitors had received all the 65 votes by the 13 participants, then there would be 100% agreement among the members of the panel in terms of relative importance. Because 41 inhibitors received at least one vote, the agreement in terms of relative importance is equal to 30%, which is 20% below the average measure of agreement obtained from over 500 applications of this approach to participative design and problem solving. The degree of agreement in terms of preference voting is an indicator of the complexity of the situation and the need to engage an interdisciplinary team in a disciplined dialogue for defining and solving a complex problem. Hence, the design and development of a bottom-up democracy should be considered as a complex challenge for the Obama administration, if they would like to see it happen in the next few years. The five inhibitors that emerged as relatively more important are: • INHIBITOR 2: RISK OF EXCLUDING DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE. • INHIBITOR 8: TECHNICAL TECHNOLOGICAL EXCLUSION. • INHIBITOR 14: INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION GIVEN TO FACILITATOR CAPACITATION. • INHIBITOR 18: SCALABILITY OF DISCUSSION TECHNOLOGY. • INHIBITOR 23: SOCIAL CONTRACT OVERLOAD. www.globalagoras.org 2 It is advisable that the reader consults Table 2 (Round 2 in the Webscope) in order to get a better appreciation of the meaning assigned to the above five inhibitors by the authors who proposed them. Interpretation of Figure 2: Figure 2 ( see http://obamavision.wikispaces.com/file/view/ObamaVision_Root_Cause_Map_Dec_13_2008_Pr eliminary.pdf ) displays the relationship of enhancement among thirteen inhibitors that emerged as being relatively more important from the voting results presented in Table 3. This figure should be read from bottom up. Inhibitors located at Level I at the top of Figure 2 do not exert any leverage on other inhibitors because no arrows originate from those inhibitors. On the other hand, because enhancement propagates upwards, those inhibitors that are located deeper in the tree-like structure are stronger in terms of exerting enhancement leverage on other inhibitors located at the higher levels. The closer to the root of the tree, the deeper are the inhibitors and the stronger is their influence on other inhibitors along the branches of the tree. When an arrow connects two inhibitors it implies that the inhibitor at the beginning of the arrow will enhance the capacity to address the other at the end of the arrow. For example, looking at Level III of Figure 2, one sees that in accordance with the supermajority vote of the Webscope participants, the inhibitor that identifies the corporate control of the means of democracy (Inhibitor #22 at Level III) is capable of enhancing the capacity of addressing six other inhibitors along the pathways connecting it to higher level inhibitors. In other words, without addressing the domination of democracy by the private companies it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to make progress in terms of Inhibitors # 56, 53, 27, 2, 1, and 57. When two or more inhibitors are in a box with bullets in front of them, such as Inhibitors #1 and 2 at Level I, it means that these inhibitors are in a cycle of mutual enhancement, i.e., making progress in addressing one will enhance the capacity to address the other, and vice versa. Cycles of inhibitors represent the emergence of new entities, like the combination of hydrogen and oxygen produces water. Cycles require special attention in terms of the community of stakeholders addressing the inhibitors included in the cycle. The two inhibitors in Figure 2 that exert the strongest leverage on other inhibitors at higher levels are: • INHIBITOR 14: INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION GIVEN TO FACILITATION CAPACITATION. • INHIBITOR 22: CORPORATE CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF DEMOCRACY. The reader is advised to visit the Webscope site and read a very interesting and succinct narrative interpretation of Figure 2: http://obamavision.wikispaces.com/Results Conclusion By engaging the international panel of experts in a disciplined dialogue, the Institute for 21st Century Agoras, which sponsored this work, enabled them to derive a large number of inhibitors (59), clarify their meanings (Table 2), identify those of higher relative importance (Table 3), and www.globalagoras.org 3 derive graphic patterns displaying the similarity and enhancement relationships among the important inhibitors (Figures 1 and 2). The dialogue made it possible for the participants to imagine and describe a collective understanding of the complex situation (Problematique)