How many times have we seen overconfidence and arrogance reduced to embarrassment and sheepish back-peddling as the asking of a simple question exposes the lack of substance behind a facade of PR spin and perception manipulation. A simple question from a child, a tradie or grandma often exposes the reality that the system is well beyond the illusion of control it seeks to project. 

By now you might be getting the picture that there could be a better way to get some balance and perspective into a system that seems to be out of order. How does a country handle all of this complexity in a way that matches up with the public's lived experience of it, and with what it knows is right and is happy to live with? 

What doesn't seem to be working is the Westminster combative system trying to deal with enormous complexity, when being run by political agendas, egos, bureaucrats, lobbyists, idealists, media influence, hordes of lawyers and specialists who all have an interest in perpetuating revenues, angst, fear and the perception of control. Actually, a general state of confusion exists, even though we hear "we need to always preserve the public service integrity". We can probably expect some increasingly odd decisions and behaviors if this becomes the systems' main purpose (protecting itself).

It turns out that there are places in the world where those in charge openly admit they don't have all of the answers to the most difficult problems. As an aside, this is a far cry from here in New Zealand where leaders not only try to perpetuate an illusion of being in control, but they also go a step further in promoting us as world leaders in everything under the sun, serially forgetting NZ is a tiny nation in the south seas and that there is an associated price tag with these big ideas, that are beyond our means.

Ireland, Scotland and France are examples of such places. The parliaments there have commissioned citizens assemblies on a number of occasions to address particularly difficult issues and make recommendations. Of course, they reserve the right to ignore the assembly, which might be dangerous ground as the collective intelligence of ordinary people with lived experience (of the manifest complexity discussed above) tends to provide a truth that is difficult to refute.

The Irish assemblies are made up of 100 citizens randomly selected from the general population. They have been tasked to deliberate and recommend on such issues as abortion rights and climate change.

The Scottish assembly, of the same number of people, was established in 2019 to deliberate on three broad issues. 

1. What kind of country are we seeking to build?
2. How can we best overcome the challenges we face, including those arising from Brexit?
3. What further work should be carried out to give people the detail they need to make informed choices about the future of the country?

The Scottish vision and recommendations are available here OIDP

The French government launched a citizen's assembly of 150 people in October 2019, tasked with defining a set of concrete measures to reduce France's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels, in a spirit of social justice.

Questions remain around the authenticity of the French version as the process was truncated and more intense, perhaps not allowing the time required for a large group to learn and deliberate. The design was criticised and there was also criticism that the findings were either watered down or ignored by the government.

The underlying premises and philosophy of citizens assemblies are:

• Independence from government.
• A random and diverse group of citizens brings a realistic set of perspectives to an issue, based on lived experience (including the complexity of modern life) and the ability to work together to develop increasingly intimate and nuanced understanding of an issue.
• The structure and process of the assembly is highly participatory; members are paid to attend and be fully engaged.
• The culture and process are deliberative, with members being provided time and space to consider all aspects of the issue and refer to others along the way.
• Cumulative learning is designed into the process to ensure all members develop a sufficiently rich understanding of the issues being considered.
• Absolute transparency. No back-room influencing, lobbying or fixing. Open voting carries the day.
• Open-mindedness with the intention that the outcome reached by the assembly is as close as is possible to a fair representation of what the general population thinks or wants. 

So far, the impression we get is that the impact of contemporary citizens assemblies has been mixed, and this should be no surprise due to the complexity of modern society and the huge variety of interests and unpredictable consequences of change. The fact that they have made some positive impact is encouraging.

The transition not only demands change, but change that happens in a civil and generative way. Perhaps we are only at the beginning of learning how to do it.

This weeks quote:

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”

                                       - Niccolò Machiavelli  - 1532