Experts, decision making and deliberative democracy

Abstract

In recent years there has been much discussion about the role of experts and expertise in policy making. We commented on some of the issues in an earlier editorial (Vol. 1, No. 2). In particular we noted the concerns about the legitimacy and credibility of policy pronounce-ments in areas where scientific uncertainty is a prevailing condition. These concerns, we argued, were fuelling a lack of public trust in both scientists and decision makers. The danger in this is that the science used to inform policy making becomes portrayed by some commentators as socially constructed, politically motivated, elitist and authoritarian. Some of the attacks on experts, over BSE or GMOs for instance, have certainly hit their mark. They have served an important purpose in drawing attention to the limitations of science and the difficulties of translating scientific knowledge (which is often provisional and uncertain) into public policy. Indeed, there is now widespread recognition that a precautionary approach must be taken in the absence of scientific certainty to prevent possible harmful consequences becoming unavoidable. And there is evidence of greater intent on the part of policy makers and scientists to build more open and confident relationships between science and society. One way of achieving this, we noted, is through the effort to engage a wider range of stakeholders and the general public in the process of policy making. This does not deny the need for scientific knowledge based on theoretical understanding and underpinned by empirical data (observed or experimental). But, it does recognize the limitations arising from inherent uncertainties especially when dealing with complex problems involving predictions into the far future. There are now many contemporary issues where, as Funtowicz and Ravetz put it in a well known paper, 'the facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent' (Funtowicz & Ravetz 1990, p. 20). This led them to call for a new approach, a 'post-normal science' characterized by 'a new scientific method, neither value-free nor ethically neutral' (p. 22). This suggests that scientific knowledge, although vital, is not the only relevant knowledge but knowledge based on experience and values must also be an important input into policy making. And, processes of deliberation are increasingly being used as a means of expounding and integrating such knowledge. It is probably fair to say that deliberation is becoming the fashionable approach to public participation in policy making. Deliberation is interaction that encourages the free expression of ideas, views and beliefs. It is a vehicle for identifying what people think and what is important to them. Ideally, deliberation should encourage rational argument as well as enabling participants to articulate their experience and intuitive judgement. Provided the process abides by agreed rules it should be possible for participants to express and understand the provenance and status of different viewpoints. However, like the role of expertise, the role of deliberation requires careful scrutiny, too. It is important here to distinguish between the function of deliberation as an interactive process and its role in relation to policy making. It has been claimed that 'deliberative democracy has established itself as a new orthodoxy within contemporary democratic theory' (Smith 2003, p. 53). Therefore, before deliberative processes are enthusiastically embraced for their potential in decision making, it would be as well to gain some insight into what they can and cannot do, what are their strengths and weaknesses and how they may enhance the basis for decisions. It is important to stress here that deliberation is a means to making decisions. It is not the only means but it can be a significant input into democratic decision making. Consequently, it is preferable to talk of democratic deliberation rather than deliberative democracy. As such, it is important to know whether deliberation is, in practice, democratic both as a process and in relation to decision making. An important feature of deliberative methods when applied to policy making is that they must foster equality of exchange; they must be democratically deliberative. It is the status of the arguments, not the status of the participants that matters. There are two key features of a democratically deliberative process – it must be inclusive and it must encourage unconstrained dialogue. Inclusiveness requires that insofar as possible all relevant viewpoints and values should be represented. Consequently, it should be expected that participants are drawn from the different demographic, social and geographical groups in the population at large. Given the constraints of resources and the intensive nature of deliberative processes the number of participants is likely to be small while the number of constituencies that might claim representation is very large. Although it may prove difficult to claim that deliberative processes are truly representative, they should be designed to encompass as wide a range of views and participants as possible. The need for unconstrained dialogue runs counter to another requirement of democratic deliberation – the need for a decision. Unlike the use of the vote in representative democracy, deliberation has no decision rule, no obvious point of closure. Yet to provide an input into decision making, deliberation must have an end. At some point deliberation must cease and be translated into a decision. Of course, it may prove difficult to reach agreement, consensus may be impossible to achieve. But, it may be sufficient that deliberation reveals the inherent value conflicts that surround an issue. At least it will give clues as to what may prove acceptable working agreements and where irreconcilable conflicts are likely to persist. This, perhaps, is the most that should be expected and, in truth, it is a very great deal. Deliberation potentially provides a basis for more informed political judgements and decisions. It is in this way that deliberation becomes democratically effective. While democratic deliberation informs, representative democracy decides. Therefore deliberation provides outputs which become inputs into the decision making process. It is a supplement to, not a substitute for, representative democratic decision. The combination of the insights achieved through deliberation and the legitimacy afforded by representation should provide a basis for decisions that are both publicly acceptable and politically implementable. The contemporary enthusiasm for deliberative approaches has spawned a new industry of 'process experts' and consultancies each offering, promoting even, particular methods. So there are stakeholder dialogues, consensus conferences, citizens' panels and juries, deliberative polls, deliberative mapping and so on. Deliberative techniques have been applied to elicit values and views on a variety of subjects such as the location of incinerators, food irradiation, genetic testing, health service provision. More recently, deliberative democracy has been introduced into areas of strategic policy making such as the introduction of GM foods and policy for the long-term management of radioactive wastes. The first attempts (for example the GM Nation? debate in the UK) have been criticized for being underfunded, somewhat experimental, hastily conceived and failing to engage a wider public. Confidence in the potential of deliberation remains high and the UK government has made it the focus of a 2 A. Blowers et al.