In Chapter One, John Gastil asserts that the ideal democratic process of characterized by Inclusion, Participation Opportunities and Enlightened Understanding. Give examples from your own experience of decision-making processes that have or have not lived up to these ideals.
24 thoughts on “Ideals of the Democratic Process”
Comments are closed.
Inclusion – The presidential election for some is their passage in to adulthood and citizenship. The right to vote is for all citizens of the United States starting at the age of 18. Although this sounds promising, the broad term of citizen has been used to specially elect certain people to be able to exercise their right to vote. Woman didn’t get the right to vote until 1920 and African Americans were not able to vote until 1965. Other barriers for citizens included the literacy test, which was a test that determined whether you were allowed to vote or not. This created segregation of citizens based on education; most people effected were poor people of color. More recently, is the voter id law, which doesn’t allow you to vote in 17 states without a new id card even if you have been a register voter in the past elections. The idea behind inclusion is not being practice making hard to believe that this type of inclusion could be counted toward “ideal democracy.”
Effective Participation – Looking at politics now, the democratic process is intertwined with money. So to allow citizens to have equal and adequate opportunities to participate in putting issues on the agenda and expression your views has become a difficult process.
John Gastil asserts that the ideal democratic process encompasses inclusion of all of age citizens, having the opportunity to participate in politics and understanding the issues that are being voting on. The last truly makes a democracy deliberative. While we do live in what other nations would consider “the world’s greatest democracy”, I believe that we often don’t live up to Gastil’s criteria in some ways. When it comes to inclusion, let’s take voter registration. While every 18-year-old citizen has the right to vote, it doesn’t necessarily mean that all are automatically registered to vote. I know plenty of colleagues and peers that are still not registered to vote because they do not want to go through a process. I stand behind automatic, state wide, voter registration for 18 year olds. In terms of participation, roughly half the population didn’t even vote in the 2012 presidential election. And it appears that this number will rise in November. While low voter turnout is often blamed on the government for making the voter registration process harder, it is more important to look at the current attitude of today’s population. I constantly hear that people are not voting in this election because they are not happy with either candidate. Plenty of people are fostering this attitude and while they have the right to do so, they ultimately are not going to participate when it comes to the election. We can also look at the 2000 presidential election between Al Gore and George Bush. The Electoral College’s decision didn’t reflect that of the general population. People participated and voted, but ultimately weren’t adequately represented. As for enlightened understanding, the media has made it very difficult to provide citizens with unbiased, well-rounded information. It is no secret that there are plenty of media biases. Often people only rely on the media for their information and thus understand an issue in one light. It is crucial that people make well-informed decisions when making any type of decision, specifically voting.
Previously, I volunteered in an official leadership position in a student-run organization at my undergraduate institution. In my senior year of college, I served as the organization’s president and prior to that participated as a member as well as served in other leadership positions. I will apply John Gastil’s three values to an ideal democratic process to this organization.
Inclusion: According to Gastil, an ideal democratic process is inclusive to all adults within the boundaries, and all of these members should have voting rights. In my organization, any undergraduate student at the university whose email address was on the listserv was eligible to vote. This makes the process extremely inclusive, even to students who may not be active members. Meanwhile, the boundaries are set to undergraduate students at the university.
Participation Opportunities: Gastil explains that all members should have equal opportunity to various parts of the system including deciding what issues should be discussed, expressing their opinion on these issues, and voting on the issues. Further, this may take place in either a direct democracy, representative democracy, or a hybrid. The organization I am discussing implements a hybrid. For example, amendments to the organization’s constitution must be voted on by the entire membership, representing direct democracy. However, most decisions are made by elected and selected leadership, representing representative democracy.
Enlightened Understanding: Gatsil’s final piece is that all members must have an opportunity to learn about, understand, and form opinions the issues. This includes providing both time and tools to allow this to happen. In the organization, I believe that the leadership has enlightened understanding but the larger membership does not. The core leadership engages in monthly decision-making meeting and the larger leadership convenes semesterly. However, the larger membership is never given an opportunity to engage in these types of discussions.
Over a dozen US states currently have laws that strip otherwise eligible citizens to vote, based on having committed a felony. I would argue that since the vote is imperative in a democracy, then these disenfranchisement laws that deny voting rights (even after they have served their sentences and probation) are contrary to the the democratic ideal we expound.
More than 5 million otherwise eligible citizens are rendered ineligible to vote based solely on a prior felony conviction. Gastil asserts that two of the criteria of the democratic process are inclusion and effective participation. Since this group of individuals, once back into society, are still excluded from the act of voting (inclusion) and thus the decision-making process whereby they would be able to express their views and weigh in on issues that will directly affect them (effective participation), I would argue that these disenfranchisement laws fail the democracy test.
On a more personal note, at my workplace, upper management has undertaken the project of dismantling all employees’ cubicles and replacing them with open workspaces, which will mean a drastic loss of privacy. This decision was made by upper management and the result is a general feeling of “our opinions don’t matter” among the employees who will be affected. On some issues, a workgroup or committee is formed with representatives from various departments, and the issue at hand is discussed and all viewpoints are heard and considered. This was not the case this time. The staff were excluded, not given the opportunity to express their views on how the changes would affect them and therefore the opportunity for enlightened understanding did not present itself. While it is understood that the workplace is not a democracy, many of the staff feel that some decisions should include some democratic principles.
An example from my own experience of decision-making processes that have not lived up to these ideals:
I can think of a time whilst working in a group setting at school to complete a project and I experienced a decision-making process that did not involve inclusion, as all the participants did not engage in the process as group members. The opportunities for participation were there, however group members failed to participate fully and express their views or raising issues for discussion whether directly or indirectly. Some individuals did not complete their portion of the assigned task and as a result the group suffered. It was clear from this experience that some individuals were self-interested and were not concerned with the greater good of the group project and did not practice enlightened understanding.
In another example from my own experience of the decision-making process that have lived up to these ideals:
Another experience I can think of occurred at work, where I was involved in a team project to complete a task to improve a work process. This decision-making process proved favorable and the outcome was positive. In that setting each person was included in the process and given an equal opportunity to contribute their ideas, as we brainstormed on the best approach forward. Each team member gave their opinion and had an equal say in the process and shared their views in attempt to persuade other team members to see their perspective. Each team member had a thorough understanding of the project and was able to speak and take informed positions for the betterment of the team, putting aside their self-interest. The objectives of the project were achieved and the group task was completed successfully.
Inclusion: Gastil states that inclusion entails, “welcoming all adults who exist within its boundaries.” However, there are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have no say, despite having lived in the United States for several years. Although immigration is a heated topic in our country, these individuals have made their way into the United States and have paved a new home for themselves and their families. Many argue that these people should not have a voice because their status is illegal, yet there is no easy or clear-cut pathway to citizenship for these individuals. With lack of citizenship, millions of people living in our country do not have access to full civil liberties and rights, further contributing to the pre-existing disparities in the United States.
Participation Opportunities: Five amendments and 100 years later, all US citizens 18 years or older have the right to vote. However, several Americans find themselves unable to participate in the voting process. For instance, states have made it difficult for Americans to vote by implementing photo ID requirements, limits on early voting, voter registration restrictions, and proof of citizenship. In addition, Election Day has not been made a recognized national holiday. Therefore, many Americans do not have the flexibility of having the day off to vote.
Enlightened Understanding: I believe that political debates, including presidential debates, allow opportunity for candidates to exercise enlightened understanding. Because presidential debates are broadcasted for public viewing, people of the United States are encouraged to reflect on different viewpoints, research discussed topics, and form their own perspectives on domestic and foreign policy issues.
John Gastil discusses the ideal democratic process by bringing to light the three essential criteria – inclusion, effective participation and enlightened understanding. Many people believe that voting is the heart of a democratic government. These people tend to forget that voting is an important part of democracy. And it is not the only symbol of democracy. This is where Gastil’s idea of inclusion comes to play. A democratic country may have voting for all adults but have exclusive rules when it concerns decision-making. Voting may require a “yes” or “no” but decision-making allows real change to occur. Furthermore, he discusses participation opportunities as another important part of the democratic process. This is the part where people are allowed to not only take part in the decision-making process but also put things on the agenda (things they want to discuss). The last part that Gastil discusses is enlightened understanding. This component allows people to bring emotion and values to the decision making process. This is extremely important because different people have different values and methods of conveying their feelings and therefore we are bound to see a diverse range of questions and ideas. One’s ideals, values, and emotion allow them to interpret issues, laws, and policies differently. How I will interpret a case or law will be different than someone next to me and this is what makes the democratic process whole.
With all of this in mind, one experience I can relate to is the weekly meeting at my workplace. We have “Huddle” every Monday and everyone is to be present during this meeting. We have a person who takes the minutes and then we have a person who leads the meeting. We pre-set the topics we want to discuss in the agenda and have thorough conversations regarding every topic on the agenda. Furthermore, if another topic comes up during the “Huddle” then we automatically put down that idea in our virtual agenda. The new ideas will be discussed in the next meeting. Lastly, everyone is required to discuss their personal updates first, and then we jump into the topics on the agenda. We also vote on certain things. We recently came up with potential names for our recent staff directory through by voting. We each mentioned names we like and then we voted on the one we like the best. We are encouraged to express our feelings regarding any of the topics on the agenda and encouraged to provide reason(s). I think it is extremely imperative that any company, organization, and/or bureaucracy have methods that are followed in order to reach a decision that impacts not one individual but everyone. Decisions made through a process that involves inclusion, participation opportunities, and enlightened understanding allows everyone to be included, everyone to share their ideas, put in ideas, and discuss their understanding of a topic or idea. Decisions made through this process allow things from falling through the cracks (this is bound to happen once in a while).
According to Gastil, inclusion, participation opportunities, and enlightened understanding are essential to a democratic process. However as I analyzed these characteristics, it became evident that an ideal democracy has been and continues to be limited for people of color in the American political process. Historically, the United States has denied suffrage to people of color and we still see the remnants of this today in the form of felony disenfranchisement. People of color are disproportionately affected by this, since they make up the majority of felons and continue to face the harshest sentences compared to white offenders. Furthermore, the Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, has further restricted our democratic voting process since it allows the wealthiest to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections and therefore have the most influence over politicians. This unlimited corporate spending has led to a distorted representation where our government frequently responds to the interests of the elite rather than working class Americas, which make up the majority. Essentially, the United States has veered our democratic process towards a plutocracy that undermines people of color, who comprise the poorest people in America. Based on Gastil’s ideal democracy, the United States has yet to apply the three criteria equally among its citizens.
The ideal democratic process as characterized by Gastil suggests that the idea of democracy that we have become a custom to as a nation has shortfalls that reflect in the three fundamentals of democracy that Gastil defines which are Inclusion, participation opportunities and enlightened understanding.
As Gastil defines inclusion within a democratic system, every citizen of adult age should have the right to vote without boundaries. Within the United States democratic system, if an individual has a felony conviction, they do not have the right to vote. This does not follow Gastil’s reflection on a true democratic system as millions of individuals lack the right to vote on issues that affect them.
Gastil defines participation opportunities as a right to have an opportunity to not only voice your opinion but be part of the deciding process in choosing which issues to address and vote on. This process includes opinionating the issue and voting on the issue being addressed. In my experience at work, a lot of the decision making comes from directors who reach decisions based on facts outlines on paper rather than understanding the forces at play on certain issues. Most of the time, it is not possible to voice my opinion on issues that have aroused even though the decision can negatively impact my working ability.
Gastil’s definition of enlightened understanding states that all members of a system should have the opportunity to learn about issues, understand issues and form opinions of the issues and have the tools necessary to allow this process to happen. This is a crucial step as not every issue will affect every single person in the system but every individual should have the right to understand. As changes within a professional environment occur sometimes without notice, it is difficult to learn about the issues and it is difficult to voice opinions on potential solutions. An example of this is we lack a communication platform to the leaders within my organization who make decisions. It is near impossible to voice an opinion on a matter.
The ideal democratic process as characterized by Gastil suggests that the idea of democracy that we have become a custom to as a nation has shortfalls that reflect in the three fundamentals of democracy that Gastil defines which are Inclusion, participation opportunities and enlightened understanding.
As Gastil defines inclusion within a democratic system, every citizen of adult age should have the right to vote without boundaries. Within the United States democratic system, if an individual has a felony conviction, they do not have the right to vote. This does not follow Gastil’s reflection on a true democratic system as millions of individuals lack the right to vote on issues that affect them.
Gastil defines participation opportunities as a right to have an opportunity to not only voice your opinion but be part of the deciding process in choosing which issues to address and vote on. This process includes opinionating the issue and voting on the issue being addressed. In my experience at work, a lot of the decision making comes from directors who reach decisions based on facts outlines on paper rather than understanding the forces at play on certain issues. Most of the time, it is not possible to voice my opinion on issues that have arisen even though the decision can negatively impact my working ability.
Gastil’s definition of enlightened understanding states that all members of a system should have the opportunity to learn about issues, understand issues and form opinions of the issues and have the tools necessary to allow this process to happen. This is a crucial step as not every issue will affect every single person in the system but every individual should have the right to understand. As changes within a professional environment occur sometimes without notice, it is difficult to learn about the issues and it is difficult to voice opinions on potential solutions. An example of this is we lack a communication platform to the leaders within my organization who make decisions. It is near impossible to voice an opinion on a matter.
It’s fascinating reading through the above commentaries on Gastil’s tenets of the democratic process, as there seems to be a consensus that such principles, in practice, are misleading or just plain illusory. It’d be disingenuous to say our nation is a shining of example of democratic values, especially when considering the aforementioned examples of disenfranchisement laws, which primarily target people of color and other marginalized groups.
In a more optimistic frame, however, I can think back to my last position as a canvasser for Amnesty International, whereby the criteria for the democratic process played out in a relatively neat fashion. Deliberation on the job occurred mainly within a dyad that comprised myself and the prospective donor. Throughout the workweek, canvassers were to stop strangers on the streets of several neighborhoods of the metropolitan area in an attempt to persuade them to become contributing members of the organization. What resulted was my coworkers and I being exposed to a vast spectrum of values and personal beliefs, all while maintaining the kind of decor and respect that fostered positive deliberation (and, if lucky, a generous donation).
A typical dialogue – before a single mention of the organization I worked for, no less, the reason I was stood in the middle of the sidewalk with an ear-to-ear smile – was initiated with rapport building. This step was unanimously viewed as the most crucial one (next to the completion of the electronic donor form) for the sole reason that it established trust between the canvasser and the donor. Rapport could entail something as banal as complimenting the individual on their choice of footwear. Relating to Gastil’s criteria, rapport facilitated a sense of inclusion for people I stopped on the streets; individuals who were once strangers now felt comfortable enough to engage in a dialogue about the world’s most pressing human rights issues.
Still, though, one caveat regarding inclusion was that a donor must be above the age of 21, the idea being that it has been proven in the past that the older the donor, the more likely they will remain a donor for a longer period of time compared to their younger counterparts.
Nonetheless, given that Amnesty is literally the world’s largest (and one of the most efficient) human rights organization, it would only be intuitive for membership to be easily accessible to people from all walks of life, including those with a relatively modest income or various budget constraints. Moreover, vowing to become a sustaining member of the organization is an expression of one’s values when it comes to fighting for fundamental human rights across the globe, whether it’s police brutality domestically or the Syrian refugee crisis abroad. Such is an example of Amnesty’s advocacy for participation opportunities for everyday citizens who, despite their bustling lifestyle, have a genuine desire to affect social change in some capacity.
Lastly, and perhaps most crucially, our dyad embodied the notion of enlightened understanding. Whether or not the donor agreed with the causes we promoted was not the core of the dialogue; rather, there existed a conversation that unearthed the world’s most pressing crises which would have otherwise been buried by corporate media. On the streets, we had different kinds of people who we would interact with. On rare occasions, an individual may inquire the reason we’re outside in the grueling summer heat, gaze down at our Amnesty International ID cards or paraphernalia, and sign up right off the bat. Others, conversely, would spend a full half an hour (despite “being late” to wherever they purported they had to attend) to pry into the issue at hand in order to gain a full understanding of the causes they were potentially going to get behind through becoming a member. As much of a nuisance as it was, in retrospect, and applying this scenario to enlightened understanding, I feel more assured in my position as a foot soldier for an enormous human rights organization knowing that the majority of those individuals who signed up were genuine about prisoners of conscience or women’s rights or children’s rights or LGTBQIA rights.
I suppose it’s comforting to know those donors weren’t the “zombie citizens” Gastil admonished!
While working on multiple campaigns in Harlem (where I also live ) as an organizer and director I have seen instances where the democratic process works in the ideal fashion that Gastil describes and where it fails to fulfill these standards at the same time.
As a volunteer director I would recruit and organize volunteers to do various tasks including phone banking and canvassing. This was a from of inclusion , where we informed voters of upcoming elections . However I don’t believe this totally fulfills the ideal of inclusion as our call lists were targeted to certain voters. They were voters who voted in primaries, so there wasn’t much phone outreach to those who had spotty voting records or to those who were registered but never voted before.
Along with informing these voters of the election we would provide them with information on their polling locations so where they could participate. Another form of voter outreach employed was handing out flyers in front of busy subway stops during rush hour . Volunteers and organizers alike would stop and speak with residents of the area asking them to vote for our candidate .On occasion I would come across someone who told me that they couldn’t vote. I found that some of my neighbors were ex-cons on probation unable to exercise the right to vote. Many Americans are unable to participate at all in voting whether they are informed or not. It is clear to see that participation is also limited when it comes to the democratic process of voting .
The last ideal of Enlightened understanding I found was unfortunately the hardest of the ideals to provide as an organizer. While I was gracious to have volunteers and happy when I heard that voters would be supporting my candidate , I often times found that they didn’t have and understanding of why they were supporting them. Unfortunately so many voters fall victim to voting for personalities rather than candidates’ experience or shared ideals .While some voters do understand what they are voting for it is fair to say that over all the ideal democratic process the Gastil describes is just that.
A system can call itself democratic,however; it is not always true.John Gastil cites political scientist Robert Dahl’s explanations of the term democracy.According to Dahl there are three criteria in order for a system to ensure the democratic process.Those criteria are inclusion,participation opportunities and enlightened understanding.
First of all, a system should always include all of its adult members for political process. This will allow formation of inclusion.The system can not be identified as democratic if all adults are excluded from its decision making process.Each member of the society should be be given participation opportunities. Everyone should be allowed to come up with issues on the agenda, express their views on all those issues and finally be able to vote for those issues.In order to separate the deliberative system from unreflective one all members should be able to figure out which issues concern them and their should express their viewpoints on those issues.However, this is not always applied.
For instance, monthly meetings are held in our office where everyone must be present.Employees are given an equal opportunity to raise any-type of work related issues.Each single person is evolved within the discussion process and in the end we vote by raising our hands.One would think that we have a perfect democratic office but unfortunately we don’t. Alongside with monthly meetings there are also weekly ones where only supervisors are present.These are meeting where the majority of changes are made.There is never a full democracy within a system.Several issues are always decided with exclusion of one or two criteria that is described in the Gastil’s chapter.
When I was a high school teacher, students were often bullied for their sexual orientation and gender expression. And, while LGBTQ+ specific bullying is not unique to my school-setting, I believe it was unique, and especially egregious, because students were not just bullied by their peers, but by teachers and administrators. Discussions in my school setting on sexual orientation or gender expression did not adhere to the rational process because of outside biases, prejudices, preconceptions, misconceptions, and misinformation. Interestingly, teachers and administrators were more unwilling to enter a realm of discussion where they truly allowed their current beliefs–in this case that LGBTQ+ students were deviant and even deserved to be bullied–to be meaningfully questioned or subject to change.
In contrast, the students took the initiative to create a Gay-Straight Alliance so that LGBTQ+ students could have a safe space at school. These students willingly entered forums for discussion where they deliberated on how to best create this club up against a hostile administration and faculty. The students also held open meetings where their peers could come to discuss religious, social, and cultural norms within their community that affected all students’ safety. In this case, the students were more open and committed to three hallmarks of democratic society than the teachers. The students held open meetings in multiple locations around the community in order to facilitate inclusion and increase participation opportunities. I believe that my students demonstrated a commitment to enlightened understanding when they were able to present their concerns to the administration with plenty of supporting evidence for why such a club was important for students’ development and achievement.
Inclusion – As a college student, I watched as voting districts were redrawn in the state of Georgia to make it difficult to vote. Voter ID laws claim to reduce fraud but really it reduces participation. However, I have mixed feelings on the ID cards. I think as citizens we all should carry an ID not just for voting but for our own protection. A change in the law may come with dubious intentions but we can take action to get around a “road block” to our rights.
Participation – For 1 year in my undergrad experience, I was a member of a social sorority. While it initially was presented as a fair and voluntary organization, it later became clear that participation was mandatory. Numerous tactics were used to pressure members to vote a certain way on club issues and to get into agreement with the loudest voice in room. This sort of organization fosters a herd mentality that I can see spilling over into a larger forum. Members were groomed into believing that you must “stand with your sister” even when you fundamentally disagree. You can apply this to elections. How often is the voting populace agreeing out of a feeling of obligation instead of deeper beliefs.
Enlightened understanding – Education and Information make for an enlightening understanding. With so much information being spouted at citizens everyday, it has because necessary to ignore most of it to keep your sanity. When I approach my coworkers on certain issues they are often completely unaware of it. Life and its responsibilities can make being informed a luxury that only some can afford.
Having lived in Nicaragua as a part of a study abroad program, I had the opportunity to observe the political processes of the nation, and I must say, there is much to be done. Relating first to the concept of inclusion, Nicaraguan politics seem to have no clue of what this signifies. Although the constitution allows citizens to vote from the young age of 16, this does not necessarily mean you will be physically able to execute your civil duty as a Nicaraguan. The government has created internal and illegal electoral barriers which exclude non-sympathizers of the official party by preventing people from being able to obtain government issued IDs, more specifically “cedulas”. The government boasts high voter turn-out rates, however, this only takes into consideration those “allowed to vote” by the official party and not those enabled by law to vote. This defeats the concept of democracy.
Furthermore, on participation opportunities, Nicaragua has slowly but surely booted out political representatives that belong to other parties. The unconstitutional president, Daniel Ortega, has appointed, manipulated, and ordered the court magistrates (similar to U.S. supreme court judges) to wipe all credentials from strong politicians that may come in his path. Today over 90% (if not more) of the National Assembly are Sandinistas. What participation opportunities can there be if any individual that exerts his or her own political ideals will systematically get removed from the political spectrum. This hinders society’s ability to elect representatives of their choice and compromises the equal chance to discuss issues of the community.
Lastly, on enlightened understanding, Nicaraguan government has spent an exorbitant amount of resources in brainwashing society through all levels of public education (while also pressuring censorship in some private institutions). Daniel Ortega has made it his personal mission to inculcate the values “Christianity, socialism, and solidarity”. These are the three main words in the government’s slogan. Nicaragua has fallen in an era of political and social analphabetism. From very young ages, students are exposed to the exclusive ideology of the government. There is no room for opinion, diversity, or DELIBERATION. In a nation where presidential elections have never given way to public debates or discussion, there is a very dim future for the country and region.
In my experience Gastil’s and summations are spot on in terms of roll out of the democratic process. One instance that stuck out to me was affects voter turnout has on what I have determined as political clout in the arena of our State government.
Gastil explicitly mentioned that in our system most people don’t participate. Community organizers enter this realm and try to examine this problem by going through a restorative process to shift power to disenfranchised people. As such a lofty goal, when you approach programming for the issues, you try to get more people involved. The work I was doing was in the Bronx, specifically the South Bronx who is a community still feeling the effects of Robert Moses’s neglectful planning. Our environmental campaign wanted to reduce the amount of car traffic through the Soundview section by altering/removing the underutilized Sheridan Expressway (obviously full of bias in the presentation of the problem). Our organization hosted a Townhall Meeting, to engage more people in this discussion. One of the local elected officials attended the meeting Assemblyman Crespo and his commentary was the one that I found really useful in understanding our system of inclusion in deliberation. (Dramatic Reinterpretation) He said, “We need to make sure more people go out and actually vote for a change. In our district we have 200,000 people living here. In the last primary only 2,000 people came out to vote. If you compare our district to the Upper East Side of Manhattan who has the same amount of people, they get 20,000 people to come out for the vote. It’s hard for me to argue for money in the State Budget, when I only have to respond to 2,000 people.”
Upon hearing this commentary, I thought about the irony of a powerless politician. And in going over Gastil, there is a flawed deliberation if for budgets and needs when you can’t include your constituents.
John Gastil’s assertion on the ideals of a democratic process characterized by inclusion, participative opportunities and enlightened participation aligns with the four historical perspectives on deliberation. The principles of leadership attributes, enabling environment, knowledge of the subject matter, and citizens levels of awareness and participation forms the backgrounds for the four historical perspectives on deliberations. The combination of the four principles, including the right leadership, a stable and reliable system, the ability, and capacity to make decisions, promoting reasoning and enlightened understanding are essential to the deliberative process. As emphasized by Gastil, one deliberative hindrance in the democratic process often is the election process, “provides people with little or no knowledge about whom or what they are voting for.” For example, the 2016 presidential elections are just about two months away and so many people are not certain of and cannot explain the political policies of either political party’s candidate yet. Likewise, issues that will be appearing on the ballots are not tabled for debates. Generally, voting citizens needs adequate time to understand or form informed opinions that will help them make enlightened decisions on the election day. An experience, in my office decisions making processes that have lived up to the ideals of the four principles of deliberation is the situations surrounding the formation of unit councils. Initially, all decisions were characteristically made by the leaders and related to the units as rules, to be followed. Typically, most people use to feel left out and there was little or no commitment to the rules and decisions. Eventually, decision making gradually developed, through various stages until the formation of what is now known as unit councils. The process of decisions making with this unit councils are deliberative because issues tabled for discussions are posted ahead and everyone in the unit is given opportunity to form their opinions on these issues before voting. Though leadership makes the final decisions, the unit council views are taken into focus. Therefore, everyone’s opinions are taken into consideration in decisions making.
At the nonprofit organization where I work, I think it would be beneficial to employ this democratic process because they are severely lacking when it comes to Gastil’s three values.
According to Gastil, Inclusion refers to all adults having equal voting rights. In my organization there are no voting rights at all. Decisions are made by the “higher ups” and only after is the decision then told to the people in the organization. There are never meetings held with everyone present with equal opportunities being given to all employees on decisions being made within the organization.
The same goes for both Participation Opportunities and Enlightened and Understanding. Gastil explains both of these things as members having an equal opportunity to vote on certain issues and to learn about the different issues that exist in the first place. It’s all about the education and about knowing all the pieces in order to then make an informed decision. Once again this is lacking in the organization where I work. Not only do we not get to vote on issues that crop up, most of the time we are unaware of the issues to begin with. A great example of this is a decision that was made in my organization last week that affects many people. We are supposed to be moving to a new building but it’s not ready yet, so the people in charge made a decision to move everyone from one building and split them up. Many people are being affected by this and yet none of us were informed about it until after the decision was already made. My organization can learn from Gastil about the three values of an ideal democratic process in order to better run the organization.
I know many students in the class have responded to this with voting rights. I can write about that too; however, I feel like there is not much for me to write about. As a first generation American, I have not voted for any governmental election and I know it is shocking coming from someone who wants to pursue an MPA degree. I was close to this upcoming election but I got too late and forgot to register. However, I believe Gastil’s ideas of democratic processes is true with making a collective decision as a team in a professional setting. At GrowNYC if there needs to be a meeting for a collective decision about something or a group outing, there will be a staff email sent out with a possible meeting inviting everyone. There is no one left out and everyone feels included. There is usually a Doodle poll sent out about which date works for everyone, and every single staff member has the opportunity to pick a date that works for him or her. It is a perfect participation opportunity for everyone to have a chance to come to the meeting. When the meetings or outings occur, there is an agenda of what needs to be discussed, the director or coordinator speaks about any updates, successes, upcoming events, or issues, the floor is then open for everyone to go around to share their views or updates, and everyone can vote on anything that needs a collective vote. When we do vote on anything, we do have a discussion on our concerns and opinions. This is pretty much having an enlightened understanding to deliberate. For example, some farmer’s markets have these surveys conducted by the University of Delaware. They are studying EBT customers in NYC using their benefits. There is an incentive for these customers doing the survey because they are entered into a lottery to win more health bucks (coupons). We had a doodle poll of what day worked for the managers to come in; we discussed any updates, successes, and issues. The main issue is that many people do not do the survey. We all spoke about the possible reasons why and decided how we should try to improve it. After we all deliberated and voted, we came to a decision that the survey should be translated into various languages and showing SNAP / EBT customers actual images of how simple the survey can be.
It’s interesting how John Gastil describes the democratic process. Upon reading this, I considered myself one of those who struggled to describe democracy. I knew what I expected from democracy, but I couldn’t conceptualize it in a working definition. Now I understand democracy differently. It almost seems like an evolution of some kind, starting from inclusion and ending in enlightened understanding.
And one example that comes to mind that resembles John Gastil’s ideas of democracy is my experience as brother of Alpha Phi Delta Fraternity. It first began with inclusion into Alpha Phi Delta. At this stage I was only a brother by name. I didn’t really understand much what it meant to be part of the fraternity, I just knew I was part of it. Next followed participation in the fraternity. It was a completely different experience all together. As I sat in those meetings voicing my opinions and voting on certain items in the agenda, I began to appreciate the fraternity more. There’s much work that goes behind the scenes, and I was more than glad to help. However even after participation, I was still left unsure what exactly it meant to be a brother. Why was helping out this organization? It was only until I took a leadership role that I began to realize. As president, I was responsible for creating agendas, running meetings, and representing the fraternity. It was tedious work, but it was from this work that I learned what it means to be a Alpha Phi Delta brother. It means to work hard to maintain the sense of brotherhood and offer upcoming members the same great bonding experience we had during the recruitment process.
How this relates to democracy you might ask. I believe similar to my experience with Alpha Phi Delta, people can only truly understand and appreciate democracy once they contain an enlightened understanding. And this something that many citizens lack. Many even sadly do not even participate (vote).
Gastil’s assertion is that the ideal democratic process consists of Inclusion, Participation Opportunities and Enlightened Understanding. This challenges how the United States perceives and operates under the title of “the world’s greatest democracy”.
In the United States, while we pride ourselves on the right to vote and our democratic system, we do not have absolute inclusion. Not only do we have a history of discrimination dating back to the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Suffrage, but the United States still excludes citizens over the age of 18 for various reasons. In the United States you need to be able to meet certain criteria to vote. In New York alone, in order to vote, you must not be on parole for a felony conviction, must live at your current address by October 9th, 2016 and must not be deemed mentally incompetent by a court. These guidelines alone can isolate many disenfranchised citizens, excluding the voice of a percentage of the population.
When it comes to Participation in Opportunities, I think back to my time on jury duty. In theory, the opportunity to participate in the United States justice system and be the upholder of our fellow citizen’s constitutional rights should be a great honor. Instead, jury duty is seen more as a chore or an inconvenience. When I served jury duty years ago, the judge called to her bench any potential jurors who thought they might not be able to serve. Over half of the room lined up to present some reasons and many excuses. Only one of the potential jurors was excused. It has become difficult to get the average citizen to take time from work, family and obligation to serve the judicial system. If we shirk our responsibility to serve, then the judicial system and juries as a whole become less representative of the population and boils down to who is willing to perform their civic duty and/or cannot get out of it.
Enlightened Understanding has become more challenging in the age of Facebook and Twitter. Personally, I know that my Facebook feed consists of about 99% of opinions that align with my own political leanings. That in itself is less likely to cause a lack of understanding than the reality that many news sources are unchecked and inaccurate and then posted as fact on Facebook. We as citizens and aspiring enlightened members of democracy need to continue to question the materials we are consuming and seek reliable information.
John Gastil uses Aristotle’s core definition of democracy, ‘self-rule, rule by all’ (P.5) He also uses Robert Dahl’s example that elaborates the definition ‘just as no human being is perfect, no nation is a pure democracy… the way you can tell them apart is by asking how well a system sizes up when measured by specific criteria: inclusion, effective participation and enlightened understanding.’
On a daily basis, we undergo decision-making process that we have lived up to. Being a member of an HDFC Cooperative, we as shareholders have the ability to nominate and vote for board members. The same goes for voting on policies and any modification of amenities. Being able to voice our issues is a right. These examples go hand in hand with Gastil’s definition of inclusion, effective participation, and enlightened understanding.
Gastil defines inclusion as ‘welcoming into political process all adults who exist within its boundaries.” As for participating opportunities is the ability to express your views on issues and being able to take action like in this case, voting. The Cooperative holds information session that involves tackling issues, which is part of the enlightened understanding.
In chapter 1, Gastil asserts and describes his three tenets of the “ideal democratic process” which are inclusion, participation opportunities and enlightened understanding.
From my experience, in the several jobs I’ve held I cannot relate any of Gastil’s big three tenets to them but I can see how in the United States democratic system they consistently fail to live up to Gastil’s standards.
Inclusion: The United States has a rich history of disenfranchising it’s citizens. Women, minorities etc. Gastil writes “first, a system must satisfy the criterion of inclusion by welcoming into its political process all adults who exists within its boundaries” and this continues to be challenged here in the US. For example, according to the Brennan Center for Justice in 2016 15 states will have new voting restrictions in place for the first time ever in a presidential election.
Up next, Participation Opportunties:
I am going to try to connect how Citizens United has skewed aspect of Gastil’s definition of participation opportunities. “Putting issues on the agenda, expressing those views and voting on them directly or indirectly” is what Gastil loosely describes as participation opportunities, but when a small contingent of wealthy and powerful citizens decide all this and other citizens are left out in the cold then Gastil’s ideal falls flat on its face.
Finally, we arrive to enlightened understanding:
Perhaps I am just cynical and distrusting of my society, but us Americans are most likely to know what is going on with Kim Kardashian than anything going on in political circles. In order for citizens to have “enlightened understanding” they must be willing to do their civic duty and engage. I believe the systems and tools are in place to do just that but folks aren’t taking advantage of it or simply refuse to do so.