Democratic Theory Seminar: on Ontario Citizens' Assembly

This is a brief observation report on the meeting of the Citizens’ Assembly (CA) which took place on this past Saturday the November 25^th, focusing on the presentation of the Working group on the Representation of Women and Other Underrepresented Groups. I post this on the heels of my peer Glaucon’s engaging report regarding the same topic. His report focuses on the non-functionality of the CA’s working group process, using Amy Lang’s observations of British Columbia’s CA experience as a point of reference. What I would like to do in this post is offer ways in which the working group could have been more effective, ways in which this concerns the nature of the CA, and what type suggestion of electoral reform I think this concern should point towards. I suggest that the concept of “listening,” as Melissa Williams and Iris Young use it, can be very instructive in this process.

One of the presenters gave an interesting analogy for the problem of groups underrepresented in politics, likening the situation to a broken bone. As she aptly put, the situation is, like a broken bone, problematic and undesirable, raising the question of whether or not we should let the bone heal on its own, at the risk of it not healing properly, or put a cast on it which will heal it correctly, but at the expense of unnaturalness. While underlying this presentation was a certain assumption that some type of “cast” is necessary, I was disappointed that a) there was not any clear statement of why the broken bone was a problem, and b) there was not any recommendation as to what type of cast should be utilized. As Glaucon observed, “the working group’s presentation did not have any concrete recommendations for the Assembly. Instead, they…put forward ideas they felt the Assembly should consider.” I would have liked to have seen an articulation of a strong claim in regards to the two points raised above, as it probably would have been more effective in stimulating productive discussion and debate, more so than merely putting ideas or considerations forward to be thought about. Before delving into how the working group could have gone about this better, or what I would have liked to hear them say, I think it is important to consider why this was the case.

In making their case for the considering ways of equalizing representation of women and marginalized groups through the electoral system, the working group pointed out that a more equal degree of participation will bring a larger diversity of views and perspectives to the political table, enriching the political process and making it more legitimate. While this is an important point to be made, and I strongly agree with it, I would have liked to hear reasons given which are not purely instrumental to the general public. I was frustrated that there was no mention of the good it would do for the marginalized groups themselves. It seems to me that the most obvious reason for addressing the disproportionate representation of many groups is also the simplest: the sheer fact of discrimination and subordination. Yes, women will bring important voices and opinions to parliament, but why not also consider the structural, legal, and societal forces which continue to restrict women from attaining political office? If this is made clear, we can see the rectifying of this situation not as something which will simply “enrich” politics, but which is intrinsically necessary for equal and democratic politics.[i]

The hesitation on the part of the working group to be more straightforward and forthcoming with clear and pointed arguments might come from two places. The first could be that there was simply no consensus within the working group as to whether or not the issue should be addressed through electoral reform, and what type of reform would work best. If this was the case I think instead of presenting apolitical and unopinionated considerations, it might have been better to present the diversity of the group’s opinions, as they suggested earlier, with each of their supporting arguments and rationales. The second reason could have been from a fear of being seen as pursuing personal-interests in some way or form. It should be noted that the majority of the working group were women, with one man who appeared to be of East-Asian descent. Perhaps there was a feeling, and quite possibly a fully justified one, that if they were to make more pointed suggestions and arguments regarding marginalized-group representation it would be classified as “special-interest” and therefore illegitimate for the deliberative forum, regardless of whether or not good reasons were presented for it. This could be the same reason why there were absolutely no arguments made, either for or against, which were based on personal experience. If a woman were to point to her perspective as a woman in regards to her claim about representation of women in politics, it would most certainly be seen as privatizing the scope of discussion. However this seems counterintuitive, in that “what women think” should play some sort of roll into actions made on behalf of women’s participation.

This is where the act of “listening” comes to play. Melissa Williams, quoting Iris Young, describes this process:

While everyday discourse about justice certainly makes claims, these are not theorems to be demonstrated in a self-enclosed system. They are instead calls, pleas, claims upon some people by others. Rational reflection on justice begins in…hearing, in heeding a call, rather than in….mastering a state of affairs, however ideal.[ii]

When applied to deliberative forums, listening suggests that what is good or just for all should not be conceived simply through reflection or deduction, but through reception; experience and individual perspectives should be incorporated and considered as types of self-understanding crucial to understanding a more overarching sense of “good” or “just.” Similarly, the perspectives and experiences of women, Aboriginals, visible minorities, etc, in regards to their representation in Parliament should be welcomed in the CA as empirical examples of perception as opposed to self-interested argumentation.

Furthermore, I would argue that listening should be considered when thinking about electoral reform and the representation of marginalized groups. One CA member asked the question of whether it is know if women statistically tend to vote more for women than not. The response was that there is no tendency for women to do this, as they tend to vote according to ideological preference. One member of the working group made the good point that this often has to do with the lack of choice: if a woman wants to vote for the NDP, in the current single member plurality system she can only vote for whoever the NDP places in running. While the discrimination within political parties is an important issue to consider in this topic, I lack both the space and knowledge to speak well on it. What I want to point out, however, is that the aforementioned fact that women tend to vote according to ideology as opposed to sex points to the heterogeneous perspectives of marginalized group representation within those marginalized groups: some prioritize it higher than others, for example. This problematizes more rigid solutions like quotas or consociational models. I would suggest that some system of proportional representation would be best in that it allows citizens to define what constituency they belong to, be it according to ideology, gender, or geography. In this way the electoral system is structurally capable of listening to groups and individuals self-understandings and adapt accordingly. For example, women who prioritize the representation of women can vote according to that, with more options to choose from, and women who prioritize ideological representation can vote according to that.

In these ways, by incorporating the act of listening into both the structure of deliberation, and as a focus of deliberation, the CA might be able to better include citizens belonging to marginalize groups. Not only that, the ways in which they are included will be more reflective of the self-constitutions they possess.

# posted by Thrasymachus @ 6:32 p.m.