Codesigning Better Futures With Citizens

(Illustration by Gracia Lam) 

In many countries, the dialogue between citizens and the ruling class is dysfunctional—if it exists at all. At best, citizens can influence democracy through their vote and street protests. Otherwise, they are relegated to mere spectators of a game from which they feel excluded.

Perhaps it should be no surprise, then, that populist leaders have recently won national elections in Turkey, the United States, Brazil, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and many other countries. More often than not, these leaders have relied on fear-based rhetoric and scapegoated minority communities. Unfortunately, the increased pace of news cycles and the rise of social media favors superficiality and sensationalism over in-depth exploration and open debate on complex questions.

The challenge democratic politicians face today is to reengage with citizens in a constructive and meaningful dialogue that allows nuanced views to emerge, translates into tangible actions from policymakers, and produces positive outcomes in people’s lives. By opening space for public discussion where people can feel heard and respected, democratic societies can not only achieve better results, but also restore a level of trust in institutions and a sense of belonging to communities that are dangerously crumbling.

Many nonprofit organizations are exploring participatory democracy around the world. Through my consultancy, Openfield, which specializes in cross-sector collaboration and systemic change, I have advised several such efforts. They illustrate how countries can renew democracy and channel the tide of populist anger to better outcomes.

Three Initiatives

Let’s look at three participatory democratic initiatives that illustrate how they work.

Singapore | In 2011, Singaporeans became increasingly dissatisfied with rising inequality, rapid demographic transformations, and infrastructural strain in a crowded city. The general election that year yielded the worst result the incumbent party had ever achieved since Singapore’s independence. The next year, the government launched Our Singapore Conversation (OSC). The initiative had three goals: identify solutions that could be implemented quickly; regain Singaporeans’ trust by encouraging civic participation; and rebuild a unifying national narrative in an increasingly individualistic society.

The government ran the initiative via an OSC secretariat, but designed and facilitated it so that citizens and communities could take ownership. The process began with a representative survey of 4,000 citizens to identify problems worth a larger public conversation. Then, more than 47,000 people participated in 660 community events across the country. The conversation was extended online, through extensive use of social media platforms, and overseas with the active help of their diplomatic network for citizens abroad.

The first phase of the process was open-ended and aimed to raise diverse views and ideas over five months. In a second stage, the conversations were structured around five broad aspirations—opportunities, purpose, assurance, spirit, and trust—and clustered into 12 themes to channel more focused and solution-oriented conversations.

As a result, the government launched some profound policy changes in three areas: housing (for example, greater access to financial support for first-time buyers), health care (such as universal and lifelong medical coverage), and education (including redesign of performance measurement). In addition, the approach restored trust in government and strengthened social capital by fostering dialogue and empathy.

New Zealand | In 2018, the New Zealand minister for education decided to launch a 30-year reform of the education system to apply his government’s priorities around social justice and equity. He believed that the foundation for the new system should be designed by citizens and communities. The result was Ko¯rero Ma¯tauranga (Education Conversation), a year-long series of participatory activities for citizens from all walks of life.

The ministry team created a broad variety of options. Altogether, around 45,000 people contributed, first through an online questionnaire, and then through hundreds of small, medium, and large events organized by and/or for the communities.

Its initial framing focused on long-term aspirations and topics under rubrics such as “ways of learning,” “ways of teaching,” and “living self-fulfilling lives.” The intent was to challenge conventional thinking and uncover the diversity of perspectives and experiences around complex topics before rushing to solutions. In the second stage, the conversation moved into more targeted consultation and codesign sessions on specific topics.

The level of participation on- and offline was unprecedented in the country. Hundreds of ad hoc initiatives emerged from across the sector and led to the formulation of a new vision for the system as a whole. The ministry used the ideas produced for its ongoing programs. They included reforms of vocational education and school property, reviews of various curricula and national exams, new strategies for tertiary education, and early learning. As the reform moved from the listening stage to program design, the minister vowed to systematize codesign for education policymaking.

France | In late 2018, the French people rose up in massive and sometimes violent protests against what they considered an unfair system that favored the wealthiest. Not even €10 billion ($11.15 billion) in social measures promised by the government soothed the anger of the so-called yellow vest movement. So the government decided to launch a “Great Debate” (Grand Débat) to create an open space to air frustrations and aspirations, and to tease out the issues behind many of the protesters’ slogans.

The government created a digital platform to facilitate the organization of community-led events and to collect input from citizens. The debates covered four themes: tax and public spending; ecological transition; democracy and citizenship; and institutions and public services. Citizens could express themselves through relatively closed-ended questionnaires (one per theme), through open contributions that everyone could comment on and respond to, or by uploading the minutes of the community events they organized. Some members of government and Parliament joined local debates.

The French people made more than 1.9 million contributions in two months and held more than 10,000 community meetings in France and abroad with expatriates. To analyze the vast amount of data produced, the government hired two firms. The entire process was supervised by a trans-partisan ethics committee, composed of five members independent from the government and recognized for their public engagement. They acted as custodians of the process and didn’t hesitate to criticize the government when officials interfered in the conversations.

The government then reported back to the nation on what they heard and what they decided to do with it. Some ideas were put aside deliberately—for example, mandatory voting—while others would move forward, including: greater authority and autonomy for local government; creation of a citizen assembly for climate and biodiversity; easier access to citizen-driven referendums; and targeted tax cuts for some low-income groups.

Lessons

From my experience with the three initiatives, I suggest four lessons for establishing the best conditions for success for participative democracy initiatives.

First, create a genuine opportunity for participants to engage in the process and influence outcomes. Randomly selected groups of citizens are in many ways wiser and more focused on the common good than activists and interest groups. Bypass intermediaries and establish direct dialogue with citizens to hear their unfiltered views. Ask them open-ended questions or give them problems to solve rather than solutions to provide feedback on.

Demonstrate genuine openness about the outcome from the beginning and make upfront commitments about their implementation. While political leaders may find the effort risky, relinquishing control is a condition for achieving trust in the process.

Second, create a context for the conversation and let the public take ownership of it. Begin by establishing a clear purpose for the exercise. Set a limited number of engagement principles while remaining open about the journey; be ready to learn on the fly and adapt to the public response. Create a loose framework to structure and support the conversation but leave enough space and freedom for people to take ownership and surface what matters most to them. Throughout the dialogic phase, resist the temptation to control the conversation; simply step back and listen.

Third, make it easy to engage. Create a safe and transparent space for dialogue where people feel comfortable expressing themselves authentically, even on issues they may find painful. Success depends on the collective ability to acknowledge and empathize with different points of view. Create mechanisms to show participants that they are being genuinely heard and respected.

Set up a publicly accessible digital platform to facilitate contributions at scale, and prepare to analyze the large amounts of data it produces. But make sure to balance online channels with an offline, community-driven series of events to allow for deeper and more meaningful contributions across the country.

Fourth, turn outcomes into results. Translate conclusions into decisions, projects, experimentations, or policies. In your communication, create a clear line of sight between the codesign process and the follow-up actions, so that people can connect their contribution to the overall outcome.

In all the cases I have worked on or come across, I have found that a transparent and authentic codesign process has benefited their initiators. The solutions that have emerged are, on the whole, reasonable, pragmatic, grounded in common sense, and most importantly, understood and owned by participants. Citizens also developed a renewed trust in their elected representatives and an increased level of engagement in the community as they feel listened to, valued, and respected. To restore democratic vitality worldwide, we should further the full participation of all citizens in these ways.

Read more stories by Philippe Coullomb.