When hijackers slammed passenger jets into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon
and a Pennsylvania field, killing thousands, a horrified world witnessed the
effects of a catastrophic communications failure.
It was, said Tom Gallagher, an extreme example of what happens when two opposing
sides have no common "start point" from which to craft an agreement.
"It’s tough to build an understanding between a 21st- century nation
and someone engaged in a 7th-century-style jihad (‘holy war’),"
said Gallagher, a specialist in professional and organizational development
with the Oregon State University Extension Service.
Yet most societies—even ones as ethnically, racially and ideologically
diverse as the one in the United States—can make decisions to change if
there is some basic agreement on what is beneficial, said Martin Goebel, director
of Sustainable Northwest.
The Portland-based, not-for-profit organization works to build partnerships
that promote environmentally sound economic development in Northwest communities.
"We as a diverse society can accomplish the necessary tasks to achieve
sustainability," Goebel said. "It is an amazingly simple, but creatively
complex task."
Goebel and Gallagher each described the process as five steps:
1. Open up a free-flowing conversation to define and clarify what values are
at stake.
2. Understand the context and agree on what is already known about the issue.
3. Define alternatives to entrenched positions. For example in Klamath Falls,
the water issue and its solutions are more complex than the binary simplicity
of fish versus farmers, Gallagher said.
4. Define which values matter most to the individuals involved.
5. Make sure all those involved are included in decision-making.
"Often what happens is that people find their values aren’t all that
different," Gallagher said.
Another caution: Go slow, said Ed Weeks, a public policy expert and director
of the University of Oregon’s Center for Deliberative Democracy. Change
is frightening enough without speeding it up beyond a person’s ability
to absorb it.
While Weeks agreed that the way toward change is to include many, listen and
distill the best of what is learned, the individuals involved have to care what
happens.
Otherwise, people may simply choose to tune out the message and opt out of the
process, a phenomenon known as "rational ignorance."
The democratic process has remained largely unchanged in the 225-year history
of the United States: Citizens with an issue come before councils, committees
or elected officials and offer their testimony, according to Weeks.
Introducing technological changes that would encourage citizen comment through
phone messages, internet chat rooms or e-mail messages would be a step in the
right direction, he said.
Not knowing which message to believe is another problem. Many interest groups
are engaged full time in influencing public opinion and decision-making. Other
citizens may have a hard time separating truth from hype.
To clarify such issues, the state of Oregon actually set up a certification
program for products such as lumber. Wood products that earn certification must
be made with the most sustainable forest practices much in the way that "Dolphin
safe" on a tuna can means the tuna were caught in nets from which dolphins
can escape.
However, the democratic process has built-in roadblocks to the kind of mass
participation necessary to initiate the large-scale societal and business changes
that will move us toward sustainability, said Oregon representative Lane Shetterly
(R-Dallas).
Shetterly, a lawyer, is in his third term in the Oregon house, where he is known
for his deliberative, respectful approach to problem-solving.
Part of any problem, he said, is entrenched cynicism. Large blocs of the electorate
don’t think they are really necessary to the democratic process anymore.
"You need public policy makers willing to listen and you need
an informed citizenry to make decisions," Shetterly said. "You have
lots of people frustrated with government at all levels. They may not have made
the effort to become participants in the process.
"I’m hopeful that what we have seen (since the terrorist attack on
America on Sept. 11, 2001) won’t change the process that we have too much,"
he said. But "… there is always room for improvement on both sides.
Decision-makers can be more mindful of citizen input; our citizens can make
better use of the opportunities (to participate) that are afforded them."