Building Consensus and Deliberation in a Polarised World 

Part 2: https://jjplace.co.uk/?p=333

Part 3: https:/jjplace.co.uk/?p=344

A cornerstone of democracy is finding consensus among different views. This has actually been consistently eroded over the years, in part due to social media (among wider, structural economic and political factors which is another topic for another time) because we live in bubbles, we want clear, black and white narratives, ideological purity and perfection, and refuse to ever consider we could be wrong. 

The point of democracy, especially deliberative democracy, is that different individuals, different groups, can find some form of consensus for political actions, that are, broadly, acceptable to most people.

Compromise does require giving up something, yes, but the process enables everyone to be heard, and a solution established that satisfies the most pressing demands. Further, while some deliberative democrats may advocate democracy over rights, which I reject, generally there should be some consensus of certain rights and freedoms that are inalienable. 

For example, let us imagine we have two groups: farmers and urban industrialists. Industrialists want to cut subsidy to the farmers, because they want lower taxation, but farmers depend on this subsidy to provide food and goods to their nation. In an ideal, deliberative democracy, both groups will be able to voice their concerns and desires, and slowly, but surely, a consensus can be reached that may not be everything each group wants, but works. Perhaps modifying certain subsidies, perhaps incentivising industrialists to purchase from local farmers in return for cut subsidies or lower taxes for the industrialists. 

Now, however, people do not do this. Groups demand their desired outcome, dismiss any objections, and insult the other groups. Consider the issue with the farmers in Poland and across Europe. The EU messed up by failing to prepare for Ukrainian grain to enter the markets, and now Ukraine suffers, farmers are angry (and manipulated by russia- threatening stability), and goods are struggling to flow. We see no way to find a position that can take on board some of the valid concern that, at least initially, were raised by the farmers, and ensure Ukraine’s grain can get out of Ukraine. 

In other places we see the culture wars leading to people accusing each other of being “liberal cucks” or “brainwashed fascists”. Governments will choose a policy that ignores any valid concerns, buying into the culture wars (looking at you UK Conservatives) or do nothing to avoid annoying anyone (looking at you US Democrats). There is no deliberation, no processes which uphold input, and the public square, social media, is isolating each other, facilitating further polarisation. 

We also, seemingly controversially, have no consensus that certain rights and freedoms, or goods for that matter, should be upheld no matter what, seeing far right people attack crucial freedoms for minorities, conservatives destroying key institutions that ensure the very function of a capitalist country, or the left going into a doomer anti-human, anti-civilisation viewpoint rejecting the core commitments of a liberal democracy. 

Some respond “I don’t want to debate with X”, and while some extreme groups should, in my opinion, not be treated as worthy people to find compromise with, this doesn’t apply to everyone. Is the slightly conservative 50 year old who merely is a bit sceptical of higher taxation the same as the raging nazi who wants racial purity and to ban women from voting? No. Clearly not. 

So, what the hell does this have to do with my usual topics? How does this apply to Ukraine? To the internet? Well, let’s see shall we. 

1. We need to learn to hear the other side out
2. We need to speak to our audiences 
3. We need to understand the core values we should all accept as inviolable 
4. We need to call out the threats 

These are the four key points I want you, the reader, to take on board. This applies to the internet and fighting disinfo, this applies to creating a better democracy, this applies to what we should demand of our politicians. I will now unpack them. 

1. We need to learn to hear the other side out 

Now, disclaimer. This does not mean EVERYONE. This is not the unreasonable. We do not need to listen to nazis, to tankies, to state propagandists. No. We need to listen to the reasonable. The Polish farmers who aren’t even farmers and probably being instructed by the Kremlin? No. But, have you read the demands of the EU farmer protests? They are not unreasonable. We have to hear them out and find a compromise. There are many normal farmers worried about not just Ukrainian grain but a wide range of issues affecting them. Farmers bring us food. We can’t deny that. You can advocate for them to diversify, you can take the market stance, sure. But they exist, as a group, and to ignore them totally is not only risking them getting more radical, but also against the idea of democracy. 

It applies geopolitically as well. While many of Ukraine’s allies have been useless, condescending, and harmful at times, Ukraine has had very few allies historically. Poland has been a great ally. While, again, many of us are angry at the protests at the border, we should not insult the whole country. We have to work with them and chart a path, together, for victory, not to isolate Ukraine further because we never took on board their interests alongside Ukraine’s. It’s got to be a quid pro quo. That’s politics. Is it always fair? No. But we cannot expect a country to ignore its own farmers, when they are important for their elections. We cannot insult the Polish government and many Poles who have done so much for Ukraine. I’m not saying don’t be angry. I’m saying, be smart. We can and should call out allies if they falter, but, we also have to recognise their needs and interests are equally valid. Again, I am not apologising for some of the abhorrent behaviour of the protestors, I do not think it is a smart time for them to protest, but if we can address some of the valid concerns of the farmers, set up a system to get grain out of Ukraine without undermining Polish farmers, we could end this blockade. I don’t see another way. The EU does have a lot to answer for this, and should step up, but we have to work to find this solution that works for everyone. 

2. We need to speak to our audiences 

Going back to internet discourse, political circles tend to be in bubbles. In the west, well, the UK and the USA, we are eroding third spaces as well, thanks to impossible conditions for affordable businesses like pubs where people can meet and interact, the lsos of public spaces, i.e parks, libraries, and other spaces, so it menas people tend not to interact with people from different backgrounds. Internet makes it worse. It’s why internet communists are so terminally online and have a warped understanding of reality. Their bubble reinforces their nonsense. The same for MAGA, and even moderate views. 

The thing is, what the full scale invasion of Ukraine has done to an extent, and movements like NAFO especially, is unified certain people across the political spectrum. This is good for finding common ground. I have said before it is a great example of consensus building. However, we are missing a trick. Conservative fellas should speak to conservatives outside of NAFO. Left wing fellas should talk to the left. Use their language, use their discourse, and build solidarity and show them why they should support Ukraine. We have to work within this isolated world we are in. This can in turn help build bridges across ideologies as well. 

We need to understand the core values we should all accept as inviolable 

Freedom of speech/expression and religion, the freedom to live freely regardless of sexuality or gender, the ability to pursue your particular life goals, so long as they do not harm others, are cornerstones of a just and free society. We have to recognise these, and others. If we do not, we risk putting them for debate and extremists, of all persuasions, can target them. We see this in the USA with book bans, anti-choice legislation, we see in the UK with bans on protests, we clearly see this in places like russia, with no regard for rights and freedoms. Some things are non-negotiable. But identifying them, while we may all intuitively believe in some, we have to form a consensus on what they precisely are. This will involve protecting freedom of people we dislike, or hate, but that is democracy. There is of course the paradox of tolerance, so certain views can dismiss, but we should not undermine these freedoms, but rather reach out and engage with these groups to build consensus about rights. The right for a devout christian, muslim or jew is protected by the same freedom for a member of the LGBT community. Take one groups’ freedoms away, we risk taking everyone’s away. Everyone must understand that. 

4. We need to call out the threats 

Finally, those who oppose the freedoms of others, those who threaten democracy, those who want to harm others, must be challenged. The anger we place at the other groups who have reasonable ideas of what they want in life, who have concerns not even heard out, because we live in our own bubble which we decide is correct, should be better placed at those who actively want to destroy liberal democracy. The far right, the far left, religious extremists be their Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, whatever, have to be called out, although society has to educate and find ways to combat extremism as well. But if we do not even identify the real threats, and call everyone we disagree with as an extremist, we devalue the ability to actually see the real threats. Again, a slightly conservative person is not the same as a fascist. A moderately religious person who wants to make sure they can teach their kids their religion is not the same as those who want to enact their religion onto others. We can disagree, we can and should debate with the reasonable, and find a way to build consensus. That is democracy. But those who are actively against everything that allows for a free society to work, must be identified and challenged. We should call out the authoritarian nations as real threats, not just our neighbour when they enact a policy we don’t like. There is a difference and we have to see that. 

Ultimately, we have to build consensus, hear the reasonable out, challenge the unreasonable and educate them, and protect key rights. On the internet, we have to see when a disagreement is reasonable (does it operate with a core understanding of truth, of certain freedoms being valuable and respected no matter what, does this person respect the rights of others to live their lives) or unreasonable (does this person want to completely force their world view onto others, do they hate democracy, etc). The former, should be debated respectfully. The latter, challenged and called out. Or bonked, to use the NAFO terminology.