Restoring trust in public debate and respect for citizens through digital debate
For several weeks now, we have been hearing about the public debate to reconcile certain political strata and citizens experiencing strong frustrations. But ultimately, what is a debate?
What are the rules? What does this entail? What are the expectations? And what can digital technology bring to a public debate?
Lionel Torres, University of Montpellier; Jean Sallantin, University of Montpellier and Michel Robert, University of Montpellier
It is worth remembering that this debate has been going on for a very long time in our societies (see below), but its current form does not meet the needs of genuine deliberation, socialization, and education in our contemporary societies.
Today, debate is set to regain its full meaning and usefulness. It must be a genuine tool of governance. It is not a question of turning it into a tool of participatory democracy, but rather a means of producing concrete proposals that serve everyone.
Trust and respect must be the foundations of these new forms of debate. While face-to-face debate remains essential, digital debate is made accessible to everyone via the Internet. But aren't social networks ultimately an uncontrolled source of debate, with their share of good and bad practices?
What if debate could help us untangle reason, emotion, and manipulation? For Erasmus, it was madness to imagine that reason could prevail over anger and lust. However, if digital debate characterizes the forms of truth in debatable arguments, then we could better distinguish between arguments based on reason, angry remarks, and manipulation by stakeholders eager to defend their interests.
Science brings its forms of truth to debates
In Athens, two opposing views of debate existed. Plato used debate as a teaching tool, while Aristotle used logic to counter the rhetoric of the Sophists, who sought to exploit debate for their own gain.
In her role providing support and advice on the "Great National Debate," Chantal Jouanno, president of the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP), defends the idea that public debate, rather than being a tool for educating politicians, should be a means of listening. The question of combining listening and education is a real one, as the two are inseparable.
Scientists have always embraced debate: in scientific practice, debate is used, for example, in all doctoral thesis defenses—whether in philosophy, law, mathematics, physics, or medicine. As these are open to the public, one need only attend to appreciate the diversity of their protocols.
Scientists engage in in-depth discussions about data, principles, hypotheses, axioms, events, phenomena, theories, and laws, all of which are subject to their scrutiny. In science/society debates, scientists prove, refute, and determine the forms of statements that are debatable to them. Thus, science (in the broad sense) has always provided the only defensible forms of truth in debates.
Debate and big data in decision-making
A major debate brings together a large number of discussions and participants. Consultations, public consultations, discussions, advocacy, and public inquiries involve citizens and scientists when it comes to the distribution of water, education, health, security, trade, justice, land use planning, and so on. On such topics, there are billions of potential "debaters." There are therefore millions of specific debates.
This has led to the formalization of thousands of political decisions at different levels. But is it ultimately possible to manage and truly take these numbers into account? Are we not faced with big data in decision-making?
Digital technology must help those responsible for debates to coordinate them, involve them in decision-making in preparation, respect the privacy of participants, and guarantee the truth and integrity of what is said.
However, debate is by nature uncontrollable and does not necessarily play into the hands of political powers, which are often tempted to channel it. It is the sum of everyone's contributions that constitutes the debate. No one has control over it because everyone influences it through their interventions and their lack of intervention. Debate plays with time because participants can reactivate previous debates.
It is therefore necessary for everyone to be able to retain ownership of their ideas, develop them, and choose when and how to intervene. It is also imperative that the debate mechanisms ensure confidence in him.
Generally, poor debates are directly and factually reported by specific complaints from participants. These poor democratic debates also come to light for reasons unrelated to citizens:
- they are not practiced at the appropriate levels, which consist of local debates, in the territories, in municipalities, at the regional, national, and international levels;
- they do not concern large-scale projects affecting the daily lives of citizens, whoever they may be;
- they do not open up other forms of association and participation in public policy;
- they do not lead to a change in the behavior of administrators and politicians.
Is digital technology a cure or a poison?
It is dangerous to use digital debate tools without specifying their positive or harmful effects on citizens and society. We can clearly see the potential damage that tools such as social media can cause.
You don't put a new airplane or a new drug on the market without a battery of tests and the approval of independent agencies. Curiously, the engineering of digital public debate is not currently subject to the control of any agency, even though we have already seen the dangerous consequences of digital technology's use on democratic life.
There are numerous examples of voters being manipulated via social media to influence their voting decisions, such as the controversy surrounding the use of social media during the last US presidential election.
Tomorrow, an agency will need to be tasked with approving public debate tools by asking their designers to answer a series of questions, including the following:
- How are face-to-face debates and digital debates structured? How are summaries and consensus reached?
- How are the reasons, anger, and manipulation sorted out? How are citizens invited to participate in the debates?
- How are trust, participation, and creativity fostered in the debate? How is knowledge shared between scientists, administrators, lawyers, politicians, and citizens?
- How does this tool improve participants' critical thinking skills?
- What status does digital technology give to the testimonies of whistleblowers?
- How is a form of truth attributed to arguments?
- How is the content of the debates made public and defended?
- How can we revisit past debates?
- How can all participants' contributions be authenticated?
Qualify digital tools that have the support of well-established institutions
For the great national debate, the CNDP proposes six mechanisms for in-person and remote debates, without ruling out the use of others. It proposes to make its guarantors and commissioners available for the debates. It also proposes a platform to record them all. The CNDP requests that the debriefing of the debates distinguish between diagnosis, vision, and proposals. It recommends a circular drafting of interim reports written at different levels to improve the outcome.
But this great debate can only truly work if it mobilizes institutions that foster trust and active participation, while demonstrating creativity. These institutions must be independent of the organizers.
For example, notaries practice their profession throughout the country as trusted third parties. They are networked and proficient in digital tools. As part of their mission, blockchains could be used to guarantee locally and technically that everyone retains ownership of their ideas and control over their contributions to a debate.
Universities are also established everywhere to create and transmit specialized knowledge adapted to local debates, and media libraries are close to citizens to give them support in accessing documentary studies adapted to their needs, and why not places for debate!
With such institutions in place, why not launch action research to develop digital tools that promote trust and citizen participation, enabling citizens who are confident that their ideas will be respected to sharpen their critical thinking skills, mobilize their creativity, and benefit from that of others?
Let us reopen the debate, with trust and respect for everyone, and with a collective desire to bring about profound change in our society so that we can take part in the decisions of tomorrow.
Lionel Torres, Professor of Microelectronics, University of Montpellier; Jean Sallantin, Emeritus Research Director at the CNRS, University of Montpellier and Michel Robert, Professor of Microelectronics, University of Montpellier
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.