Restoring trust in public discourse and respect for citizens through digital debate
For several weeks now, we’ve been hearing about the public debate aimed at reconciling certain political factions and citizens who are experiencing deep frustration. But in the end, what exactly is a debate?
What are the rules? What do they imply? What are the expectations? And what can digital technology contribute to a public debate?
Lionel Torres, University of Montpellier; Jean Sallantin, University of Montpellier and Michel Robert, University of Montpellier
It is worth noting 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 serve as a genuine tool for governance. The goal is not to turn it into a tool for participatory democracy, but rather to make it a genuine means of generating concrete proposals that serve the interests of all.
Trust and respect must be the cornerstones of these new forms of debate. While in-person debate remains essential, the Internet has made digital debate accessible to everyone. But aren’t social media platforms, ultimately, an uncontrolled source of debate, with their share of both good and bad practices?
What if debate could help us disentangle reason, emotion, and manipulation? For Erasmus, it was madness to imagine that reason could prevail over anger and lust. Yet if digital debate serves to reveal the truth behind debatable arguments, then we might be better able to distinguish rational arguments from angry outbursts and the manipulations of stakeholders eager to defend their interests.
Science brings its own forms of truth to the debate
In Athens, two opposing views on debate existed. Plato used debate as a teaching tool, while Aristotle used logic to counter the rhetoric of the Sophists, who sought to profit from debate.
As part of her role in supporting and advising on the “Great National Debate,” Chantal Jouanno, president of the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP), argues that public debate, rather than serving as an educational tool for politicians, should be a mechanism for listening. The question of how to balance active listening with education is a real one, as the two are inseparable.
Scientists have always embraced debate: in scientific practice, debate is a standard feature of all doctoral thesis defenses—whether in philosophy, law, mathematics, physics, or medicine. Since these defenses are open to the public, one need only attend one to appreciate the diversity of their procedures.
Scientists engage in in-depth discussions of 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 regarding what they consider debatable. Thus, science (in the broad sense) has always provided the only defensible forms of truth in these debates.
Debate and Big Data in Decision-Making
A major debate brings together a very large number of discussions and participants. Consultations, public hearings, discussions, advocacy efforts, 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.” Consequently, there are millions of individual debates.
This results in the formalization of thousands of political decisions at various levels. But is it ultimately possible to manage and truly take these numbers into account? Aren't we facing a "big data" of decisions?
Digital technology should help those responsible for facilitating discussions to coordinate them, involve participants in the decision-making process, protect participants’ privacy, and ensure the accuracy and integrity of what is said.
Yet debate is, by its very nature, uncontrollable, and it does not necessarily play into the hands of political authorities, who are often tempted to channel it. It is precisely the sum of everyone’s contributions that constitutes the debate. No one has control over it, because everyone influences it through their contributions—and their silence. Debate defies the constraints of time, as participants can revive past discussions.
It is therefore essential that everyone be able, from a technical standpoint, to retain ownership of their ideas, develop them further, and choose when and how to contribute. It is therefore imperative that the structures of the debate foster confidence in the individual.
Generally, flawed debates are directly and factually identified through specific complaints from participants. These flawed democratic debates also come to light for reasons beyond the control of citizens:
- they are not carried out at the appropriate levels, which consist of local discussions—in communities, at the regional, national, and international levels;
- they do not concern large-scale projects affecting citizens' daily lives in any way;
- they do not open the door to other forms of association and participation in public policy;
- They do not lead to a change in the behavior of civil servants and policymakers.
Is digital technology a cure or a poison?
It is dangerous to use digital debate tools without first clarifying their positive or harmful effects on citizens and society. We can clearly see the potential damage caused by tools such as social media.
No new aircraft or drug is brought to market without undergoing a series of tests and receiving approval from independent agencies. Curiously, the engineering of digital public discourse is not currently subject to oversight by any agency, even though we have already seen the dangerous consequences of digital technology on democratic life.
There are many examples of voters being manipulated through social media to influence their voting decisions, such as the controversy surrounding the use of social media during the last U.S. presidential election.
In the future, 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 in-person and online discussions structured? How are summaries and consensus reached?
- How are the reasons behind anger and manipulation unpacked? How are citizens invited to participate in these debates?
- How are trust, participation, and creativity fostered in the debate? How is knowledge shared among scientists, administrators, lawyers, policymakers, and citizens?
- How does this tool improve participants' critical thinking skills?
- How does digital technology affect the status of testimonies from citizen whistleblowers?
- How are arguments assigned a form of truth?
- How is the content of the debates made public and defended?
- How can we revisit past debates?
- How can we verify all of the participants' contributions?
Identify digital tools that are supported by well-established institutions
For the major national debate, the CNDP proposes six mechanisms for in-person and remote debates, without ruling out the use of others. It offers to make its guarantors and commissioners available for the debates. It also proposes a platform to record all of them. The CNDP requests that the summary of the debates distinguish between the assessment, the vision, and the proposals. It recommends a circular drafting process for the interim reports prepared at various levels to improve the outcome.
But this major debate can only truly succeed if it involves institutions that foster an environment of trust and active participation, while also 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 part of a network and are proficient in digital tools. As part of their work, blockchain technology could be used to ensure, both locally and technically, that everyone retains ownership of their ideas and control over their contributions to a discussion.
Universities are also established throughout the country to create and disseminate specialized knowledge tailored to local discussions, and media libraries are close to citizens to help them access research materials suited to their needs—and why not serve as venues for debate as well!
With such institutions in place, why not launch action research projects to develop digital tools that foster trust and citizen participation—tools that, by ensuring respect for citizens’ ideas, sharpen their critical thinking, mobilize their creativity, and draw on the creativity of others?
Let’s reignite the debate, based on mutual trust and respect, and with a collective commitment to bringing about profound change in our society so that we can have a say 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.