Restoring trust in public debate and respect for citizens through digital debate

For several weeks now, we've been hearing about public debate as a means of reconciling certain political strata with citizens who are experiencing considerable frustration. But what exactly is a debate?

What are the rules? What emanates from them? What are the expectations? And what can digital technology contribute to citizen debate?

Lionel Torres, University of MontpellierJean Sallantin, University of Montpellier and Michel Robert, University of Montpellier

It's worth remembering that debate has existed in our societies for a very long time (see below), but its current form doesn't meet the needs of our contemporary societies for genuine deliberation, socialization and education.

Today, the debate is set to regain its full meaning and usefulness. It must be a genuine tool of governance. It's not a question of making it a tool of participative democracy, but a means of producing concrete proposals to serve everyone.

Trust and respect must be the foundations of these new forms of debate. While face-to-face debate remains essential, the Internet makes digital debate accessible to all. But aren't social networks ultimately an uncontrolled source of debate, with their share of good and bad practices?

What if debate could untangle reason, emotion and manipulation? For Erasmus, it was madness to imagine that reason could prevail over anger and concupiscence. And yet, if digital debate characterizes forms of truth from debatable arguments, then we could better distinguish arguments of reason from angry utterances and the manipulations of stakeholders eager to defend their interests.

Science brings its own forms of truth to the debate

In Athens, there were two opposing visions of debate. Plato used debate as a pedagogical tool, while Aristotle used logic to counter the rhetoric of the sophists who wanted to profit from debate.

In her mission to support and advise on the "Grand débat national", Chantal Jouanno, President of the Commission nationale du débat public (CNDP), defends the idea that public debate, rather than being a tool for political education, should be a means of listening. The question of how to combine listening and teaching is a real one, as one cannot be dissociated from the other.

Scientists have always appropriated debates: in scientific practice, for example, debates are used for all doctoral thesis defenses - whether in philosophy, law, mathematics, physics or medicine. Since they are open to the public, you only have to attend to realize the diversity of their protocols.

Scientists discuss in depth the data, principles, hypotheses, axioms, events, phenomena, theories and laws they examine. In science/society debates, scientists prove, disprove and determine the forms of the statements they consider debatable. In this way, science (in the broadest sense) has always provided the only defensible forms of truth in debates.

Debate and big data decisions

A major debate brings together a very large number of discussions and participants. Consultations, public consultations, palavers, pleas and public inquiries involve citizens and scientists when it comes to the distribution of water, education, health, safety, trade, justice, regional planning... On such subjects, there are billions of potential "debaters". So there are millions of individual debates.

The result is the formalization of thousands of political decisions at different scales. But is it possible, in the end, to manage and really take these numbers into account? Aren't we faced with the Big Data of decisions?

Digital technology must help the guarantors of the debates to coordinate them, to involve them in the decisions being prepared, to ensure that the private lives of the participants are respected, and to guarantee the truth and integrity of what is said.

Debate is by its very nature uncontrollable, and does not necessarily play into the hands of political power, which is often tempted to channel it. Debate is the sum of everyone's contributions. No one has control over it, because everyone influences it through their interventions and absences. Debate is a game of time, as participants can reactivate previous debates.

So, technically speaking, everyone needs to be able to retain ownership of their ideas, help them evolve and choose when and how to intervene. This is why it is imperative that the mechanisms of the debate guarantee confidence in it.

Generally speaking, bad debates are directly and factually signalled by specific complaints from participants. These bad democratic debates are also revealed for reasons independent of the citizens:

• they don't take place on the right scales, which consist of local, regional, national and international debates;
• they do not concern large-scale projects that affect the daily lives of citizens, whoever they may be;
• they do not open the door to other forms of association and participation in public policy;
• they do not lead to a change in administrative and political behavior.

Is digital technology medicine or poison?

It is dangerous to use digital debate tools without specifying their positive or harmful effects on citizens and society. We are well aware of the potential havoc wreaked by social networking tools.

You don't put a new plane 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 yet subject to the control of any agency, even though we have already seen the dangerous consequences of the use of digital technology for democratic life.

There are many examples of how social networks can be used to manipulate voters, such as the controversy surrounding the use of social networks in the last American presidential elections.

Tomorrow, an agency will have to approve public debate tools by asking their designers to answer a battery of questions, including the following:

• How are in-person and digital debates articulated? How are syntheses and consensuses produced?
• How are the reasons for anger and manipulation untangled? How are citizens invited to the debates?
• How do we build trust, participation and creativity into the debate? How is knowledge shared between scientists, administrators, lawyers, politicians and citizens?
• How does this tool enhance participants' critical thinking skills?
• What status does digital technology give to the testimonies of whistle-blowers?
• How are arguments assigned a form of truth?
• How is the content of debates made public and defended?
• How can we go back over past debates?
• How do you authenticate all participants' contributions?

Qualifying digital tools backed by well-established institutions

For the major national debate, the CNDP is proposing 6 systems for face-to-face and remote debates, without excluding the use of others. It proposes to make its guarantors and commissioners available for debates. It also proposes a platform for recording all debates. The CNDP calls for debate reports to distinguish between diagnosis, vision and proposals. It recommends that interim reports drawn up at different levels be drafted in a circular fashion to improve the results.

But this great debate can only really work if it mobilizes institutions that provide the conditions for trust and active participation, while demonstrating creativity. These institutions must be independent of the organizers.

By way of 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 mobilized to guarantee locally and technically that everyone retains ownership of their ideas and control of their contribution 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 institutions like these, why not launch action research to identify digital tools that foster trust and participation by citizens, who, assured of respect for their ideas, sharpen their critical thinking, mobilize their creativity and benefit from that of others?

Let's re-establish debate, with trust and respect for each other, and with a collective determination to bring about a profound change in our society so that we can take part in tomorrow's decisions.

Lionel Torres, Professor of Microelectronics, University of MontpellierJean Sallantin, Emeritus Research Director, 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. Read theoriginal article.