 | |
Today reporter, Polly Billington writes about the recent citizens' jury which was held in Reading:
It didn't start off as a project in reality radio - and it certainly didn't end up being as dumbed down as Big Brother. But spending nearly thirty hours over four weeks with a group of people who were complete strangers to each other, stuck in one room and forced to talk to each other did make the citizens jury project closer to the format of reality TV than I expected.
And it had some similar consequences. This was supposed to be an experiment, to see how citizen's juries work - if they work. But over that period of time, listening to them struggle with big issues, clash over solutions and gently find a compromise, change their minds one way and then back again, the jurors became much more than lab rats. They changed, perhaps inevitably, as they studied different polices, scrutinised different analyses and came into contact with views different from their own, and I got to know them and willed them to succeed. It might not have been on the scale of Big Brother, but with the work they took on they've all become stars to me.
"It gets me out of the house really." When one of the jurors gave that as a reason for coming along I was pretty sure we'd managed to avoid collecting together the usual suspects to deliberate on how to instil respect into our society. That is, of course, one of the first allegations made about a citizens jury; that anyone who is prepared to spend so much time working out what they want done in their community (and across the nation) is likely to be pretty committed - in less polite parlance: a busy-body.
I wouldn't say busybodies were there none, but for many of the citizens who gathered in a stuffy prefabricated classroom in the centre of Reading for two nights a week for most of September this was an unusual engagement in civil society. Even upstanding members of churches and Neighbourhood Watch don't spend quite so much time listening to conflicting arguments, weighing evidence and testing their own opinions out on the facts.
Today decided to collaborate with the University of Newcastle and set up a jury like this to explore how such processes work, and whether they can be useful as a tool to reinvigorate democracy. By choosing "respect" as the subject, we thought we'd offer the jury's recommendations to a government who have pledged that this would be a theme of their third term but are, so far, quite vague about how they plan to go about making ours a more respectful society.
As it turned out, our jury had trouble wrestling with all the possible causes of disrespect they unearthed. They started off narrowing it down to a bid to tackle anti-social behaviour and homelessness; both were problems they experienced in Reading, and believed were problems nationally. But gradually the witnesses offered evidence that suggested there were wider explanations for these problems that drugs, drink and family breakdown.
Some found this exciting and interesting; others were frustrated by an analysis that pointed to causes so huge they felt powerless to tackle them. One witness argued that inequality was a major underlying cause of many of the problems broadly gathered under the heading "respect". So a discussion followed involving recommendations to increase the minimum wage, introduce a maximum wage, or at least make taxation more progressive. When it came to voting on the final list of recommendations the pragmatists battled it out with the idealists. The idealists kept their call for fairer taxation, the pragmatists voted down the more extreme suggestions - and argued that it was all pretty much beside the point. Those who would argue against taxing the rich kept their counsel. If it all sounds like something from a small political party meeting somewhere deep in the Seventies you'd be right. But it was different too. This was without rancour, faction or bitterness. It might have lacked the kind of "balanced" political perspective we broadcasters work hard to produce on air, but it felt honest and people's views were heard respectfully. That in itself is an object lesson for politicians and the media alike perhaps.
This was interesting, but to many on the jury who by then were really getting their teeth into identifying successful projects, and trying to find some practical solutions that would be listened to by local and national government, it was frustrating. There were mutterings about a lack of focus, and a lack of evidence to counter the arguments about inequality.
The facilitators are more used to this process that the jurors or me. They were more phlegmatic. The jury process that I've spent four weeks following and reporting on is the beginning rather than a final product in their view; for many in the jury they felt it could be start of something big. But for those who really like to get their teeth into a problem and come up with a practical well-thought-out list of things that would make a difference, it may inevitably result in disappointment.
But those most frustrated with the process, I sensed, were those jurors most used to solving problems in the way the jury process emulates: taking evidence, weighing it and drawing conclusions. These were the jurors keenest to check on sources of funding, who wanted to know what else was on offer, how much money was saved, and how the government measures success. Others responded more instinctively to the process - sniffing out evidence they doubted because it didn't match their own experience, open to some new ideas but less impressed by statistics.
What perhaps is encouraging is both kinds of jurors are included in the group who want to keep going, carry on finding things out, meet the minister Hazel Blears (who has already promised to see them), to see what they can do to make their recommendations a reality. Some of their suggestions may never happen. But some might.
People who support this kind of initiative as a form of reinvigorating democracy, sometimes suggest that the "empowerment" felt by the people on the jury is a justification in itself. But that would be wrong. If this is a "talking cure" for the problems for democracy I doubt it will work; you can't re-engage people two dozen at a time. It will only work if the process gets results. Then perhaps more juries will get the kind of status required for people not to doubt them or their motives.
This was supposed to be an experiment, and journalistically I'm also supposed to scrutinise the process with an objective eye. That's tough when you've spent so much time with a group of people really working hard to make their lives better, those of their town and of the country. I ended up wanting it to work. I might be as disappointed as them if it doesn't.
You can find out about the citizens' jury meetings and final recommendations, including the audio for the witness sessions.
Polly
___________________________________________________
|
|
