InnoNation Reloaded

Finding an institutionalized location for the promotion of deliberate democratic methods in Taiwan faces unique difficulties, however.

The current rigid political polarization renders the option of locating legally mandated role for deliberative democratic methods in the Legislative Yuan not feasible, especially in light of the habitual use of the Legislative procedural committee by the pan-blue opposition to boycott even the normal discussion and review of many bills submitted by the Democratic Progressive Party administration.

If the conservative majority in the Legislature is committed to blocking all committee discussion, they can scarcely be expected to approve a bill that would require citizen discussion of proposed laws and programs.

Instead, a more feasible, if less ideal, location would be as an independent institution under the Cabinet or under the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission or its proposed replacement National Development Commission in the long-delayed restructuring plan for the Executive Yuan.

Consensus building through deliberative democracy is highly structured, so that every individual in a focus group is required to express their view. The exact process that was used at the conferences had been ironed out by Minister of the National Youth Commission Cheng Li-chuin in consultation with Professor Lin Kuo-ming of National Taiwan University.

"At times, policy makers are not fully aware of the direction of public opinion or the values held by the people. Formation of public opinion is an organic process. Final opinions are formed after a long process of social dialogue ... conflict will not continue to remain so severe if this process is followed," Cheng said when asked about the process.

Danish Board of Technology Director Lars Kluver, who delivered a keynote address on "Deliberative Democracy in Denmark," told the Taiwan News that he was "amazed" with the "intensity of activity" and the "quality of implementation and analysis" in deliberative democratic experiments in Taiwan.

While the current focus of proponents of deliberative democracy in Taiwan is on developing proper and effective methods, Kluver commented that "in the not too distant future, organizers in Taiwan should shift focus from developing and refining the right processes to solving problems with the right processes" so that the spread of deliberative democracy can become "problem driven."

The press has a crucial role to play in cultivating deliberation. When we think and talk about public affairs, we initially acquire most of our information from newspapers and television. Letters-to-the-editor pages, radio call-in programs, and television talk shows are forums for public deliberation. At their best, the national media can prevent our local conversations from becoming insular or uninformed. Nothing else can connect our small-scale discussions into what Benjamin Page calls one “deliberative national public.”

Journalists often see their own job as providing information to citizens. But not all facts are equally helpful in promoting democratic deliberation. To dwell on information of the wrong kind can even be damaging. For example, when journalists mostly provide facts about the tactics and fortunes of political insiders, they make citizens seem insignificant. Likewise, information about who is likely to win the next election is of no use to citizens who are trying to decide who ought to win. Too often, these predictions turn into self-fulfilling prophecies that reduce the importance of actual votes.