Editorial Introduction – Governance for the Human Future: The Centrality Of Dialogue

by Scherto Gill – [ Journal of Dialogue Studies Vol 11 ]

Abstract

Today, there is an ever present anxiety about the failures in the practices of representative democracy. As observable in the current global political turmoil, the electoral process in many parts of the world is fraught with rivalry, antagonism, corruption, manipulation, and other deep-seated problems. To move away from such a political impasse, scholars and researchers have proposed to revisit the governance ‘turn’ starting three decades ago (Boussaguet, Dehousse & Jacquot 2011). The burgeoning intellectual curiosity and academic interest at the time was part of the continued effort to reconceptualise a new form of governance, not based on voting, but centred on dialogue. Integrating dialogue in governance has the promise of engaging diverse actors and stakeholders and involving multiple perspectives in collective decision making through consensus. This is regarded as one of the major characteristics of participatory democracy – an inclusive and collaborative approach for all to take part in the political process (Gill & Thomson, forthcoming). With emerging practices, such as the cooperative movement, Barcelona’s participatory governance model, the worldwide citizens assemblies, and Climate Assembly in the UK, there is a growing optimism in the possibility of co-creating a better future through dialogue and collaboration. Whilst recognising the need for an inclusive and consensus-based approach to policymaking, there is at the same time an unease about the theory’s naivety, owing to the seeming unfeasibility of the practice. Many have cast doubt on humans’ collective capacity to do politics together. Amongst the typical objections are that people tend to be too selfish, lazy, ignorant, aggressive, unmotivated, and easily persuaded, for dialogue to be meaningful for them. Moreover, there are too many people with too diverse opinions and too unreconcilable interests to make consensus possible (Menser 2018). There are more serious concerns around how institutions can be structured and engaged in participatory governance. Which institutions could facilitate public dialogue? How might these dialogue practices be implemented through the different institutions in order to co-ordinate inclusive and harmonious consensus building? What institutional processes should be put in place to carry forward the public-generated decisions and public-proposed policies?