Electoral campaigns seem every day more dramatic, more antagonistic, for all participants are zero-sum games in which absolute alternatives are settled. Democratically elected governments flirt with authoritarianism as an increasingly acceptable toolbox of governance, or at least, they do so in a public way that would have been inadmissible before, that would have required at least a patina of hypocrisy in homage to democratic values. Public speeches appeal to highly polarized communities.

What is the place of deliberation in these contemporary democracies? What limitations does political polarization impose on public deliberation? Is it possible to improve legislative and policy-making processes according to standards of debate, logic and the use of scientific evidence?

During June, Proyecto Disonante conducted a training course on “Legislation and Dialogue” in which it presented concepts and proposed discussions around these questions. It was a virtual, synchronous course, with theoretical content and practical activities. Participants included political-institutional actors from all over Latin America: legislators, legislative advisors, officials from different levels of government and academic researchers. The National Democratic Institute’s Innovation Network convened Proyecto Disonante to spark this conversation and jointly seek ways to strengthen democratic deliberation and protect it from the attacks of a global climate of extreme polarization.

We want to promote better public conversations that allow citizens to exercise their right to be part of the decision-making process, and prevent these situations from becoming dead ends of antagonism between identities. We hope to repeat and deepen this experience in the near future. We thank NDI and the participants for the opportunity to listen and be listened to.

Course program

Module 1

Tools and modalities of multi-stakeholder participation in the discussion of public policies and norms. Relevance and impact.

The focus of this module is the knowledge and discussion of practical mechanisms that open decision-making processes to citizens. From participatory workshops to citizens’ assemblies, there is a multiplicity of instances at local, national and international levels that allow citizens and civil society organizations to establish dialogues with governments and international organizations.

Module 2

Difficulties and potential of public discussion in contexts of extreme polarization.

Contemporary democracies and international forums have developed the participatory instances of Module 1. However, an increasingly antagonistic environment, with increasingly polarized political communities, makes it very difficult for these exchanges to be conducive. What are the risks that fallacies and biases impose on the mutual understanding of those in dialogue? What ideas and experiences exist to mitigate these confrontations? Is it possible to improve public policies with better prior deliberative processes?

In this module we review concepts, historical experiences and initiatives that allow us to answer these questions.

Module 3

A possible model of parliamentary deliberation.

Parliaments are privileged scenarios for deliberation, however, it is not obvious how discussion is transformed into deliberation. Nor is it obvious what models are feasible, nor what expectations society can place on these processes. It is necessary to better understand which contexts favor the implementation of deliberative models and to deactivate the conditions that can neutralize them.

Module 4

Evidence-based law and public policy.

The dialogue between political decisions and scientific evidence seems to be typical of a highly technological era such as ours. However, the incorporation of scientific evidence into decision-making processes requires institutional conditions and attitudes of political leadership.

In legislative processes, for example, specific mechanisms have been developed to incorporate different types of evidence (scientific, technical, legal). This incorporation also generates new political debates: to what extent does this improve democracy or impose limits on it? Does it enhance the voice of popular sovereignty, or does it restrict it? What models propose acceptable balances of evidence incorporation?