Deliberation Dilution

“Are you ready for the question?”

That critical invitation is delivered frequently by presiding officers as a means to begin debate on a motion. Parliamentary law is rooted in the concept that members address one item of business at a time. One, cohesive, focused discussion is the method by which assemblies have deliberated for centuries with coordination and cooperation. But when the question is stated today are all members having the same discussion?

Traditionally, following carefully refined rules, the standard flow of information is approved and enforced by the assembly through the chair. Starting with adoption of an agenda and adherence to business arising out of it, members expect to share and receive information in order to dispose of matters before the assembly. The assembly is informed by the members and invited guests when recognized. Increasingly, more options to communicate are changing how assemblies deliberate. Through email, text messages, and messaging applications members are able to exchange information in ways that are convenient and far-reaching during meetings.

When appropriate, members may rise to speak for or against a motion and share information to strengthen arguments. The clash of debate that ensues provides insights that members may employ to form their voting preferences. Out of the clash, a decision is made by a majority of members. Now, however, information can be (and often is) received from more than just those speakers recognized. In addition to a request for information a member now has the capability to directly ask one who has the floor their question. Further, a member may ask another member – possibly one who has not been recognized by the chair – for clarifications. Guests of an assembly and non-participants can also be queried. Through the use of private electronic messaging, remarks shared and information received may be selectively distributed among portions of the assembly. These subtle ways in which deliberations are being diluted has significant impact on the concept of full and free discussion.

One comment can splinter into numerous micro-discussions all taking place rapidly, and silently, in-between statement of the first argument in debate and when the question is put to a vote. With a tap, a message can reach an entire organization or just a few select members. Information received – requested or not – can be the last impression a significant number of members has on an issue prior to a vote. A screenshot of a yet to be presented committee report can be displayed to a closed cohort in an attempt to influence recipients. And information on a candidate can be pushed to a targeted voting block just prior to submission of a paper or digital ballot. Improperly, even undebatable motions may become subject to informal debate in a virtual pseudo-quasi committee of the whole. These diluted deliberations that are expanded into many conversations can privately break rules that all members seem to publicly follow.

Members have probably always shared information among a few during meetings. Private conversations naturally take place with those in close proximity when members gather face-to-face. Hushed speech is the preferred way for a chair to speak with a parliamentarian and members have used this technique among themselves for a variety of reasons. Text messages and direct chats, arguably the digital equivalents of whispers, are now commonly used in person and virtually. Furthermore, few practical rules exist that prevent two or more members from simply removing themselves from deliberations so that they may converse privately. Whether in the corridor of a convention hall or in a private chat, members are free to exit meetings to separately gather how they please.

A whisper among neighboring members and informal caucusing do not typically breach accepted parliamentary decorum. So, it is reasonable to assume some deliberative dilution has occurred before and that it will most likely continue. Nevertheless, of parliamentary concern now is not only the magnitude and reach but the ease and options that some members may use to communicate while simultaneously excluding others. Unruly whisperers may be called to order. Too many members leaving a meeting could cause another member to question if quorum is still present. The devices most members utilize for communication has created a new dynamic that enables interaction without much disruption. Enforcing certain rules in a diluted deliberation, particularly when all members are not impacted, may become necessary to address. For example, an entire assembly may not be aware that a previous speaker has continued to advocate for their points after their recognition has ended and another has the floor. This type of unspoken breach would create a unique presiding challenge if a point of order were raised, but the violation may never be addressed if the recipients are receptive to the incoming communications.

Assemblies have a better chance of making great decisions if all are equally informed. All members having relatively equal access to insights on the business before them is fair and helpful. In acknowledgement, parliamentary law provides many means to ensure information may be freely and equally shared. Papers may be approved to be read, items may be referred to committees for deeper consideration, and special meetings may be called to discuss particular matters. Properly formed quasi committees of the whole may be entered to allow deliberation with fewer restrictions. Despite the mechanisms to achieve full and free discussion, some members are now voluntarily distracted with competing conversations among overlapping factions operating in parallel to the entirety of the assembly. What a member learns from debate could become less influential than what is read in private group communications.

The unified debate is becoming more and more diluted. Technology is enabling this change in not only how assemblies deliberate but the way in which members engage. No rule can be enforced that constrains members within one discussion. Rules to ban devices, for instance, could be imposed, but should they? In virtual environments the very devices that could be banned are instrumental to transacting business. The technology enabling modern assemblies is imbedded with distraction only a click or tap away. Some assemblies may choose to impose limitations on how members interact during meetings but it is the intrinsic responsibility of each member to choose to focus. As a result, a staid characteristic of deliberations going forward may be acceptance that some members are possibly readier for the question than others.

* * * * *