Membership Mismatch

It is an unfortunate reality of some deliberative assemblies that those who understand parliamentary procedure are often in the minority. Consequently, a significant portion of the duty of all is habitually entrusted to a few. In a system centered around the importance of “the majority” how effective can it truly be when most in an assembly lack basic education and understanding of the rules they are governed by? The resulting knowledge mismatch between members who know too little and those who know too much creates a barrier to the wider adoption of modern parliamentary procedure.

Members have an important role to play in the transaction of business. Experience, motivation, desire and role may all contribute to the decision of a member to expand their parliamentary knowledge. There will always be instances where some people know more than others; this is true on any topic and in every group. However, more can be done to assist and encourage fellow members of deliberative assemblies to develop the skills necessary to fully participate.  For those in agreement with the idea that it is better to have more knowledgable members a logical next step is to critically consider causes of low parliamentary acumen. Of many potential causes, the environment created in assemblies where a majority of disengaged participants exist alongside a minority of expert participants is an area of concern.

Disengaged participants largely withdraw from the deliberative process. Through their inaction, these members allow others to handle privileges such as motions and debate.  Disengaged participants may relinquish many of their rights of participation for a variety of reasons. It is certainly a member’s right to abstain at any point for any reason but disengagement due to fear or lack of understanding robs the assembly of unique perspectives.  Fortunately, reservation and disengagement created by a lack of basic parliamentary education is a correctable issue. In trainings and parliamentary literature much emphasis is given to officers and the parliamentarian. Deeper study on how one can simply become a better member would be helpful for the disengaged. Emphasizing basic parliamentary education related to membership generally yields great results in subsequent proceedings. In assemblies where most members seem to have withdrawn, a concerted effort should be made to train and encourage members so that reasons for disengagement are not due to lack of basic parliamentary understanding.

Expert participants tend to dominate deliberative activity in assemblies where general parliamentary acumen is low. Officers (particularly past and current presiding officers), parliamentarians (credentialed or not), and tenured members all bring tremendous value in assembly proceedings. Regardless of competence, each of these members can be perceived as “experts” which can be intimidating to some.  Often, what experts say and do has an outsized impact on assembly affairs. The vast majority of their actions are helpful. The overall health of the assembly is jeopardized, however, when excessive expert engagement suppresses the input of others.  Additionally, dependence on these members to advance agendas denies other members crucial opportunities to learn how to conduct business in an assembly through direct interaction. The full and free discussion of all business by all members – not just the experts – ensures the true feelings of the membership are heard and that future leaders are developed. Assemblies must encourage parliamentary experts to share their knowledge in addition to the floor.

Lack of participation by the disengaged and procedural dominance by the experts is counterproductive. This unbalanced situation creates anxiety instead of attempt, intimidation instead of engagement, and overall limits the effectiveness of an assembly. If parliamentary law is to be effective it must be learned and known by more than the presiding officer, parliamentarian and other experts of the assembly. Suppression occurs when members are unsure and unaware. The promise of democracy is fulfilled when all who wish to participate know how and are comfortable in doing so. While it is the responsibility of each member to develop themselves in a way that affords them the best opportunity to participate it is wise for assemblies to assist in that development.

Parliamentary procedure should be common and accessible in order to eliminate unnecessary barriers to wider adoption. More members would learn and use parliamentary procedure if they were not intimidated in their attempts. The membership mismatch can be mitigated through approach and education. Seemingly disengaged participants may simply need more training and practice. Having patience with less skilled members, recommending introductory text and providing feedback on procedural missteps are all ways to help increase the acumen of everyone. Expert participants can assist with this while simultaneously benefitting from reinforcement of their knowledge. It is in the best interest of those who study and teach parliamentary procedure to help increase parliamentary literacy for all in assemblies when it is lacking.

* * * * *