Israeli-Jews and Palestinians Must Argue

It is clear that Israeli-Jews and Palestinians are locked in a difficult ethnopolitical conflict laced with strong emotions. But ultimately, the two sides must search for common ground by talking to one another. They must communicate to resolve political differences. Argument will be their primary resolution tool.

Research on argument between Israelis and Palestinians suggests that they argue frequently and intensely but not very effectively. They spend little time on nuanced examination of each side’s assumptions and presuppositions. Argument is principled disagreement which under proper conditions of group contact produces valid claims that help achieve a new consensus through understanding and working toward common interpretations.

Even though the conflict between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians is passionate and emotional, it does not mean that argument and rationality are futile. A group still maintains beliefs and political positions that must be addressed and cannot be reduced to an irresolvable emotional clutter. In fact, it is important that this not happen.

Israelis and Palestinians can benefit from additional communicative exposure to one another during the conflict resolution process. Such exposure to non-like-minded views is useful because an Israeli, for example, can gain greater awareness of the rationale and assumptions of his own viewpoint, greater awareness of the rationale and assumptions of the Palestinian viewpoint, and both sides will increase tolerance.

There are five advantages to be enjoyed by increased attention to the quality of argument in the Israeli-Jew and Palestinian conflict. The first is widened exposure to information. Very simply, argument increases the odds of making better choices because individuals can step beyond the boundaries of their own abilities and interact with others. They can participate in the intelligence of others and have their own intelligence stimulated in new ways. Wittes in her analysis of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, found a multiplicative effect on the available intelligence applied to problems.

Second, vigorous quality argument increases the range of alternative solutions. Argument helps manage the problem of complexity. For example, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict one could gather all sorts of information from politicians, military leaders, think tanks, conflict specialists, and ordinary citizens and it would still be difficult to know how to solve the problem. This is because different parties have different kinds of information and preferences for outcomes. Errors and mistakes can all be exposed and brought into line by vigorous argumentative engagement.

Third, argument between Israeli-Jews and Palestinians can be beneficial by exposing inconsistencies between social realities and principles of justice and fairness. Argument is especially helpful at displaying how social realities are maintaining exclusion or discrimination. These discriminations are the result of erroneous judgments that result in problems and such judgments must be uncovered.

Fourth, engaged argument provides a collective mode of justification. One is forced to abandon self interest and consider the collectivity more fully. Suppose a mediator asks participants from both sides of a conflict to privately write down what they want in the negotiation. Neither side has to justify what they write and can easily express pure self interest. But if the participants are required to discuss the issue beforehand then the chances of expressing pure self interest are mitigated. In other words, in an open discussion it is still possible to offer suggestions based solely on self interest, but the interaction rarely stops there. The other side will ask for reasons and justifications.

Finally, arguments legitimize decisions. Private decisions are implemented on the basis of making the decision. But a group decision depends on the support of the participants. Moreover, if argument in groups increases the chances of consensus, and improves quality then it is logical to conclude that group members are likely to be supportive of the decision. Such joint supportiveness is crucial in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Argument processes designed to solve conflicts are messy, complex, and challenging. But given the potential for violence and destruction in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it is a challenge we cannot afford to ignore.

Published in: www.commongroundnews.org.

Deliberation and Health Care

It is distressing to watch screaming citizens confront one another at town hall meetings. Protestors disrupting meetings and terrorizing other participants have failed to learn the lesson that cooperative social engagement is most productive in politics. These citizens, whether shills for political pressure groups or not, are injurious to the importance of popular deliberation about politics and fail our deliberative democracy.

The core idea of deliberation in a democracy is that political life will be better if a wide array of citizens and elected officials discuss political issues and moral values. There is no escaping moral issues in politics because there will always be incompatible values and incomplete understanding. Issues related to war, abortion, social values, the role of government, and health care are typical examples of vexing moral problems. Health care is a moral issue that requires learning about what we should and can do as well as discovering what is possible, not only what is typical. When deliberation fails the quality and legitimacy of decisions are distorted to favor the powerful or special interests. In the case of health care, that would be the insurance industry and drug companies.

We have to ask, then, about the basis of deliberation and how it actually works. Political communication scholars study citizen tendencies to engage in political talk and the impact of deliberation. They conclude that talk is deliberative when it includes reasoned consideration by participants that is conducted in a way that preserves the equality and respect of individuals. But there is more to it than that.

For these town hall meetings on health care to be truly deliberative and democratic they must put public reasoning at the center of justification. Deliberation is more than simple discussion, as important as that is. Public reasoning is the recognition of differences and that no single view of issues is complete. Deliberative communication requires respect and equal standing among participants such that anyone can recommend agenda items, solutions, and offer reasons in support or criticism of proposals. Deliberation results in “public” reason because all participants in the meeting are considered free and equal and, most importantly, it is insufficient to simply advance a position that you take to be true or compelling. Others who are also reasonable can reject your position on the basis of defensible arguments. Deliberation is successful when one finds reasons that are compelling to others.

Asking citizens to gather for town hall meetings on issues like health care, and behave as reason givers, is not easy. People have religious commitments, group identities, and political ideologies that make deliberation difficult. There is no deliberation if citizens are unwilling to reason beyond their narrow self interests.

Why should we take the trouble to deliberate? Why should these attitudes and skills be taught in the schools? There are numerous benefits to deliberation but four are particularly noteworthy. First, deliberative decisions are legitimized decisions; that is, they have the support of the collective. One consequence of deliberation is a greater willingness of the group members to support and work for the decision. This would be very valuable to the health care debate because not everyone is going to get everything they want.

Second, deliberation improves the quality of decisions. It maximizes the availability and quality of information and reduces error. The communication effects of deliberation make the participants less susceptible to inaccuracy and biases because information is continually challenged and questioned. This is also important for the health care debate because there is so much technical and confounding information.

Third, deliberation promotes respectful decision making. Given the clash of moral values in the health care debate (charges of socialism, big government, reckless spending, loss of choice) deliberation will help everyone recognize the merit in the claims of others.

Finally, deliberation helps encourage a public spiritedness that we seem to be losing. Moral deliberation stimulates a consideration of the common good. A properly designed deliberation will foster attitudes of inclusiveness and reflection on broader political interests rather than narrower ones.

Proper deliberation is difficult and challenging. But given the alternative, a political process overrun by shouting special interests, it is a challenge we must meet.

Direct Initiatives Result in Poorer Decisions

Direct initiatives make any law or policy subject to a public referendum by placing them on the ballot for a direct vote by the people. We have seen a spate of these initiatives bypass normal legislative procedures in California, Massachusetts, and other states. Connecticut is considering legalizing these initiatives. At first blush they appear to be the rawest form of authentic democracy. They are touted as the ultimate in majority rule where everyone gets a say. But they actually result in a collective opinion characterized by myopia, selective attention, and incomplete information.
Our society is supposed to be deliberative as well as democratic. Government decisions are expected to be responsive to the public will and aggregating votes in an election is one way to determine the public will; but our institutions are also charged with providing information, reflection, and exposure to diverse views. This is the reason that deliberative democracy is a defining feature of our constitution.
Direct initiatives fail to fully utilize the potential of the deliberative process. Elections based on the votes of all citizens are too large and unwieldy to ensure the careful consideration of issues before making decisions. Luminaries such as de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill cautioned against the “tyranny of the majority” not because majorities were crude “mob rule” and they were elitists who distrusted the mob, but because of the advantages of deliberation.
My objections to direct initiatives are not based on fear of loud and passionate defenses of radical ideas because all ideas at some point deserve a hearing. Nor do my objections emerge from fear of special interests and fringe issues. Rather, direct initiatives shortcut the deliberative process and usually result in lower quality decisions. The entire population of an electorate cannot get together to deliberate. This leaves it to the media. Media deliberation is a matter of reporters, editors, commentators, and selected experts conveying information to the public on an issue. The public is then supposed to discuss issues vicariously through give-and-take with various professionals. Such pseudo deliberation is subject to bias and ideological preferences of all types, not to mention the findings that audiences attribute cynical motives to institutions and news stories. Relying on the media environment to encourage citizen deliberation triggers a cynicism that can do real harm to the deliberative process.
Deliberation is a form of political communication that centers around argumentative exchange in a climate of respect and civility. The current system of representative government improves the quality of deliberation because it makes it more possible to go beyond the mirror exchange of positions and engage in actual exchange and justifications that result in improved decisions. There is more emphasis on argumentative exchange than on maximum popular inclusion. And true deliberation encourages civil considered communication over purely strategic and impassioned forms of rhetoric most descriptive of the media or interest groups. Public debate in front of large audiences fosters grandstanding and strong convictions but not argumentative integration.
Political representatives, able to maximize the benefits of deliberation, are the best vehicles for the interests of the disadvantaged. Their competition for office is an incentive to be more responsive to the majority as well. This is because true deliberation exposes the full range of policy issues and implications and makes it incumbent on an elected official to respond to a variety of constituencies as thoroughly as possible.
Issues left to large electorates in direct initiatives typically result in citizens selectively exposing themselves to issues they already agree with and thereby hardening their own position and polarizing current differences with others.
Genuine deliberation among elected officials is simply the best thing to do because it encourages a high quality mode of decision making, helps flesh out information, subjects the issues to rigorous arguments and justifications, and overcomes the limitations of individuals. Political designs for deliberation can be improved, but it is certainly the case that true deliberation must be encouraged as the best way to restrain deception and pure self interest.

More on how Obama will lose

I am increasingly having trouble imagining Obama winning this election. After his initial rise McCain has closed the gap quicker than a mother slamming the cookie jar on the hand of a child. Obama is turning out to be one more democrat who cannot compete. The attacks on him are basically attacks on liberals but they seem to stick: he is aloof, arrogant, elitist, and weak because he favors talk to the failed policies of stubborn obstinacy. But it gets worse.

All the new voters brought into the party by Obama are offset by the loss of other voters. Black and minority voters are more likely to move and then not register. Andrew Hacker, writing in the New York Review of Books, explains how many states now require voters to show identification at the polls. This also disadvantages minorities and many who would vote for Obama. The poor are less likely to have driver’s licenses and simply not register for alternative identification. This is one more consequence of the Bush Supreme Court that upheld laws that required voters to produce photo identification at the polls.

Also, in two states—Colorado and Nebraska—there will be ballot initiatives where voters can ban affirmative action. These measures have a history of passing and of course bring out conservatives and those angry about race issues to vote in droves. While they are there, they will vote for McCain. Given the Bradley effect, Obama needs to be six to eight points ahead at election time to have a chance of winning.

Obama Must Stay Post Racial

Obama had a bad week last week. His invocation of the race issue, subtle as it may have been, was a mistake. My guess is that next week the polls are going to show that he and McCain are even closer. His reference to himself as “not looking like the other Presidents on the dollar bill” was racially tinged and the McCain camp made good hay of it. It was such a mistake for Obama that the race issue was turned against him in a manner that the campaign was trying to avoid.

Obama is undefined and the McCain campaign has figured out that it can influence the process. The race card is dangerous but it remains true that Americans, at least a particular slice of them, don’t want to think of themselves as racist and will have a strong negative reaction to any such characterization. E.J. Dionne recently wrote that there is still pent up resentment from a disenfranchised segment of whites who feel betrayed by a culture that changed the rules on them. Obama must stay post racial. Otherwise he runs the risk of activating the resentment described by Dionne.

Iran and the Internet

The website OpenNet (http://opennet.net/) reports startling data on the extent to which Iran penalizes what it considers inappropriate use of the web. Ahmadinejad has made thousands of websites unavailable even as web use in Iran grows. It is clear how much the rulers fear information. Iran is a well wired country in the Middle East but it still engages in significant filtering of political, social, and conflict oriented web sites. Iran’s ministry of Communication and Information Technology has made downloading at speeds higher than 128 kilobytes per second illegal. This is to prevent acquiring foreign cultural products.

Bloggers are required to register so they can be monitored. Moreover, the new Cyber Crimes Bill makes Internet Service Providers criminally liable for illegal content. OpenNet reports that Iran remains one of the most extensively filtered regimes in the world.

There is a clear correlation between political freedom and the expansion of media and information. In the best sense, development in communication sophistication and availability is related to human growth. Authoritarian states use media as part of their totalizing machinery through which they control society. Iran is proving itself to be a regime most resistant to human potential. But, of course, that would be the point.

Avoiding Ethnic Conflict in Iraq

There seems to be some progress in Iraq but it will all implode unless conflict along ethnic lines can be avoided. Successful democratization is the best way to assuage ethnic differences and is certainly important for American foreign policy. But unless handled properly, democratization is as likely to stir up ethnic passions as it is restrain them.

It is true that established democracies manage ethnic differences well because such democracies are typically prosperous and offer legitimate outlets for conflict resolution. But in the early stages of democratic development there is chaos and ethnic trouble. Why is this? First, there are no networks of civil society where citizens can practice the habits of reciprocity. Iraq had been held together by authoritarian rule and is currently incapable of the mutuality and intergroup acceptance necessary for national stability. Secondly, weak states cannot manage equality before the law. Consequently, ethnic and patron relations are better at providing resources and they favor their own ethnic group. The U.S. efforts to build neighborhood councils in Iraq are an initial attempt to build a civil society based on common rather than group interests.

Iraq has a long history of power residing in ethnic groups and religions and it will be very difficult to neutralize these traditions. There are no transethnic networks of civil society. Kurds, Shia, and Sunni all gather popular support by appealing to tribal heads and elites who are members of their own group. They rarely establish relations with members of other ethnic groups. The incentive structure that these groups offer is why democratization is likely to increase radicalization of ethnic identity. The question becomes, then, how can this radicalization be avoided? There are three ways to help ameliorate the tendency to inflame ethnic passions.

First, elections should be deferred until civil society is further developed. Last February the Council of Representatives of Iraq passed the Provincial Elections Law which stated that elections had to be held no later than next October. This is too early and democratic institutions should be further nurtured to encourage moderation and cooperation. There must be separation of powers and state control of violence before elections can be effective. Moreover, Iraq should use alternative voting systems (e.g. vote transfers or list systems) that encourage coalition politics.

Secondly, power sharing is very important in Iraq and has been successful at taming ethnic differences. Power sharing involves a coalition of elites and political parties that negotiate stable compromises. It has had various levels of success in Northern Ireland, Lebanon, and Nigeria and is important for managing the Kurdish population. Power sharing will be particularly successful as Iraq improves its culture of moderation and compromise.

Finally, the risk of too much centralized authority can be reduced by devolution of power. The balance between the central government and the territories must be such that too many ethnic demands are discouraged. This should be important to the Sunni because it would temper the Shia majority. Fiscal control should be centralized with funds distributed to provinces according to revenue sharing formulas. A balance between provincial and centralized fiscal controls will lessen ethnic tensions over control of the central government.

There is plenty of work ahead in Iraq including formation of civil society, elections, sound governmental institutions, minority rights, and judicial reform. But control over the transformation process is particularly important to prevent the detrimental assertion of ethnic identity. This is how the U.S. can best craft a sustainable democracy in Iraq.