Japan’s energy future too important to be left to experimental polling method

An opinion piece in The Mainichi:

Yoroku: Japan’s energy future too important to be left to experimental polling method

Once upon a time, in ancient Athens, state policy was decided not by elected representatives, but by a great assembly of all eligible citizens. Five hundred of these citizens were also chosen by lot for the Bouletai, or council, which spent time deliberating the issues facing Athens and drawing up bills for the assembly’s consideration.

In the modern world, a small-scale version of this selection by lot and the group deliberation that was such an important part of Athenian democracy is being resurrected by U.S. academics in the form of deliberative polls.

In a deliberative poll, respondents are chosen at random to answer questions on relevant issues, just as in a regular opinion poll. Unlike a regular poll, however, the process doesn’t stop there. Respondents are invited to a weekend event where they are given detailed information about the issues at hand, hold discussions with experts and politicians, and debate various points of view. At the end of the weekend, the respondents are asked the same survey questions again.

Deliberative polls have been attracting attention in Japan as well. Specifically, deliberative polling is set to be used to help choose between one of three options presented by the government for Japan’s energy future — a weighty issue in the wake of last year’s meltdowns at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant.

The article raises some valid objections to the planned method – those who set up the agenda and prepare the materials provided to the participants wield great influence over the outcome, especially since a single weekend is a period that is too short to become well informed and to reach a considered independent opinion.

Though the government is aiming to make a final decision by the end of August this year, this is no simple three-option choice. The issue is complicated, with questions such as what percentage of Japan’s energy output should be nuclear intertwined with future electricity prices and carbon dioxide emissions. This must all be considered very carefully, and in this light, the turn to deliberative polling seems abrupt. The technique may have been tested by local governments and other organizations, but on this issue the stakes are far higher. We are talking about nothing less than putting the future of Japan in the hands of deliberative polling, a move akin to suddenly sending an experimental car on a cross-country trip thousands of kilometers long.

There are probably misgivings among researchers, too, over the use of deliberative polling. Last month, over 20 experts with experience in deliberative polling submitted a position paper to the government. In it, the experts pointed to a number of problems with the government’s polling plans, including failure to present methods for choosing participants fairly and preventing their views from being steered in a particular direction, and an untenable schedule.

Mixed in, unfortunately, is the standard piece of demagoguery about the exclusionary rules of Athenian democracy, but the conclusion of the article is quite accurate:

In the democracy at ancient Athens, only men were allowed to sit in the citizens’ assembly or become members of the Bouletai council. Women, slaves and foreigners were all excluded. In other words, the Athenian system deviated from the democratic spirit from the very beginning.

By the same token, even if the idea behind deliberative polling is a just one, problems could arise in its implementation. If the deliberations are tainted with suspicions of exclusion and undue influence, they will only breed greater distrust. (“Yoroku,” a front-page column in the Mainichi Shimbun)

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. I’m impressed (and slightly amazed) that DP methodology is being used to address such an important issue. If it “works” (ie leads to an informed and sensible outcome) it should provide a huge boost for the case for sortition in general. It’s also an indication that governments increasingly outsource difficult and controversial decisions — in the UK this would be via a Royal Commission — but nonpartisan alternatives should be welcomed with open arms. I’m surprised that this has not been more widely reported, if it really is the case that “the future of Japan is in the hands of deliberative polling”.

    As for Yoram’s concerns regarding preset agenda, information and advocacy, in this case balanced information is clearly vital and it would not be hard to find well-informed advocates for both sides of the argument. It’s true of course (as the author states) that the DP will generate an either/or response, whereas a more nuanced approach would be better. It’s the role of the government to use the DP verdict as part of the decision process, rather than just going for either/or, especially if the DP voting is a long way from unanimity.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: