What’s missing from this picture?

Via Spartakan, I’ve just seen this outline of how local debate could be / is structured. And, initially, it looks fairly complete as long is it is covering only debate, as opposed to policy-making.

I think it’s a useful diagram, and I don’t have the time to do this properly – graphic design is a non-trivial activity – but if the quality or the inclusiveness of that debate is an issue, there are a few important things that need adding:

• Beyond the parochial: Is there any data or information on how the issue in question is addressed elsewhere? Case studies? Experiences? Data that can be adapted to project possible outcomes if approaches that have been tried elsewhere were applied here? And how is this presented in a way that makes it accessible?
• Where is ‘everybody’? What about the people who aren’t active ‘community members’? And what about people who don’t join community groups? Some people don’t feel strongly about particular issues so they don’t join groups. Or maybe they work long hours or have competing responsibilities. Either way, they don’t turn up. But their views, experiences and opinions are equally valuable – or, as I would argue, more valuable than those of the people who do take an active interest. How effective are elected representatives at covering this question?
• Where is the intelligence? Once you become familiar with a complex question, it becomes clear that the debate about it is being conducted in what is almost a parallel universe. You may need to sit down before you read this and brace yourself for an unsettling revelation, but here it is: Newspapers don’t always employ intelligent reporters who dedicate their time to understanding the issues and representing them fairly. These people do, however, have the ability to dominate and shift the focus of that debate entirely.
• Where are the hidden hands? Where are the competing monopolies that are actually there, but not immediately visible? Think tanks publish reports and data all of the time. So do academics and civil servants in different forms. This work is usually paid for and commissioned by the ‘public officials’ in that diagram and in a diluted form, their work is paid into the process by those same public officials. In addition, political parties have a similar parallel influence.
• Opinion v Evidence: Opinion – as opposed to evidence – is involved here in a big way. How far is that opinion being regulated in order to ensure that diversity rather than weight is evident?
• Where is the manipulation? There are often pressure groups that have a vested interest in addressing these issues. They insert their data and messages into that process in a strategic way in order to distort it to their own ends. There is also the question of public representatives. How far are they helping to convene a discussion in the public interest, and how far are they there to promote either their own personal interests, the interests of an external organisation (a pressure group or a political sponsor perhaps?)
• What does e-democracy add to this? How far can we – the people with access to neutral public data, and the tools to interpret it – help or hinder this process? Can we introduce new information into the pot? Can we visualise and contextualise existing information so that those engaged in the debate can look at it in a new light?

Not a complete set of questions – and some a bit messy – but I think that it’s important that they’re asked.