Running head: CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

Consent of the Governed: Importance of Deliberative Communication Haydee Alonso Portland State University

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

Imagine living in a society where citizens have the right to participate in government policy making, but are not making thought-out decisions; therefore giving consensus to the government without deliberation. That is the world U.S citizens are living in today. It was not always like this though. It was the Kings unequal, unjust, and undemocratic way of ruling a nation that pushed people to come to America and begin a new life under a new government. A government, instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, (U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776, para. 1). This nation was created under the idea that a government would govern for the people and with the consent of the people. Providing consent refers to providing a collective consensus on an issue. Within this society, this is most commonly done by voting on a ballot for or against an issue. Though citizens are still allowed to exercise this right, whether or not they are providing an informed consent has become the concern. Passive citizens, the lack of equal participation, and campaign and media content are three of the reasons why people are unable to provide an informed consent. Providing an informed consent is important because it connects citizens personal beliefs to the issues and the government system. Before consent can be given, deliberative communication must occur first. By participating in deliberative communication, the people of this nation can give an informed consent on issues. So what is deliberative communication? According to the Oxford dictionary, deliberation means having a long and careful consideration or discussion and communication means the imparting or exchanging of information between people or places (Oxford Dictionaries). This would lead us to think that deliberative communication is the careful consideration and discussion about a topic between people. This definition does not completely capture everything deliberative communication means. Although there is no universal consensus as to what

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

deliberative communication entails, most would agree that it is the right to make an informed and educated decision after having carefully examined an issue; including having respectfully heard and contemplated contradicting beliefs (Ellis, 2010, p. 100; Gastil, 2008, p. 8). It would also entail three essential characteristics. First, deliberation must be public (Conover & Searing & Crewe, 2010; p. 24). Discussions and exchanging information about a topic must not happen behind closed doors, it must be open to everyone. This would also include have sufficient relevant information about the topic at hand. Secondly, deliberation must meet the criterion of non-tyranny in terms of both process and outcomes (Conover, Searing, & Crewe, 2010, p. 24). This means that discussions cannot be coerced or dominated by a particular group. While deliberation is taking place, people need to be open to listening and understanding opposing views; as well as be open to assessing various solutions. Thirdly, deliberation must meet a standard of political equality. (Conover et al., 2010, p. 24). Everyone within the democratic government should be given the equal opportunity to participate in and influence deliberation. This would include having consideration of all different groups of people and their experiences and interpretations of the topic. Ultimately, deliberative communication involves examination of facts, discussion (which would include hearing opposing views and various solutions), consideration (of various solutions and point-of-views), and consensus. As mentioned above, citizens within the United States are given many opportunities to participate in their democracy. Through the first amendment, citizens are able to express themselves and bring awareness to various issues. Citizens have the right to peacefully assemble, create petitions, and have an issue included within a ballot (Trager, 2011). Here in Portland, Oregon, it is common for someone to be walking around with a clipboard asking people if they have a moment to listen and sign a petition. They are also able to vote on issues across various

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

platforms (on city, county, state, federal level). For example, I was able to vote on whether or not marijuana should become legal within the state of Oregon. I exercised my right to participate in this democracy. Although participating in voting is an important step towards giving consent, becoming knowledgeable on a topic should be the step we take first. Today in age, there are less people actively participating and more people passively listening. In this context, passivity means standing by while others do the talking. A passive listener would not critically think about the information that is being handed to them. By looking at the difference between dialogues and monologues, we are able to understand this issue of passivity more clearly. Martin Buber (1970) described dialogue as a relation between persons that is characterized in more or less degree by the element of inclusion (p. 97). Inclusiveness is the act of respectfully talking with another person, interchanging perspectives, and understanding opposing views without having to accept them. A passive listener would engage in monologues; the act of talking at someone, objectification of another person and their views, engaging in conversation as a means to impose ones views on someone else (Buber 1970). People who only watch the news media on television and feel they are completely informed on an issue provide us with an example of passivity. People take information in, but do not critically think about the relevance of the information or the existence of opposing views. Passivity then leads to misinformed beliefs which could then lead to consent under wrong impressions. For example, a survey conducted after the presidential election in 2004 found that two thirds of citizens who had voted for the re-election of George W. Bush believed he supported banning nuclear weapons testing; although he openly opposed this policy (Gastil, 2008, p. 4). Giving consent does not only require for people to be active citizens, it requires awareness of and attention to the diversity within the nation. Research has shown that a person

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED with a higher level of education is more likely to be involved in deliberation and political communication than a person with less education (Cho, 2011). Although this could be due to individual factors, further research has shown that the environment (community size, race/ethnicity, community involvement) a person is living in greatly influences their level of

participation in voting and civic engagement (Cho, 2011, p. 435). If a person is making decisions based on their experiences and they have never been encouraged to actively participation in communication, then they are less likely to actually become involved, deliberate, and participate in providing consent (voting). Take for example my sister, who chooses not to vote because she does not understand why it is so important; and who feels that the government is against her regardless of who is in charge. Although we both grew up in the same family, she surrounded herself with passive people who rarely tried learning about political current events. If citizens at this stage do decide to vote, the issue becomes about how much critical information and important information do they know about the current topic. At this point, campaigns and the media are responsible for the amount of sufficient and relevant information arriving to citizens. There are many media outlets which censor information to favor a position. The Republican Party, for example, has manipulated people into believing that Obamacare is horrible and will lead to further government control (Krugman, 2013). Although polls have shown that the majority of Americans are not even aware of what Obamacare is about (Kopicki, 2013). There is a gap between what campaigns are saying and the actual truth. Jimmy Kimmel (Luippold, 2013) conducted a social experiment in which he asked people in the streets of Hollywood if they supported the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. The results showed that many people opposed Obamacare and supported the Affordable Care Act, but were not aware that they were the same policy. It seems that people are adopting beliefs

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED without considering where the information is coming from, how it is being presented, and additional perspectives on the issue. This is partly due to the fact that a multitude of

contradicting views and statements are constantly being pushed out by campaigns and the media. Providing an informed consent has become even more difficult when it is unclear what the truth is and what is an exaggeration of the truth. This problem has made it is easier for citizens to be persuaded to believe everything they see or read. Take for example a recent analysis of blogs, bloggers, and blog readers reported that 94 percent of political blog readers consume only blogs from one side of the ideological spectrum (Bennett & Lyengar, 2010, p. 37). Here, citizens are only hearing one perspective and it may an exaggerated one. It is the responsibility of citizens to conduct research and get involved in deliberative communication. There cannot be a collective consensus if not everyone is being presented with the sufficient and relevant information for deliberative communication. With all these issue impeding the development of an informed consent, what can we do? Our founding fathers believed in a democracy based on communication and that the communication would take place before any form of consent was given (Trager, 2011). Although they most likely did not call it deliberation, that is what they meant. It can be proven by simply looking at historical events. On January 31, 1865, the United State Congress passed the thirteenth amendment abolishing slavery in the United States; the nineteenth amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, passes on June 4th, 1919 (National Archives). Both these examples demonstrate how the people within this nation participated in deliberative communication. Changes were made because people communicated, discussed, and finally came to a consensus on various issues.

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED

By using deliberative communication to acknowledge these issues, people would increase their political knowledge, civic engagement, and political participation (Eveland, Morey, & Hutchens, 2011). According to Donald Ellis (2010), active participation requires deliberation, which is about problem solving; it is about political interaction as a means to solving a problem (p. 101). It would also require a person to engage in dialogue; focusing on the importance of understanding one another and creating a frame of reference (Ellis, 2010). In other words, active participation requires for citizens to communicate back and forth with one another, listening, collaborating, and coming to a conclusion about an issue. Passive listeners turning into active participates would increase the number of conversations between people; causing for people to hear, interpret, and discuss various viewpoints (Eveland et al., 2011). The simple act of being more knowledgeable would decrease the amount of deception campaigns and media portray. It would also make it more difficult for citizens to be easily persuaded by campaigns and news media. During the election period, by demanding honesty from politicians, citizens would become more aware of what their intentions and make a more educated vote. Increased deliberation among citizens would result in citizens realizing common values and stressing equality, respect for difference, participation, and community (Eveland et al., 2011). This would also provide a greater demand for equal opportunity to be able and willing to be heard. Ultimately deliberative communication would provide citizens with a better understanding of what they want and how they would like to achieve it. This, in turn, would influence the type of consensus they provide the government. Although there are current issues limiting the amount of deliberative communication occurring, it is important to mention that there are organizations working towards creating a deliberative public by providing programs and awareness. These organizations are making deliberative communication an even more

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED apparent reality. By attending to issues like passivity, lack of equality, and political deception, citizens can provide consent that is true to their beliefs.

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED References Bennett, W. L., & Lyengar, S. (2010). The shifting foundations of political communication: Responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 35-39. Buber, M., & Kaufmann, W. A. (1970). I and Thou. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Cho, J. (2011). The geography of political communication: Effects of regional variations in

campaign advertising on citizen communication. Human Communication Research, 434462. Conover, P. J., Searing, D. D., & Crewe, I. M. (2002). The deliberative potential of political discussion. Cambridge University Press, 21-62. Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html Ellis, D. (2010). Argument and ethnopolitcal conflict. In Communication Methods and Measures (4th ed.). London: Routledge. Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 1082-1103. Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Kopicki, A. (2013, September 30). Polls in overtime on affordable care act. The New York Times [New York]. Krugman, P. (2013, May 26). The obamacare shock. The New York Times [New York]. Luippold, R. (2013, October 1). Jimmy kimmel asks pedestrians if they prefer obamacare or the affordable care act. The Huffington Post.

CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED National Archives (n.d.). The Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved October 23, 2013, from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us Trager, R., Russomanno, J., & Ross, S. D. (2012). The law of journalism and mass communication. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

10