The Citizens’ Assembly experiment

The Citizens’ Assembly pilot project (see Auroville Today no. 365, Dec 2019) has concluded. Over the past three months, around thirty randomly selected participants have listened to presentations on various aspects of water, then agreed on a water vision for Auroville and ways in which it could be implemented.

What happened? What has been learned? And could this way of harnessing collective intelligence have a future in Auroville?

The background

Citizens’ Assemblies are attempts to encourage wide citizen participation in governance. Although the roots can be traced back to ancient Athens, there is renewed interest in the concept. Perhaps the best publicised Citizens’ Assemblies to date were in Ireland, where they were influential regarding referenda on abortion and same sex marriage. 

They may also be of particular relevance to Auroville. Citizens’ Assemblies can support Auroville’s ideals of human unity and unending education, and address challenges within Auroville’s collective decision-making culture and processes. These include lack of engagement from the majority of the population, lack of diversity in those who participate, lack of understanding of the challenges the community faces, and lack of constructive communication skills, often leading to hostile and polarized dynamics in deliberations.

Citizens’ Assemblies take different forms, but the core features remain the same. The random selection of participants, which may reflect a cross-section of the population; facilitated discussion of an important issue, or one that affects society at large, after inputs from various perspectives; and a final report which may contain recommendations for action. Each Citizens’ Assembly dissolves once its task is completed.  

The Auroville pilot experiment

Preparation for the Auroville pilot began in August 2019. After the community suggested various topics, it was decided to focus upon coming up with a water vision for Auroville as the task for the first Citizens’ Assembly. The topic met key criteria for such a process: in addition to the urgency of the issue, Auroville’s water players were supportive of the experiment for it could provide an outcome they identified as an urgent need.

It was felt, however, that the water vision alone would not be enough to make a real change. The Assembly was therefore also asked to identify ideas for its implementation, suggestions on what needs to happen in order to deliver the vision, not technical solutions or a detailed strategy. 

In January, a random selection of 120 participants was made from Aurovilians on the Master List, plus Newcomers and Auroville children older than 16 years. Thirty agreed to participate, and the first session was held on 8th March. However, the rest of the planned sessions had to be abandoned when the COVID-19 lockdown was implemented. 

When sessions resumed at the end of October, certain COVID restrictions still operated so the original structure of the sessions had to be modified. Now the presentations were made on video, and the full group did not meet until the concluding sessions. 

Following an introductory session that incorporated skill-building elements around listening and bias, there were five evidence sessions that followed a common format.

Participants watched videos of Aurovilians talking about their work with water, the challenges they faced, and their ideas for a water vision and how it could be implemented. The presentations were followed by small group discussions where participants shared ideas, then prioritized those most relevant for a water vision and its implementation.  These were collected on ‘mind maps’ (a way of recording suggestions/concepts in a non-linear form) which could be referred back to in subsequent sessions. 

On 22nd December a panel session was organized at which seven of the presenters, chosen by the participants, answered questions put to them by the participants.  Two more sessions followed in which some presenters engaged less formally with participants.

The outcome

The final two sessions were the crucial ones. In the first, participants used the knowledge they had acquired over the past months to come up with a water vision for Auroville.  After being reminded of what makes a good vision statement, in small groups they worked on the mind maps to make a final prioritization of what needed to be included in that vision.  

The outcome was eight sentences, which a large majority of the group approved.  However, some felt there was room for improvement. Consequently, a small sub-group crafted a distilled version as their vision recommendation to the whole group. 

In the Spirit of Auroville, we will:

• Honour the sacredness of water by recognising it as an eternal source of life, of healing and intelligence and by conserving and protecting all water as our sacred inheritance.

• Embrace unity in diversity by using water as an opportunity to unite and collaborate within and beyond our boundaries; welcoming diverse, sustainable approaches to nurture our land and to sustain all life.

• Create a water conscious society by integrating local and global wisdom and acting boldly with openness toward new possibilities.

This was subsequently adopted by the whole Assembly. However, it was agreed that the previous version would also be shared with the community as a more detailed version.

The main purpose of the final session was to gauge the collective support for each of the 57 ideas for implementing the water vision collected over the previous weeks. Participants reviewed them in small groups, then individually indicated their support for each idea. These were then combined to determine the collective will of the Assembly.

These are suggestions for those who have the skills, expertise and energy to weave them into detailed strategies and projects. However, given the knowledge that had been built in the Assembly, participants were asked what they saw as the most urgent issues. From this it emerged that the top six urgent priorities for implementation were:

• Prioritise water in all levels of planning – identifying key water zones, reviewing the Master Plan with water as a priority and ensuring new development has systems to capture rainwater, recycle water and reduce pollution (ie shared kitchen, laundry)

• Create a community endorsed independent /neutral implementation group to coordinate works and take decisions on water issues, consulting with existing groups/experts and connecting to and supporting those interested in water

• Create an Auroville water budget mandated by the community, which is accountable

• Map the current situation to understand where water is being used in Auroville and what are the critical opportunities to take funds/support

• Bring stakeholders – experts, users, governance – together to explore blockages to working together (with the support of a skilled mediator)

• Establish systems to enable two way sharing between the bioregion and Auroville. Share Auroville knowledge and learn from traditional wisdom and local programmes (ie Puducherry ‘water rich’)

The final hour was devoted to exploring further ideas of how the vision and implementation outputs of the Assembly could be taken forward. One sub-group explored the idea of holding a Water Fair, another group began formulating ideas for creating a Water Board to facilitate communication and coordinate all water activities. Both these groups agreed to work further on these ideas. 

Evaluating the experiment 

The key research question was, “To what extent can the Citizens’ Assembly model support capacity building and participation in collective decision-making processes in Auroville towards realizing its ideals of human unity and unending education?”

This was evaluated on parameters like quality of participation; capacity building; process; outcome and education. 

The pilot proved very largely successful on all these fronts. Regarding the education aspect, participants agreed there had been a marked improvement in their knowledge of the water situation in Auroville due to the quality of the presentations, as well as the small discussion group format which they felt enabled deep exploration of the topic.  This was reflected in the quality of the Assembly’s final recommendations, which challenged the belief that only ‘experts’ in a particular field can provide wise counsel. 

Participants also said the learning exercises enabled them to become more conscious of the importance of understanding and connecting with others, and more aware of their biases.

However, the educational dividend extended beyond the participants. The presenters learned better how to communicate their knowledge, while one of the core team members said the most rewarding part was “working with a diverse (organizing) team that included newer members of the community, people raised in Auroville, and others who’ve been here longer, yet who were able to give space to new leadership”. 

Nevertheless, it was felt there is room for improvement. Although there were a few guided meditation and free expression sessions, generally the emphasis was upon verbal communication. While translation facilities were provided for Tamil speakers who requested it, those participants who lacked verbal facility in their own language or English may have been disadvantaged at times, particularly in the final sessions when knowledge of the nuances of English was at a premium (in fact, the three participants who required simultaneous translation dropped out before the end of the process). As one of the core team members put it, “Perhaps we need to put more effort into being culturally sensitive to other ways of knowing, being and deciding”.

Again, one participant may have spoken for others when he mentioned that he felt that the consciousness aspect of the work and the “large vision of Auroville” had not been sufficiently emphasized in the discussions or outcome. 

Finally, while everybody seemed happy with the vision statement, it is questionable whether the final prioritization of implementation ideas really reflected the attention given to certain proposals over the previous weeks. “I felt a little uncomfortable with the voting and the rating system at the end. A lot of richness was lost here,” commented one of the core team members. This may reflect what one participant referred to as the “lack of synthetic capacity after very good analytical work”, while another commented, “Too much democracy. The law of the many is not = truth.” 

Regarding the social aspect of the experiment, the question was whether randomly chosen individuals, from very different backgrounds and age groups, could collaborate as a group to achieve a common objective. While the social impact is hard to quantify, observations along with their own feedback suggest they worked together very well.  In fact, one participant said that the most rewarding part was the ‘mutual respect and listening”, another celebrated a “safe space where diversity meets unity”, while for another the highlight was “interacting with Aurovilians I had never met before”.

Interestingly, overall participants felt the most rewarding part of the Assembly was not the outcome but the process, particularly the way in which the discussions enabled them to consider other people’s points of view. 

The training in listening and discussion skills, the establishment of ground rules to ensure that everybody was given space to express themselves freely, along with the skilled facilitation, undoubtedly played a large part in this. But perhaps the most important factor was the small group and pair discussions that allowed the shyer participants to gain confidence in their ability to make worthwhile contributions. 

While these self-discovery stories may not feature in the final report, they may represent the most powerful experiences for the individuals involved. Interestingly, 50% of participants said that they had rarely attended community meetings before. Now they believed the new skills they had learned would mean they would be much more likely to participate in future. Who knows what the ripple effect on our larger governance and deliberation structures will be of this infusion of newly-empowered individuals?

And who knows what the material and subtle effects will be of so many people – presenters, participants, organizers, translators, film-makers, well over a hundred in all – focusing so intensively over such a long time on the topic of water? 

Overall, the response of the participants to the pilot was overwhelmingly positive. During the final ‘check out’ circle, participants shared how impressed they had been by the professionalism of the whole process, and were deeply grateful for the immense amount of background work which had made it such a worthwhile exercise. 

“Amazing work, don’t let it be forgotten,” wrote one.

What next?

Whilst there are many elements which will determine the success of this model, for the community the quality of the recommendations and their ability to be implemented are of prime importance. The next step, then, was to get the main water players’ response to the recommendations and their suggestions about how they could be taken forward. This happened on 13th February. 

While the water vision was widely welcomed, the implementation suggestions scored lower.  However, this seemed a comment on the difficulty of implementing them in their current form: as one water player explained, these proposals need to be broken down into practical steps before they can be materialized.

However, the main concern of the water players (as well as the participants) was how to maintain the momentum. Consequently, a water vision implementation group, comprising those involved in the Citizens Assembly and the water players, is currently forming to help manifest the key actions identified. 

The Assembly’s recommendations will also be shared with working groups related to water issues, whose support will also be crucial.  But perhaps even more crucial will be the creation of a groundswell for action within the larger community. This is why presentations are planned to share the process, the outcome and an evaluation of the Citizens’ Assembly model for collective decision-making with the community. A report incorporating all the ideas formulated during the Assembly, as well as a description and analysis of the process and results – for this is a research project funded by SAIIER – will also be made available to the community, along with public screenings of the films shown during the sessions.

Does the Citizens’ Assembly process have a future in Auroville? 

An overwhelming majority of participants felt they would trust a Citizen’s Assembly process for dealing with other community issues. The primary reason given for this was the ‘random selection’ composition of the assembly, which participants felt removed potential conflict of interest and created a context where all people could express themselves. 

They appreciated that it provides a space in which important topics can be deliberated upon in a deep yet inclusive, non-confrontational manner, allowing valuable recommendations to emerge. “The outcome was a genuine collective process, no one voice dominated,” said one, “It gives a taste of what a genuine community decision process could be like.”  

The core team echoed this. “It is still the most inclusive, participatory and fair model I have yet seen as a possibility for our collective decision making”, wrote one. The water players were equally enthusiastic: almost 85% would like to see it used for other community issues.  

In fact, suggestions for future topics have already been received. These include the Master Plan/town planning, the selection process, education and the economy.

It will be fascinating to see if the larger community agrees to provide longer-term support for this experiment…

Further information regarding the Citizens’ Assembly project can be found at website: https://caexplorationauroville.wordpress.com.