By Reet Hardik Desai, Student in the M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program
As a student in the M.S. in Negotiation and Conflict program (NECR) Capstone Course 6250: Resolution Strategies, taught by program director Dr. Peter Dixon, Saturday mornings are usually reserved for deep dives into complex theories of peacebuilding. However, one class session took a different turn. Our classroom transformed into a workshop for democratic innovation as we welcomed Dr. Marjan Ehsassi, the executive director of FIDE – North America and a leading expert on citizens’ assemblies, a form of participatory democracy where a randomly selected, demographically representative group of individuals gather to deliberate on specific policy issues.
The workshop focused on the argument that our contemporary representative democracies are experiencing a democratic malaise marked by concern that the voice of the individual does not matter. In her book, Activated Citizenship, Ehassi addresses the issue of people believing that their opinions are unimportant and that their preferences are not represented in policy—a concept she calls voice insecurity—and lays out the citizens’ assembly model as a potential response to this challenge.
In contrast to traditional town halls, which frequently draw in a limited range of repeat attendees, citizens’ assemblies use sortition—a democratic lottery—to bring together a wider representation of members of the public. The objective is to shift the tenor of these gatherings from divisive discussion to deliberation, in which participants share knowledge, consider their options, and look for areas of agreement on difficult policy issues.
We also discussed “activated citizenship,” a paradigm Ehsassi created to gauge the transformative effect of debate across five variables (epistemic growth, connectedness, effervescence, political engagement, and consequential voice). To achieve activated citizenship is to cultivate a sense of empowerment and duty among citizens—the ideal outcome that assemblies aim to ignite.
During the workshop, the discussion swiftly transitioned from theory to practical application. Students designed mock citizens’ assemblies and chose capstone subjects from among our peers. Some of our groups struggled with the elements that constitute an assembly’s legitimacy. In particular, it was a challenge to determine the extent to which citizens perceived their input was important, and to find a middle ground for the mission that was both broad enough to encourage innovative problem-solving and narrow enough to be implemented. We had to establish a precise mandate, or remit, and make sure the leading question was precise enough to enable participants to come up with workable answers.
One of the most important lessons from the exercise was how significant government presence is for encouraging participation. A firm commitment from the government to address the assembly’s recommendations is necessary for a process to genuinely activate citizenship. This generates the consequential voice—where citizens perceive their input as important and capable of making a tangible impact on government decision-making—that transforms an interaction from a discussion forum into a democratic act of transformation.
We were compelled by this exercise to close the gap between the practical instruments needed for resolution and our academic studies. We looked at how careful process design directly affects the outcome’s legitimacy by taking into account who is present and how information is conveyed. Treating the public as a resource to be embraced rather than a risk to be managed is crucial for modern governance, as Ehsassi pointed out during our discussion.
By connecting academic theory with the useful tools required to create inclusive processes, this workshop embodied the essence of the NECR capstone experience. In the end, the course gave students a roadmap for creating institutional environments where democratic citizenship becomes a meaningful reality, substituting paths for legitimate engagement in every conflict terrain for voice insecurity.
About the Program
Columbia University’s Master of Science in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution prepares students to analyze the root causes and dynamics of conflict and to transform disputes through reasoned and resourceful interventions. The program focuses on developing self-awareness, tenacity, and interpersonal competency; building common ground; opening lines of communication; ensuring representation and recognition, and building sustainable possibilities for resolution.
The program has on-campus and online (with residency) modality options. Learn more about the program here.
