When did we decide that local matters really were not important in the bigger picture of national issues so therefore we should stop being concerned about local issues and let others make the decisions on our behalf? When did we decide, as citizens in a democratic country, that our voices were not really that important and we should go back to living our lives and let others make decisions?

How many of us understand the issues involved in things like the international refugee crisis and the stance our government has taken in this? How many of us understand the climate change research and looked at our government’s policies in this area?

How many of us could identify the key issues facing our Armidale region and the strategies our council have put in place to address these? 

Is not our education system meant to prepare us to perform our role of citizens in a demographic nation? Yet we have generations of adults, many of whom are prepared to let others make these key decisions for us.

I have heard many people say things like: "The government know what they are doing. I don’t understand and don’t want to – let the government do it.” As a consequence, many of those in power (in government, in business) have become accustomed to making policy, making decisions and carrying out actions without consultation.

At the same time, we now live in an era where we feel increasing distrust in decisions made on our behalf. This leads to impatience for change, and a drive for change that is not based on good information can result in decisions that may actually work against the ideals of democracy. The election of Trump is an example, and the current crisis in the UK over Brexit is another.

Populism often results in dividing communities and serves to increase distrust in the voices of the people, given the voices have driven change that is not necessarily helpful. 

Ron Levy suggests that we need to focus on developing deliberative democracy, a model of consultation that involves ordinary citizens in deliberating issues. The model suggests that groups of citizens are invited to participate in organised sessions where they are provided with information, debate and provide advice to government on how to proceed.

He also suggests we make more use of what he calls deliberative/informed referenda. The ideal would be to set up citizen groups leading up to a referendum. The role of these groups would be to collect the relevant information and release it to the broader public.

These citizen groups would also help shape the questions on the ballot. These should not present a simple yes/no questions but rather present a range of options. Preferential voting would still enable the emergence of a majority option. It would be possible to include values issues, so that all citizens could be involved in determining priorities (eg environmental protection versus economic development). 

We have two elections coming up in the near future and it would be most interesting for citizens to examine the various commitments made by candidates in relation to consultation.

Which of our candidates is willing to commit to hearing local voices and to allow these voices to contribute to policy? Which of these candidates commits to creating opportunities for locals to debate issues, and to providing the information needed for those debates to be informed? 

Can we, together, work to make Armidale a place where citizens agree to debate issues and listen to each other, and where our representatives not only hear our voices, but make our opinions heard in government decision-making?

And can we support our schools to teach these skills to our children so they grow up expecting to research and find out information they will use to join in local debates and contribute to government policy?

Can we become a town respected for the ability of its citizens to think, to debate and to contribute?

Read more Class Act:

Subscribing to functional stupidity

Curiosity versus control in education

Top-heavy approach can topple learning