Canadian Adversaries Take A Break to Dream: The Maclean's 1991 Experiment
Note: This Canadian experiment was one form of citizen consensus council.
One weekend in June, 1991, a dozen Canadians met at a resort north
of Toronto, under the auspices of Maclean's,
Canada's leading newsweekly. They'd been scientifically chosen so
that, together, they represented all the major sectors of public
opinion in their deeply divided country. But despite their firmly
held beliefs, each of them was interested in dialogue
with people whose views differed from theirs. That dialogue was
facilitated by "the guru of conflict resolution," Harvard
University law professor Roger
Fisher -- co-author of the classic Getting
to Yes -- and two colleagues.
Amazingly, these ordinary citizens succeeded in their mission --
despite the fact that they'd never really listened to the viewpoints
and experiences of others so unlike themselves... and despitethe
tremendous time pressure (they had two and a half days to develop
a consensus vision for Canada)...
and despite being continuously watched by a camera crew from Canadian
TV who recorded the event for a special edition of their W5 public
affairs program entitled The
People's Accord. Their vision was published in four pages of
fine print -- part of the 40 pages Maclean's devoted
to describing their efforts in the July 1, 1991 issue headlined
"The People's Verdict").
Maclean's editors suggested that "the process that led
to the writing of the draft could be extended to address other issues."
Assistant Managing Editor Robert Marshall noted that a parliamentary
committee, a governmental consultative initiative, and a $27 million
Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future had all failed to create real
dialogue among citizens about constructive solutions -- even though
those efforts involved 400,000 Canadians in focus groups, phone
calls and mail-in reporting. He concluded that "The experience
of the Maclean's forum indicates that if a national
dialogue ever does take place, it would be an extremely productive
In fact "The People's Verdict" issue of Maclean's did
stir up months of intense dialogue across Canada. Most notable were
broadcast "town halls" where elected officials responded to questions
from both in-studio audiences and listening audience call-ins. These
conversations were ultimately squelched by politicians not comfortable
with their direction and tone. Apparently politics-as-usual slowly
returned to Canada, albeit with a populist tone that was articulated by the People's Verdict participants as part of a larger trend.
The Maclean's experiment is a type of citizen
consensus council. Were something like this to be institutionalized
as an official, highly publicized annual national event, it would
approximate Jim Rough's vision of a national Wisdom
Council (although Wisdom Councils tend to be freer and more
creative in their explorations). Perhaps the most striking shortcoming
of the remarkable Maclean's initiative was that Maclean's
didn't do it again the following year - and the next year - and
the next... Had they done so, there is a good chance that the response
of politicians would have been taken up by that ongoing national
conversation, empowering the forces for positive change.
Maclean's editors apparently did not realize that they had created more than
a glorified focus group led by experienced mediators. They had created the seed of an unprecedented democratic innovation. Had they realized that and acted on it, Canada would likely be a far better country today with wiser, more participatory democracy.
With the benefit of both hindsight and two more decades of developments
in the fields of dialogue, deliberation, creative conversation,
public engagement, conflict transformation, and online forums and networks, we have the opportunity
to take what Maclean's did and lift it to an entirely new level
of wise, participatory democratic power.
Aside from being a remarkable example of high quality citizen deliberation,
this initiative is also an almost unequaled example of a novel and
powerful role journalism could play in a deliberative democracy. The
most significant elements in that regard involve
- combining both print and broadcast coverage (which could
be augmented nowadays with online engagement) and
- combining mini-biographies of the participants with a blow-by-blow
account of their dramatic interactions -- a combination which drew the entire citizenry
of Canada vicariously into this transformational small-group conversation among their peers.
In this model of journalism, as the reader reads the descriptions of
the participants, they align themselves with people who are like
them or whose views they share, while frowning on participants whose
views or demographics they don't like. Then, having established
their own place in the group, they read (or watch) their friends
and enemies engage with each other. If the conversation is handled
well, the participants shift in various ways, and the citizens
in the audience find themselves shifting a bit, too, or at least
seeing their adversaries differently. When these erstwhile adversaries
are shown signing a shared agreement and hugging each other as friends,
the readers and viewers realize this means a totally different kind
of political conversation is possible -- and, with it, the possibility
of creating their shared lives and policies together instead of
battling against each other.
There's nothing in this model that violates high journalistic standards,
objectivity, etc., but the impact of this design on the viewing/reading
audience can be profound indeed. It is very significant that in
Canada it triggered months of spontaneous conversation across the
country. When we ask "How do we scale up high quality dialogue and
deliberation to cities and countries with millions of people?",
we would be wise to study what Maclean's did and develop
versions of it that we can apply to our own communities and public
struggles. The opportunities for journalistic innovation are numerous
In June 1999, the Co-Intelligence Institute hired investigative
reporter Larry Shook to interview some key players in Maclean's
"People's Verdict" initiative. We are posting those interviews here
(in both mp3 and pdf form) for the information of those who wish
to investigate this effort more deeply. The interviews provide considerable
insight into the workings of the process and its impact on participants,
observers, and Canadian society at large.
Exploring and reflecting on the materials below (and the interviews linked above) will
serve us all in making a bigger and better difference in our societies
and our world.
For a larger blow-up of the Maclean's cover and a photo
of the group involved, click here
For the event in story form (Ch 12 of Tom Atlee'sThe
Tao of Democracy), click
For the entire set of special issue articles in one printable pdf,
click here (6.2 MB).
For pieces of the full story -- pdfs of the eleven articles Maclean's
issued on this subject in 1991 -- click below. We particularly
recommend "The 12 Who Shared" and "A Weekend of Candor".
For 1999 conversations about the People's Verdict experiment with three of Maclean's editors and
also the event's lead facilitator, negotiation expert Roger Fisher, go
here. The interviews are available in both mp3 and pdf form.
Home || What's
New || Search || Who
We Are || Co-Intelligence
|| Our Work || Projects
|| Contact || Don't
Miss || Articles || Topics
|| Books || Links
|| Subscribe || Take
Action || Donate || Legal
If you have comments about this site, email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Contents copyright © 2004-2014, all rights reserved, with
generous permissions policy (see Legal Notices)