Jan 6, 2020
Hans-Liudger Dienel spoke with Carson about the work of his
father Peter Dienel who developed the
planning cells model of deliberative engagement in the early
1970s and which Hans has continued to work with through the
Nexus
Institute in Germany.
Hans identifies that his father was a missionary for planning
cells. Planning cells began out of Peter’s experience in the
church. Planning cells were standardised to maximise acceptance of
the process. Planning cells have 25 citizens on each and often
multiple planning cells are run in parallel sessions, with expert
speakers followed by un-facilitated small group work to deliberate
on the ‘conflictual problem.' The process was designed to be immune
to “bad” facilitators.
They hold multiple parallel processes is to generate a
deliberative atmosphere in small groups meeting over four days. In
particular, small groups allow people who may be less confident to
be active participants.
Over the years since the planning cells model was developed
they have focused on standardisation though there has been some
changes. For example, citizens vote at the end of the process to
reach their final recommendation which they hand over to the
Government who commissioned their work, in a public event. More
recently they have required the Government to report back to the
planning cell members one year later. Another change has been to
use the internet to promote the process to the broader public both
before it happens and afterwards.
Research by one of his PhD students found that many years
later participants in planning cells were still very much aware of
the progress of their work and had become more politically
efficacious (this research is currently only in
German).
Hans noted that in Germany there is a law that workers can
have up to five days off work to participate in further education
or to voluntary activities. This leave isn’t paid and so people
participating in planning cells are paid by the organisers for
their time.
Carson and Hans have a discussion about the value of
standardisation versus tailoring processes to the particular
context. A potential compromise was the idea of having common
standard principles but allowing some flexibility in the design of
individual processes.