Flexible and interconnected? The deliberative potential of public hearings

Public hearings are utilised in many democratic countries, in planning law, policy design and public engagement strategies. They bring politicians, public administrators, industry members, experts and members of the public together into dialogue over a variety of issues. Despite playing a prominent part in many policy-making processes, they have been largely overlooked in the field of deliberative democracy.

Public hearings are a self-selecting participatory process that welcome a variety of actors to identify and focus on issues that require discussion. In the majority of cases they begin with presentations or statements, and follow with a question and answer session between a selected panel and an audience. This exchange is mediated by a chairperson.

As a self-selecting process, they are often considered by democratic theorists as merely consultative, one-way processes designed to allow ‘the usual suspects’ to spout ‘not-in-my-backyard’ (NIMBY) inspired rhetoric against progress and development. They are widely considered to be tokenistic or, even worse, a tool for manipulation.

Admittedly, hearings can be frustratingly formulaic in their design. Participants are frequently required to submit questions prior to proceedings. The format can be intimidating. Hearings can be dominated by organised interests. Participants often cannot respond to the evidence and presentations given during the hearing. And minutes can be slow to be published. They are often used as examples of poor public engagement methods and positioned as the type of process that mini-publics offer an alternative to.

However, my recent research finds that public hearings have several strengths necessary to facilitate the institutionalisation of deliberation in the political process. Citizens often look to public hearings as a place to be heard, a recognised and safe place to hold political actors to account. The hearing is usually held in close geographical proximity to the issue being discussed where those affected can push back or support plans or policies, and have their say. Public hearings can fulfil desirable democratic goals and provide an essential participatory format in an interconnected and plural democratic system.

Hearings are remarkably flexible in their application.

Hearings are remarkably flexible in their application. They can be held at any level of governance. They can be held in response to public pressure, used to set agendas, to deliberate and discuss the social and environmental impact of a decision, to gather evidence from the public and other bodies, and to make recommendations. Laterally, hearings can be used to review and revise existing decisions.

Hearings can be applied at any stage of the decision or policy-making process. In many planning systems, hearings are a legal requirement and can be called for by the public which lends the process legitimacy as a recognised part of the political process, that ad hoc democratic innovations may lack.

There is something inherently public about public hearings. The audience bear witness to the planning and policy process. Having a forum to challenge, question and scrutinise policy makers and policy and planning decisions infront of a wider audience makes decisions more transparent and holds those that make decisions to account.

Deliberation can take place in the hearing itself, with high quality exchange of reasons, evidence and perspectives.

Importantly, there is scope for deliberation to take place in the hearing itself. There is a high-quality exchange of reason and evidence, and a range of perspectives are represented. Whilst it can be frustrating, the formulaic nature of hearings allows members of the public, interest groups, community leaders to prepare, gather evidence and put together a strong and persuasive argument, giving compelling testimonials and drawing on important local knowledge. Participants and interest groups offer well researched and evidenced presentations.

The ability to prepare a presentation or organise as a group works in the favour of some participants, who are able to mobilise and organise, using evidence and rational argument, to advocate for their point of view effectively. Individuals who don’t wish to speak, but still feel strongly about an issue, are able to align themselves with interest groups. These often include experienced community leaders who have the time and resources to do the research and attend the meetings. Yet, I found that evidence giving also takes a range of forms from individuals including storytelling, anecdotes, local knowledge, lived experience, emotional testimony as well as evidence based factual accounts.

The self-selecting nature of the public hearings offers a format for inclusion of a different demographic than those selected through sortition. The type of person who attends a hearing tend to be those directly affected by the issues under discussion: people that feel incensed, alienated, compelled to act, all those who need an outlet for their voice to be heard. For this reason, deliberation will not always result. Interaction can be more agonistic, more confrontational, but no less needed, giving people an additional entry point to engage with decisions that affect them.

Hearings can be used alongside other democratic processes – representative, participatory, direct and deliberative.

It is compelling to consider how hearings might be used alongside other democratic processes – representative, participatory, direct and deliberative. In my recent article, I found hearings that were linked with referenda, citizens’ assemblies, parliamentary discussions, and many were held as part of a suite of hearings across a wider geographical area to give people the best chance to attend and contribute to the conversation. This illustrates that they have a role to play in a deliberative system.

Take as an example the original citizens’ assembly (CA) held in British Columbia in Canada. Public hearings were linked with the CA in order for the wider public to have their say and reflect on the proposed electoral system change. These contributed to the wider informational leaflets and recommendations which resulted from the CA. These processes were directly linked with evidence giving for a wider referendum.

Through the hearings, a wider demographic was engaged on the issue than those took part in the CA alone. Furthermore, wider evidence was gathered. The engagement of a different demographics through multiple engagement methods enables more diverse forms of conversation, evidence gathering and scrutiny than a one-off deliberative process. Politicians, the media and individuals can witness that exchange too which contributes to the legitimising of the wider public engagement strategy.

Undoubtedly, hearings can be flawed. They can be intimidating for presenters who have to speak in public, and for politicians, organisers and developers who are facing an angry populace. They can be tokenistic and make participants feel they have wasted their time. While hearings are making better use of digital methods and hybrid meetings, there is scope to improve, making better use of digital innovations and supporting contributors to feel heard and valued.

With such headway being made in deliberative democratic practice and theory, it is vital to take stock of how processes work in isolation so that their strengths and weaknesses can be identified. Overlooking ‘traditional’ methods like public hearings means missing opportunities to reform, improve and redesign. Then we can consider how they can combine and complement one another – where one can overcome the weaknesses of another and vice versa.

Want to know more? Read the full article in the Journal of Deliberative Democracy.

About the Author

Ruth Lightbody is a senior lecturer in politics at Glasgow Caledonian University. Ruth’s principal research interests are deliberative democracy and public participation, and how they can be used to implement policy changes which tackle social inequalities and environmental issues.