Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century?

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Cick here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

Digested First Pages:

Richard Farson
Welcome to our new conference, "Can Democracy Survive In The 21st Century?" led by two distinguished authorities on the workings of democracy, Daniel Quinn Mills, Alfred J. Weatherhead, Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, and Donald Straus, former president of the American Arbitration Association. Quinn, as we call him, is the author of the forthcoming book, Master of Illusions: American Presidential Leadership in the Media Age, and other books dealing with political and corporate leadership and corruption. ILF Fellow Don Straus, well known to our participants, has been teaching about the prospects for democracy at Atlantic College in Maine for a number of years.

We are especially glad to welcome the following guest participants:

Bruce R. Scott, Paul W. Cherington, Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School, whose particular interest in is the effect of public policy on business.

Rakesh Khurana, Associate Professor, Harvard Business School, who teaches in the area of management and markets.

Steven Rosefielde, Professor of Economics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, involved in economic systems and global security research with American, Russian, Swedish and Japanese governments.

Carole Winkler, Research Associate, Harvard Business School, who, among other responsibilities, assists Quinn Mills.

Elizabeth Lewis, Harvard Business School, Class of 2006.

This conference represents something new and very special for the ILF. For two reasons. First, we are undertaking this conference in collaboration with this group of faculty and students from the Harvard Business School. Second, in this conference we seek to generate not only wisdom, but fresh ideas and consensual recommendations that can be communicated to policymakers. To develop such a product, our leaders will assume somewhat different, but overlapping, responsibilities--Quinn leading with content, and Don facilitating with process interventions when it appears that misunderstandings might get in the way of our reaching consensus.

For these reasons, and for the topicality, popular appeal, and make-or-break importance of our conference theme for the future of democracy in America, and therefore around the world, we expect to have a tremendously interesting and valuable conference. So, again, welcome to all of you.

Daniel Quinn Mills

Dear Participants in our Conference: Continuing in WBSI’s tradition of analyzing and discussing democracy, this four-week session will explore the robustness of American democracy and whether it has the necessary characteristics to survive the 21st century. Current events including the Katrina debacle, which was the topic of WBSI’s September NetConference, indicate the answer to sustainability could be no.

First, this is because problem solving within our current democracy is conducted through an adversarial process that takes the following form:

1. A failure to anticipate possible catastrophes, followed by

2. A lack of preparation for such events, and

Collaborative problem solving, on the other hand, reverses these steps and results in participants’ selecting the best solution among several identified alternatives. A second key issue regarding American democracy is the quality of leadership and whether our current process attracts the most highly qualified individuals to run for public office. Experience with World War II and the Iraq war on terrorism indicate that a deep knowledge and understanding of foreign policy are lacking in many political candidates today. During the month of October we will explore whether or not everyone agrees this is so, what the causes may be and how the process might be modified. I am greatly looking forward to exploring these important issues with you.

Donald Straus

Greetings to all of you. As Dick has explained, I am taking on the role of conference facilitator. When I was president of the American Arbitration Association my work was mainly focused enabling antagonistic parties, each of whom wanted to "win," to reach agreement, usually requiring arbitration or mediation. This process usually began long after different opinions and goals were well known. Results reached in this way can bring temporary peace, but often not a good solution.

This conference presents a different challenge. We seek to develop a product in the form of recommendations to policymakers on ways to survive and prosper through the 21st century. Our conference questions whether our form of democracy will work, and, if not, invites ideas for revisions we might have to make. We will be exploring issues that may be new to us, and we will be doing that not as adversaries, but in a dialogue among peers. Nevertheless, because misunderstandings and disagreements may arise, the newer concepts of facilitation first try to reach mutual understanding of the issues before seeking solutions. My role here is to help us do just that. Also, I will work to see if we can frame our ideas into recommendations that might be sufficiently representative of our thinking that we can approach consensus.

We believe that experiments like this are not only essential but are also meeting a need felt by many (I would like to believe a majority) of our citizens. We urge you to join in by following our suggested path, at least at the start. As we move along we will be open to your suggestions for improving it or testing other new ways.

Quinn has suggested a number of issues to consider. Pick one which interests you most and add your ideas for handling it. We will then select one of them for our first set of discussions. As your facilitator I am asking that our discussion follow this sequence:

* What do you find to be wrong with the way this issue has been handled?

* What has been useful for solving it, and what further ideas do you have for

reaching a good solution?

* Can we agree on a good method for reaching a better solution—or even the

terms of what that solution might be?

If you are in doubt as to whether the comment you want to make is appropriate, please make it anyway, and we will respond. Mostly we want to encourage your active participation in what we hope will be an interesting, animated and useful discussion.

.

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. Click here to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

top