Democracy in Our Deliberations

By Adrian Stratton, PRP

Democracy begins, is maintained, and ends with the members of an assembly. The ideas and opinions that members express truly add to the unique nature of each session. Often, individual interpretations skew perceived rights within a membership, and disagreements that result test the capacity of democracy as business is conducted. Do we wish for order enabled by regulation, or the freedom democracy seeks to protect in our deliberations? These two seemingly conflicting ideas must work together if either is to be useful for members engaged in parliamentary law.

Regulation in support of fairness constrains and defines boundaries. A strength of democracy is that a majority determines how tight governing constraints should be. The freedom for an assembly to decide for itself is critical to self-government. Regulation limits freedoms, but without rules, the environment through which democracy can thrive is diminished. In extreme circumstances, overly regulated assemblies can render democratic principles ineffective or useless.

Freedom, in contrast to regulation, is action without restraint. However, a total absence of constraint by members in deliberations would surely lead to chaos. Members have individual and collective privileges within the context of an assembly. For example, the full and free discussion of motions, and limits on the number of times one may speak in debate, creates both privileges and protections in assemblies who adopt the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority.1 To be enjoyed, the privileges and freedoms democracy protects must be defined.

Democracy exists somewhere in the middle of restriction and a total lack thereof. Adopting rules to protect freedom is a necessary democratic task. The balance between regulation and freedom is particular to each assembly and occasion. Fairness to all contributes greatly to favorable perceptions of justice in democratic assemblies. Important democratic concepts to consider in fairness to all members are the right to be heard, majority rule, and the collective ability to change.

Participation in debate provides an opportunity for all members to be heard. Democracy is centered on full and open participation.2 In democratic assemblies any member may seek recognition and offer proposals or thoughts on a matter. Even the unpopular, or uncomfortable opinion can be shared. To consider opposition is necessary for democracy to work. Full participation empowers an assembly, with the members determining what is to be discussed and for how long.

The will of members is expressed by majority rule. One of the greatest protections in procedure is that it is the

1 Henry M. Robert III, et al., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (New York:

Public Affairs, 2020), pgs. 1 and 38–39. 2 Hugh Cannon, Cannon’s Concise Guide to Rules of Order (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1995), p. 49.

assembly who decides. An assembly has the freedom to make great decisions. An assembly also has the freedom to make poor decisions. Outcomes aside, of upmost importance is that a majority, greater than half, determines the disposition of business before it, unless rules provide otherwise.

The collective ability to change enables refinement of action and current sentiment. An assembly can change collective thought as members may change attitudes on an issue. Democratic assemblies accept that business may be undone.3 Reconsider, rescind, and amend are all options to modify actions previously taken, where appropriate. The members who comprise an assembly individually have a right to change their opinions on previous actions, and so does the assembly, where it is possible to do so.

Without regulation, certain democratic privileges are continually jeopardized. Sensible precautions to safeguard freedoms should be a priority, and special care should be taken. Without freedom to fairly exchange ideas, members would certainly raise concerns about subsequent rulings. Speaker time should have limits so that one person does not unfairly dominate debate, preventing others from sharing. The majority may choose to do whatever it pleases, so long as it agrees with governance and is not in conflict with any rule it is subject to. Unjust rules and limitations that undermine democratic principles should be changed to reflect fairness. The power to enable democracy rest with the presiding officer, but the will of the majority is the final authority.

Democracy as a system of cooperation allows members to develop their government. Do we wish for order enabled by regulation, or the freedom democracy seeks to protect in our deliberations? This question is one every assembly must answer if it is to behave democratically. Subject to modification within context, democracy is an expansive concept and a living framework. The delicate relationship between regulation and freedom is important. If either has a disproportionate effect, effort should be made to correct the imbalance for the sake of democracy in an assembly.

Parliamentary law, as a mechanism for democratic interaction, seeks to ensure that the will of an assembly is expressed and fulfilled. Rights and alignment to the aims of an assembly are always under consideration by the members. If we cannot have democratic participation in our assemblies, then where can we? Where will we protect democracy if we do not protect it in our assemblies? In our deliberations, both regulation and freedom must be present if democracy is to exist. Ultimately, in each decision an assembly decides for itself just how much of an impact democracy will have. NP

3 Hugh Hellman, Parliamentary Procedure (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 42.

Adrian Stratton, MBA, PRP, is a member of the National Association of Parliamentarians, Parliamentarians of Brooklyn New York, Inc. unit, and the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Mr. Stratton is a Partner at GAACC management consulting.