Transparency and public participation - the need for a new paradigm

Increasing openness, public participation and transparency are considered important for decision-making in public issues. Transparency serves two purposes; for the awareness of decision-makers and for public insight and influence. However, the increasing complexity of today's society, the complexity of decision processes and the complexity of the underlying factual basis are all factors that work against transparency and participation. Furthermore, the decision-making context in controversial issues is not only set up by the factual basis provided by the experts, but also by stakeholder pressure groups, lobbyists and extensive media coverage. The seemingly unlimited availability of information on the Internet and the continuous information flow in TV channels does not make it easier for the layman to get insight and clarity. This paper starts with a discussion about the expert role, a definition of transparency and three rationales for public participation. The two areas of nuclear waste disposal and biotechnology are then used to illustrate problems with transparency, but also initiatives for improving the situation. Frameworks for the evaluation of participative processes are described, as well as the role of media in making complex issues transparent. A central theme in the paper is the need for a shift from the 'experts-agenda paradigm' to the 'values-first paradigm'. We end up with suggestions for how transparency and public participation can be enhanced for the sake of democratic development: 1. We must have a multi-perspective starting point. Participants in participative processes should represent a broad spectrum of views. People must hear each other out to achieve common understanding that there are a variety of legitimate perspectives to consider. 2. The RISCOM model has been shown both innovative and workable in the nuclear waste area. We should extend its application to other areas, biotechnology being one primary candidate. 3. Experiences from participative and deliberative processes should be evaluated using the RISCOM model and other criteria - this may open a new framework for research. 4. The arenas for public discourse (transparency channels) must be impartial - intellectually neutral as to ideology and politically neutral to party. All viewpoints must be given opportunities to participate. 5. Without access to the mass media, public discourse is impossible in modern society. Finding new ways to achieve this in collaboration between journalists and scientific experts may be one of the most critical issues in developing new transparency channels. Finally, in practising all this we should have in mind the coming shift from the experts-agenda paradigm to the values-first paradigm, being prepared to catalyst the change