Discussion of the results with the method "WORLD CAFE". Image: T. Rank
Model attempt with random castles in the seven districts of the district Tempelhof-Schareberg, interview with Daniel Oppold of the Iass, who scientifically accompanied the Burgerrat
By lot of composite burger assemblies are also fashionable in Germany (see the exemplary dispute – you should replace professional politicians through randomly trained burger?To). Especially in Berlin, an exciting model experiment started: in all seven districts of the Tempelhof-Schareberg district (351.000 inhabitants) are convened by busy burger rates, which advise on their neighborhood for two days. The first group, draw in the district of Friedenau, met on the 9. and 10. August in the Rathaus Schareberg, the following Wednesday the results were presented in a burger cafe of the public and discussed together.
District makers Angelika Schottler acquainted with her buried that the rather soft task for the first Burgerrat is from her and "conveniently" was chosen: "How can we receive the district worth living and shape the future together?" Everyone can call fast deficits in his environment, positive to recognize trap heavier. "We all learned to think in deficits. That starts at school, where one thing is told what you can not do", said Schottler. "Few people can immediately say what their own strong are and where they are perceived positive."
But the Burgerrat has then collected numerous change of change, which means: still not everything is fine. Traffic problems, affordable living room, senior-agent city, meeting places for young people – To ten main topics, the Burgerrat has collected many concrete proposals.
About these recommendations of the Burgerrat all present at the presentation could be found in one "WORLD CAFE" Discuss with each other – as the first resonance.
The seven burger rate of Funf Friedauer were initiated. In your search for new democratic forms of burger participation, they were gestable to the model of the burger rate in Vorarlberg, which there has been there since 2006 and that are now even anchored in the state crash.
The fact that their idea was realized so fast and then in this roughness is, on the one hand, district champion Angelika Schottler was owed to the experiment, on the other hand a financial requirement by the state of Berlin, has the interest in this new form of burger participation.
The model attempt is scientifically accompanied by "Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies" (ISS, see the following interview). In addition, there is an independent evaluation of the entire procedure. The further six burger rate will take place until Marz 2020. Information about the procedure in Berlin and in other bads is available under Aleatizational Democracy.de.
The genesis history of the now started burger rate in Tempelhof-Schareberg sounds almost brandy. Funf women suggest politics a new instrument for burger participation – and that says immediately: "Oh great, a burger council has actually missed us, we’ll install it quickly." There is no lack of hard working work?
Daniel Oppold: In fact, the burger group "Just courage" ONLY ONLY ONLY OPEN TEND. She first introduced the idea to the political groups, but right now then directly the district maker. And this has actually recognized immediately that you are still missing such an element of burger participation. There are many participation-going for organized stakeholders, but so far no instrument that reflects the colorful mix of population and incorporates directly into the design of politics.
Why does the policy itself look for a deficit that you liked to fix?
Daniel Oppold: Well, in my view was probably not primarily the question deciding what deficits can fix it. Rather, it was just recognized that the Burger_nearrate are a possibility to release strongly, which slumber in cooperation between burgers, politicians and administration. The burger council process according to the Vorarlberg model promises exactly these strong systematically to activate.
Randomly selected burgers are selected from the registration register of a district and asked to advise the district champion to a question. The multi-stage process of the Burgerrat ensures that these random burger jointly develop recommendations that reflects the views of normal burgers – and not that of organized stakeholders or activists who favor a special topic. Such an insight is incredibly valuable for politics and administration because it comes so unusually unfiltered.
The Berlin model project is based on the experiences in Vorarlberg. After that, a special moderation method is mandatory. What’s it all about?
Daniel Oppold: The method used in one and a half-aged burger council clause mainly is called Dynamic Facilitation. That’s a very different way to communicate. The participating sitting in the semicircle in front of four flipcharts, and everything that is said is recorded by the moderation on one of the four flipcharts, nothing is lost. The first is written with "Challenges / problems", the second with "Solutions / ideas", the third with "concerns" and the fourth with "Facts / perspectives", What is collected, what the members of the burger council as given. The moderation specifies in terms of content, it only stimulates to think, especially in the ideas direction.
Sounds a bit like school.
Daniel Oppold: It is already difficult for the participants to prompt most of the time. Because clear: If one speaks, the others have to be quiet, there is no secondary language or something. But the tohoren is one of the most important democratic skills that we seem to lose in our time. But it is exciting to see that it succeeds relatively quickly with dynamic facilitation. As an observer you can watch the people quasi when thinking. And this intensive tooth leads to the individual arguments and ideas of the participants totally sharpen.
Daniel Oppold from the Iass in Potsdam accompanies the Burgerrat scientific. Image: Iass
So everything is negotiated in the coarse round, not even something attributed for two?
Daniel Oppold: No, the procedure is quite strict, almost orthodox. Towards the end of the Burgerratsladausur, however, other methods are used to compact the results. So z.B. The participants of the burger’s council on one "Gallery Walk" sent to view all flipcharts that have been described above the time. The participants also announce the core messages and recommendations on these main topics from the common flipcharts of the Dynamic Facilitation Sessions together in plenary main topics or in small groups.
"After possibility is not coordinated"
If the considerations are summarized in any form at the end? Maybe someone in the beginning an idea that he finds so great at the end of the advice itself.
Daniel Oppold: It can come to so-called breakthrough moments, where you spurt, there was a common idea in the group. Such breakthrough moments are always part of the final recommendation that is communicated. The burgers can walk in the end, which were the gross storylines, what they see as essence of their consultations.
So it is not formulated by the moderators after the process, which the burger advised, as is the burger report at the end of a planning cell?
Daniel Oppold: No, all content is the burger yourself and formulate your recommendations yourself.
What does the unification process look like?
Daniel Oppold: After possibility is not coordinated. But it is also not necessary to find a consensus at the end for everything. Disseal can also be listed as different perspectives and they are valuable for politics. Which form the results accept, entirely depends on the negotiated content. All core messages and recommendations that the Burgerrat ultimately resumed the contracting age are decided by consensus procedures. This procedure ensures that there is no serious resistance in the group against the wording of individual core messages and recommendations.
The dynamic "Dynamic Facilitation" is therefore the flexible operation of moderation and participants?
Daniel Oppold: No, the dynamic is what’s in the tip of the participants. The setting itself is quite static and forces attentive tohoren. And the moderators are in a role that makes little power possible. They are only there to keep the space, to allow the development of thoughts to pick up these and record in writing.
How is the Tempelhof-Schareberg district deal with the results of the seven burger rate?
Daniel Oppold: According to the Vorarlberger Model Berat after the public earnings printer a resonance group which ideas of the Burgerrat can be recorded, where processes are already running, where you can blew, where new can be created. This resonance group then gives your results to the state-of-the-style bodies, which then decide what is actually happening. These bodies are usually also the client for the Burgerrat, and then they are in the form of a publicly jerking on the participants of the Burgerrat, which was picked up and what not – and why.
They worked with burger rates in Vorarlberg and researched. Is the Vorarlberg model of the current benchmark for aleizeable burger participation?
Daniel Oppold: Certainly not. It is the diversity of dialogue-oriented burger participation, which I think that’s very important to find context-specific format. An advantage of the Vorarlberger Model now for the burger rate in Tempelhof-Schareberg is the high comparability of the results by the process design. For a political scientist like me, this is greatly exciting.
If the model project preserves, it should be applied. The initiators are based on Berlin.
Daniel Oppold: It will certainly be a question of financing. The fact that it comes to this model experiment with equal seven burger rates, is that it has been the initiators of only courage together with the district champion and the district office to get a demand of the city of Berlin. Berlin calls only two projects of the burger participation this year, and one of them are this burger rate. But now you have to look like finances can be released for ideas that are now developed by the Burgern. There is still much to work for the leaders on site.
How is your scientific interest in sustainability with this burger rate project?
Daniel Oppold: Here at the Iass we make transformative sustainability research. It is not quite trivial from there to democratic innovations where u.a. I work here: We want to prage another science news. We do not want to operate basic research and then give scientific findings to the responsible acting and give you a lot of gluck with it. Rather, we want to work with our research into the phase of the action and vice versa also open our research process, for people from practice and for other forms of knowledge.
For many problems, there have been sustainable solutions for years and decades. But we see little act and very slow changes. And in the changes that are observed, you do not always know if you go in the right direction, z.B. Keyword electromobilitat. We believe that social capacity must first be created to make good decisions to a more sustainable society. But also the democracy, as we know, develop them today, z.B. to meet decisions on legislative periods beyond. We are convinced that dialogue-oriented investment formats with random selection can be innovative instruments to contribute exactly.