Participation

It feels nice. Nice to feel heard, nice to have our say, and nice to get good at eliciting from others. I was reflecting recently, after listening on Lex Friedman dive deep into the conflict in Palestine and Israel, asking tough questions, and trying to respectfully hold dialogue with both. Abstractly, this may seem to have absolutely nothing to do with participation. To me, it is everything.

See, I've thought about this deeply, looked at other nations who've experienced great turmoil and wondered what the antidote to colonialism may be such that progression and healing can both blossom. Throughout history there have been many conquests, perhaps it is almost an accurate typology of the human condition; to conquer. It feels though that we're in a enlightened period of stopping such conquest and picking up the pen far more readily than the sword. We've a large way to come as a people's, but I do wonder if participation may be the panacea to conflict we need to all employ from Heads of State, to every day you and me. 

It seems as though in Israel and Palestine as an exemplar, Israelites need to come to the table to embed a solution. To enquire humanistically what are the struggles of the Palestinians, and to work toward amelioration of segregation. Why them? It feels to me as though they hold the power. And rightly or wrongly, the British pledged the creation of modern day Israel, fuelled by the abhorrence of World War 2 Europe, and paving the way for continual conflict since. What if it fails? Then what? War. This is where propaganda and capitalism work together to help you where a stubborn authoritarianism gets in the way. If you look at the exclusive economic zones within conservative China and the westernization of western Russia as examples, you will fast see that even though things remain the same across the nation, these areas influence the governments policy making vastly. Why? The capital growth in these areas is, in some cases, floating the entire nation. It gives capital resources to let the government achieve it's other goals, and at the same time, lifts the countries to a better overall normal. Capital creep on these countries happens next, and it's unstoppable. It's desired by the people, and companies know this. In China, the coca cola billboards appear, as do the 7166 KFC stores at 2023 (more than any other nation). Back to Palestine and other fledgling nations; it can often be the foreign investment and capital acquisitions that help lift nations quickly. Many African nations are examples of this too, from Ethiopian (7% annual growth of GDP to Guyana 25%), driven with largely Chinese and French foreign investment. I propose that Israel's ability to offer, and foster, foreign investment in it's neighbours, could be the answer to regional problems. After all, this is a large focus of the recent Abraham accords, which for the first time, opened the door to a solution. It's easy here for people to dig heels in, and take sides. What's hard is persistent negotiation and humanism in the face of opposition and destruction. How is this participation you ask? Well, it's participation of the people. It's applying a capital construct of almost universal human progression to a situation. If you were to ask if Palestinians wanted greater resources, and at the cost of a more porous border perhaps and a stable democracy, then would they disagree en masse? Or is it the rule of anarchists and totalitarian regimes that seek to not find a meaningful truce?

Extend this to the Middle East, and what the West and Russia have inflicted over the last century, has been not really conducive to the improvement of the region. Proxy conflict after proxy conflict, has fuelled direct conflict, enforcing barriers and leaving devastation. The problem with proxy wars is the same as the colonialism that the British inflicted on Israel in the same sense that once the damage was done, they withdrew. This almost feels akin to someone coming into your home without asking, cleaning some things, leaving their tools laying on the floor for your 2 year old to fall over, half stacking the dishwasher then leaving in a flap because you've said, "hi, sorry, can I help you". Bam, Gone. Gone to the neighbours down the street to do it again. I don't know about you, but if that happened to me, I'd say that person was mentally really struggling, smoking a bit too much Meth, or perhaps a bit of both. The least they could've done is knocked, volunteered to help, and if I agreed, then surely I'd get to have a say in what they get up to, to help. After all, I'll do the dishes, but sure you can clean the window tracks... I hate that. 

As I've covered before, the three Royal Commissions over the last decade in Australia into vulnerable populations, all have commonalities of participation. The Aged, Children, and people living with disabilities all had Commissions recommend enhancements and empowerment through participation. Surely if we can master this at that level, as a measure of developed society moving toward upholding the Human Rights Convention, then surely we can do this more widely. 

Democracy is the mechanism for this to occur, but it remains a construct all the while still a bit loose on participation. Take Russia, the United States, and Australia as examples. Here we have 3 completely different sorts of democracy. With continued election and curiously absent challenge, Russia may just be a peacock democracy. The USA, with it's stark partisanship and interesting system with the electoral college, couldn't have more divide between itself if it tried. And, Australia, where it's true right wing party isn't a majority enough to stand on it's own, so, as do many smaller parties, they share policy alignment with the dominating, arguably, both left leaning parties. In all cases, the voters voice gets skewed away from what they individually want. The State then stops discontent with this in a variety of ways, from transparency and policy adoption across the parliament floor, to outright control, domination, and fear. When it's wrong, as in France this year, when they made a change to the retirement policy without transparency, there was violence in the streets, a revolt if you will. A show of passion by the French for the system they want. A clear show of the need of participation. 

Shifting gears, Australia's relationship with it's Indigenous peoples has always been a struggle for quality participation, and you see this mirrored across the colonized world where the British left their mark. Curiously, we don't often hear about colonisations impact led by other nations quite as much. That may be because, as in the USA and Brazil as examples, that the colonists battled another empire for control over the domain of the land whilst at the same time, almost more completely irradicating the Indigenous at the same time. In all cases, how does a State now make reparations? Most likely an impossible endeavour, but what is for sure, is that forceful Intervention is not the answer. Interestingly, do we ask the indigenous peoples at 3.2% of the population, and balance that against the rest? That sounds unwise. This is especially true when 29% of Australians were born overseas, who may be bringing their own worldview, not abreast yet with the Indigenous dilemma particular to this land. Further making it difficult is that I believe there's around 500 different groups of different peoples. Whilst bonded over their similarities, are still distinct in their own merit. So, should we have loaded the vote to give 31.25 more yes votes on the pretext that the population of Aboriginal peoples would vote yes? Well, that voids participation by making an assumption, even if well intended. We all know by now that a no vote was reached by decimating majority in recent referendum to a Voice to parliament. It perplexes me greatly however that a greater understanding of the 'how' this outcome was reached has not made thorough public discourse. It's like, "oh well, now we know". Do we? I don't. Who does really, beyond inference? In any case, why were we shocked when a majority (not indigenous) voted against a minority (indigenous) is beyond me. Especially when propagandised by both sides and confusion abounded. The psychological literature on in-group and out-group preferences has been solid since the unruly experiment of Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment in the '60's. Of course this led to more controversial social science theories such as unconscious bias, but the Implicit Association Test born from this too has yielded great quantitative use for study of minute human differences in preference for all sorts of things; race, skin colour, beauty, symmetry, appetite, and more. A shame, but no matter how hard we try, I'm not sure a propagandised referendum will yield much needed change for Australia's Indigenous peoples. This is an example of how participation may not be the answer to such a complex problem, which should drive another policy approach rather than referendum in my opinion. 

For a more focused look on participation in foster care, as can see that participation is key to both child safety, and placement preservation. 

Child safety is further enhanced for children, from their perspective, when they have a meaningful say in decisions that affect them. This can be done in various ways, but my favourite are;

Back to the solution; participation. How does this work when both people want something that seems to be at odds with the other? Compromise feels like loosing when emotions are involved, and politics and political issues are always emotional to someone. As Chris Voss says, never compromise, you're signalling to the other person that what you want isn't as valued as what you're saying. Don't say no either, not if you want things to end badly. Push forward with integrity, purpose, and an ego-less mantra of solution focused posturing:

1. Identify what you want

2. Analyse if it's agreeably for the greater good. If not, adjust what you want such that agreement likelihood is radically increased

3. Remember, if you want to get the best result, then it can't be about you or your ego. Be prepared to loose, but motivated to win. Posture for mutual satisfaction.

4. Don't give in. This breeds resentment and is short lived. Work harder and find more minds to help you see a path to harmony. 

5. Don't speak for others, speak for yourself. You may have gathered others perspectives, but you must own what they're saying. Use "I" most often. 

Why these points specifically? They're a myriad of components of Motivational Interviewing, ownership lessons for leadership, research on hostage negotiation, and training in family mediation. 

Most sentimental to me however is the prospect of unification. So much divide exists amongst us. It exists interpersonally, so to me, it makes absolutely sense that it's amplified politically and culturally. I am inspired by the theoretical paradigm of the evolutionary psychologists who've studied personality; that our difference is inherently, and a key contributor to our success as a species. If it weren't, our homogeneity would likely have been an assured creation by now. 

Participation is exciting. It takes courage, and is always hard. It is however, the most worthwhile of our human endeavours. It's dignifying to the recipient, and satisfying to the seeker. It's validating to the bleakest and darkest of situations, and can bring warmth during unbreakable cold. We've all, at one time or another, exploded into tears because someone looked at us or enquired gently with us, in a way that true sincerity made us feel immediately more whole. The explosion of emotion was never, in that sense, a bad thing, rather, a cathartic craving meeting our souls desire. This is participation. Enquiry with meaning, at precisely the right moment, with the purest of intent, to inspire something beautiful, even if it is just a little messy at times. At the same time, don't confuse participation with letting other's be decisive for you. Seeking everyone's opinion does often require arbitration, or at least mediation. Finding the path through this is truly meaningful, but also very costly to get right. The outcome however, is truly a marker of progress.