Representative Deliberative Decision-Making 

tailored for the Iranian diaspora with possibilities to extend participation to homeland Iranians 

unchecked This article is a collaborative work in progress (ask for access). Todos are marked with a checkbox like the one at the beginning of this line. It is as well part of the project documents of the Civic Compass, a project being developed by our Tech Department.


This article aims to provide an overview of a series of mechanisms, tools, and techniques that can be used in almost every major decision-making process among Iranian diaspora, with a few inclusive elements that can enable participation from homeland Iranians. It also serves as a manual for individuals interested in democratic policymaking in and for the Iranian diaspora. Overviewed solutions aim to promote more open and democratised processes where homeland Iranians (including the silent majority) are not treated as subjects without agency, and techniques presented should serve as a means to make democratic participation possible, regardless of the geographic dispersion of the diaspora Iranians and Iranians in their true home under constant existential threats of the Islamic Republic Regime.

However this by no means is an exhaustive solution, the document is therefore open to suggestions and comments and is thought of as a collaborative manual. 

The proposed design in this article entails an open-access platform that we at the moment call civic compass or قطب‌نمای مدنی in Persian. To guarantee that the participants are unique human individuals as well as to preserve their security, the platform will only be accessible to Iranians aged 16 and above in diaspora based on their pseudonymised information. A similar approach with a higher security degree based on anonymised data can be utilised by individuals in homeland via trust network’s credibility score. This platform allows participants to not only share and evaluate their own values and beliefs, but also get to know that of others as well as to acquire knowledge about social, political and economic theories., they will as well have the possibility to express their viewpoints on various survey topics, and create and publish their own surveys on the platform. The platform has deduplication and data linkage mechanisms behind the scene, whereby duplicated information like questions get merged, and related topics linked.
قطب‌نمای مدنی can in part serve as a resource from which a representative group can be drawn for the deliberative processes (and later on the development of collective recommendations). Its bottom-up nature theoretically enables universal participation, with no specific emphasis on local involvement. 

Moreover the article strives to promote establishing ongoing and permanent structures for representative citizen deliberations that can be expanded or decentralised as needed, and continuously enriched with flow of ideas, challenges, and committed individuals selected from the public through the underlying platforms e.g. the civic compass introduced earlier.

It is essential to highlight that this design can also be implemented at the local level. However, when implemented locally, in consideration of other ongoing local initiatives, the outcomes of various deliberative processes should be consolidated and examined for qualities such as representativeness and or to identify commonalities. In this context It’s worth noting that civil society organisations and groups, i.e. a local student organisation primarily composed of individuals aged 20-40, or a political solidarity group exclusively consisting of leftist activists, may not represent a broad spectrum of perspectives, and therefore merging the ideas of these groups in a fair way that represents the whole society might not be possible. 

Finally, a comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of this approach can be carried out through empirical research. 


One of the primary challenges Jina movement faces is the identification of a shared foundation which elaborates the ‘woman, life, freedom’ slogan. Whether it involves establishing a common code of conduct or finding and agreeing on a set of shared values capable of uniting diverse groups of (diaspora) Iranians, such foundation is instrumental in coalition building in the fight against the Islamic states. Other key challenges are our undemocratic society, motivated interests of political groups influencing the public opinion, lack of community-run mainstream media, and lack of broad political inclusivity in unification efforts (mainly in diaspora). 

It is evident that the determination of the content of such codes carries inherent political implications. While all group (internal) and individual efforts to create these codes are essential, they have been so far insufficient. Current efforts to codify these documents lack clarity in terms of democracy, representation, and transparency. Unless these codes are generated through an open and inclusive forum where everyone has an equal chance to participate, I argue that they are unlikely to gain trust and acceptance within society, and only few might commit to upholding them.

It is safe to presume that people are more likely to trust a decision that has been influenced by ordinary people than one made solely […] behind closed doors (cf. OECD deliberative wave), specially if the group making those decisions is ideological and non-representative.

By involving more people in the decision-making process we gain the vital resource for any socio-political movement, the committed human resource with high democratic fitness. 

Sidenote: It’s important to recognise that the locality of a diasporic Iranian is not necessarily Iranian. Any of the various models of deliberation (Citizens’ Assembly; Citizens’ Jury/Panel; Consensus Conference; Planning Cell; G1000; Citizens’ Council; Citizens’ Dialogue; Deliberative Poll/Survey; World Wide Views; Citizens’ Initiative Review; the Ostbelgien Model; and the City Observatory.) used in those localities where diaspora Iranians live may not naturally facilitate the necessary focused and ongoing dialogue related to Iran. This reality underscores the need for the establishment of topic-specific groups, a development that has been occurring over the past 12 months. In an example, there are more than 100 local groups from the same number of cities that form the Global Rally Network. But how representative these communities are, and how do they make their decisions related to Iran?

The question

How to create an open, inclusive, and deliberative decision-making process to identify and codify commonalities with a relatively small group of participants who broadly represent our society, by utilising established and proven tools, techniques and best practices.

Empirical research has shown that “communicative echo chambers that intensify cultural cognition, identity reaffirmation, and polarisation do not operate in deliberative conditions, even in groups of like-minded partisans” (Dryzek et al, 2019; see Grönlund et al., 2015). There is also evidence to suggest that deliberation can be an effective way to overcome ethnic, religious, or ideological divisions between groups that have historically found their identity in rejecting that of the other (Ugarizza et al., 2014). Engaging citizens in active deliberation can also strengthen their sense of political efficacy (the belief that one can understand and influence political affairs) by not treating them as objects […] (see Knobloch et al., 2019). 


“Deliberative democracy is a broader political theory asserting that political decisions should arise from fair and rational discussions among citizens.”

Deliberation involves a careful evaluation of various options, access to accurate, pertinent, and diverse information, and participants seeking common ground to reach a collective decision. it is normally comprised of the following stages: 

  • random selection of citizens
  • learning stage (introductory readings, learning sessions)
  • consultation stage (stakeholder hearings, hearings of the public, consulting experts)
  • deliberation stage (discussing evidence, assessing options, impartial facilitators)
  • decision-making stage (agreeing on the final set of recommendations)
  • offering the findings to the public.

Unique circumstances

a) Given the widespread dispersion of the diaspora and the resulting logistical challenges, b) knowing that a significant portion of the major issues revolve around fundamental matters, particularly constitutional issues aimed at restoring the sovereignty of the people and c) to address the challenges and the threats Iranians face in their homeland, while ensuring their right to participate and respect their agency in processes, the following approaches and strategies in a deliberation process design could be beneficial:

  • increasing the number of participants (compared to citizen assemblies and juries)
  • encouraging pseudonymous participation
  • exploring a combinatory design based on citizen jury and assemblies (detailed deliberation while being agile) 
  • implementing a division of labor across various juries and assemblies (decentralisation)

What follows are selected principles of good practice in deliberative processes identified by OECD in collaboration with international practitioners from government, civil society, and academics. 

A purpose

The objective of the deliberation should be outlined as a clear task and is linked to a defined public problem; in our case we want to find the commonalities among different factions of the opposition, lay the foundation of a universal code of conduct and propose a strategic plan of action. The desired result of this process would be instrumental towards formation of grand coalitions.

  • unchecked Sense of accountability


The deliberative process should be announced publicly before it begins. The process design and all materials – including agendas, briefing documents, evidence submissions, audio and video recordings of those presenting evidence, the participants’ report, their recommendations (the wording of which participants should have a final say over), and the random selection methodology should be available to the public in a timely manner. Moreover the funding [if any] should be disclosed. If participants agree, broadcasting parts of the deliberation could be beneficial, but undesired media attention is a risk.


In order to promote inclusivity, it is important to explore ways to engage and incorporate underrepresented groups. While it may be more convenient and secure to concentrate solely on the diaspora Iranians, this approach could inadvertently marginalise Iranians in their homeland. Utilising trust networks like Bahamestan Azadi (باهمستان آزادی) and بازی اعتماد (Trust Game) or similar, we can identify individuals inside Iran who are willing to participate anonymously in the process, and this way ensure a diverse range of perspectives. Additionally, fostering participation should be actively encouraged and supported by offering compensation, covering expenses, and providing childcare and eldercare services where needed.


In a hostile environment where Iranian citizens in homeland face direct threats from the islamic state and where a pervasive atmosphere of distrust casts shadow over dialogues in the diaspora, there is a compelling need for certain compromises. These compromises would include serving Iranians partially or sequentially depending on the sample characteristics and the democratic process at hand.
In a typical setting, the ideal approach involves assembling a group of participants that mirror the wider public, achieved through a process of random sampling. Such random sampling when stratified and weighted ensures a representative cross-section of the population, taking into account demographic factors to align with the community’s demographic profile, as determined by census[1,2,] data or similar sources. Depending on the context, attitudinal and discursive criteria may also be considered to ensure credibility. Occasionally, it may be beneficial to oversample specific demographics during the random sampling phase to ensure a balanced representation. (cf. OECD highlights – best practices)

In the context of Iranian diaspora, finding participants can be accomplished through online survey tools (e.g. civic compass), calls for proposal submission, roundtable discussions and public announcements made via social networks and mainstream media. Census and survey data, and research findings can aid in the development of a representative sample. Using homeland census data as a basis for stratification in the diaspora samples necessitates further research. (Significance of the associated statistical error should be compared to the error associated with the hitherto internal and closed-door decision-making processes in a separate research).
Furthermore, public input expressed through various discussion channels, such as social networks (e.g. using hashtags), can be assigned a weight and utilised in the decision-making process e.g. in the learning phase.

Core of this proposal revolves around the representative sample. The bigger yet more agile this group would be the higher its impact e.g. its chance of acceptance by a broader portion of the society.


Participants should have access to a wide range of accurate, relevant, and accessible evidence and expertise. They should have the opportunity to hear from and question speakers that present to them, including experts and advocates chosen by the citizens themselves. (OECD highlights – best practices)
A collection of all of the hitherto published manifests, charters, draft proposals for constitution, codes of conduct and similar documents, along with input provided by experts in relevant domains from civil society organisations (e.g. academicians and academics of ICOIA), educational institutions (such as Iran Academia and BIHE), and independent researchers worldwide, could serve as valuable resources for well-informed participants.

Group deliberation

Participants should be able to find common ground to underpin their collective recommendations to the public […]. This entails careful and active listening, weighing and considering multiple perspectives, every participant having an opportunity to speak, a mix of formats that alternate between small group and plenary discussions and activities, and skilled facilitation.


Deliberation necessitates a sufficient amount of time for participants to acquire knowledge, assess evidence, and formulate well-informed recommendations, primarily because most of the issues at hand are intricate. To ensure that citizen recommendations are well-informed, it is suggested that, for each significant policy challenge, participants convene in person for a minimum of four full days (as in citizen juries – widely exercised deliberation design), unless a shorter duration can be substantiated. Allowing intervals for individual learning and contemplation between these meetings is advisable. Given the intricate nature of the matters these individuals wish to deliberate upon, several full days may be necessary. Conversely, the logistical challenges of bringing together Iranians from the diaspora residing in various countries warrant the establishment of multiple locations in different countries, interconnected via live streams. Among various available designs, Stanford Deliberative Polling is one approach that can be conducted entirely online.


The product of this process is public, all Iranians are its owners and there is no single legit authority other than them. However, lots of arm’s length coordination is needed so that the process runs smoothly. The final call regarding process decisions should be with the arm’s length coordinators and as a result of the heavy responsibility that these individuals carry, proper selection and training of them are of utmost importance. Depending on the context, there should be oversight by an advisory or monitoring board with representatives of different viewpoints. (cf. OECD highlight, Bahamad Report from TCF) 

  • unchecked Add: Security & Participation in IDDCSOs

Privacy & (Information) Security

The Islamic State poses a dual threat, both in the physical and digital realms. To address this, it’s crucial to establish close collaboration with local intelligence and law enforcement agencies for securing the area, in case deliberation takes place in person. For online deliberation processes, implementing standard information security measures, as outlined in the ISO 27000 family and adhering to GDPR guidelines, becomes imperative.

Utmost respect for participants’ privacy is necessary to shield them from unwanted harassment and unwanted media attention. This approach also ensures the participants’ independence remains intact, safeguarding them from potential influence from pressure groups or activists. Small group discussions should be held in private settings. The disclosure of participants’ identities can only occur once the process concludes and only with their consent. All personal data of participants must be handled in accordance with internationally accepted best practices, including compliance with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).


There should be an anonymous evaluation by the participants to assess the process based on objective criteria (e.g. on quantity and diversity of information provided, amount of time devoted to learning, independence of facilitation). An internal evaluation by the coordination team should be conducted against the good practice principles […] to assess what has been achieved and how to improve future practice. An independent evaluation is recommended[…]. The deliberative process should also be evaluated on final outcomes and impact of implemented recommendations. (OECD best practices, adapted from Nabatchi et. al (2012) framework)

  • unchecked Nabatchi et. al. ‘s evaluation principles [Nabatchi, Tina, John Gastil, Matt Leighninger, and G. Michael Weiksner (2012). Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0010.]
  • unchecked Independent evaluation

Key challenges to address

  • unchecked How to make the whole thing work

Once we have all the pieces of the puzzle, we can propose it to Iranian society by promoting it in social and mainstream media. Since the comprehensive plan of action will have to be done in cooperation with other civil society actors, meticulous orchestration is needed.  However there are a few fundamental features that have to be implemented. Below is a list of them.

  1. Pseudonymisation

There is a need for a platform which is tailored to ensure privacy of activists. Such a  platform should provide a way, e.g., via offering a universal ID, that activists can on the one hand prove that they are Iranian human individuals and on the other hand maintain a safe zone allowing them to remain anonymous. This is important  to enable them to engage in digital democracy procedures without jeopardising their identity. 

Here it is essential to distinguish between solutions that offer anonymity to homeland Iranians from the ones tailored for the diaspora Iranians’ needs. 

For the diaspora Iranians the  platform collects minimal data–age, city of residence, and country of birth and assigns each user a unique pseudonym, enabling participation without revealing personal identifiers. For the homeland Iranians on the other hand, trust network’s scores are the base for assignments of the IDs.

This tool could serve as both a shield and a voice, empowering activists to drive change while protecting their privacy. Currently there are a number of efforts underway by civil society activists and organisations inside and outside Iran to implement elements of this solution. (TCF’s Pseudonymisation Intro., بازی اعتماد، باهمستان آزادی).
There are several universally trusted KYC service providers, whose services could be customised for this special need.

Iranian digital national ID cards can also be used in self-identification processes. (being researched) 

If properly implemented, pseudonymised individuals can remain unknown to other participants throughout the deliberation process. This enables online participation of almost anyone that has Iranian roots, is above 16 and is willing to take part.

  1. Information security

Sticking to ISO 27000 family of standards, GDPR principles and best practices together with receiving professional consultation from NGOs specialised in this domain, information security can be guaranteed to a reliable degree considering the special needs of the Iranian diaspora. Acquiring certification from authorised institutions can also help build trust. 

  1. Institutionalisation

In situations where representative democratic institutions are absent, it becomes crucial to give priority to the establishment of such institutions. Essentially, the process of institutionalising these democratic practices should often occur concurrently with the creation of the institutions themselves. This involves developing the structures in harmony with the values they are meant to support and promote.

The primary responsibilities of one such institution include the successful implementation of the techniques outlined in this paper, such as using a civic compass (individual agency), pseudonymisation (security), and a combination of citizen jury and assembly deliberative processes (participation, integrity). However, achieving this would be unattainable without a cultural and discursive transformation. There is scant evidence to suggest that the current deliberative processes adhere to the recommended best practices. They to the contrary are mainly internal, non-representative and consider little to no agency to the citizens they serve, in that they do not provide equal chance to participate.

One way in which this effort to institutionalise can be advantageous is by generating ‘reusable processes, documents, practitioner capability, etc.’ and by ‘reducing the overall costs of deliberative processes, making them easier to conduct, and less susceptible to losing support’ (cf. OECD – why institutionalise?).

A slightly different summary

Representative Deliberative Decision-Making Processes from Representativeness to Voting

An architecture proposal

Over the past year, leading up to the anniversary of Jina Amini, there’s been a noticeable surge in new formations. These include political parties, think tanks, discussion groups, grassroots organisations, and other collective entities. Iranians, both domestically and in the diaspora, are bracing themselves for a new set of confrontations (along with the Islamic state’s operatives and apologists).
For the newly politically-involved Iranians, the nuances of organising and shaping their discourse are becoming increasingly evident. They too are confronted with various challenges which have arisen in the opposition for years: balancing security with open discourse, ensuring that their assemblies truly represent the broader base, developing fair decision-making protocols, enhancing discourse with other factions, maintaining the momentum of their activism, confronting evolving threats, and reshaping both resources and discourses to align with their evolving objectives.

This article sets out to cast light on some of the salient challenges.

Representation in Decision-Making Group

At the core of societal decision-making is the establishment of a group that reflects the society it serves. The challenge is in achieving true representation, mirroring the diverse intricacies of the wider society, ensuring the underrepresented or minority groups are considered. Such representativeness is achieved through random sampling of citizens from which a representative selection is made.
The same applies to the composition of large groups like civil society organisations. In such groups, if there is a decision-making board, members of the board must be representative. If equal representation is impossible, other actions such as weighted votes or leaving an empty seat until representation is reached are possible. A board consisting of workgroup representatives can to some extent guarantee the bottom-up representation.

Identifying Essential Topics of Discussion

With a representative group in place, the next step is to pinpoint the essential topics that warrant discussion. Determining the ‘essentiality’ of a topic can be complex. Methods might involve (societal) surveys, public sentiment analysis tools, public consultations and research findings.

The Deliberative Process

Deliberation is a cornerstone of democratic decision-making. Various methods can be employed, one of which is the Stanford deliberative polling. This process polls a random sample of citizens (in organisations that could be members), provides them with pertinent information on an issue, enables deliberation, and then re-polls them to gauge shifts in opinion.

Ensuring fairness in the deliberative process is paramount. This could involve structured debate formats, facilitators, or round-robin speaking arrangements, so that all the arguments are heard fairly. Then there is the question of experts. Who is an expert, and when should they be introduced? Their role is to provide clarity, validate facts, and offer insights without overshadowing the public’s sentiments. One main goal is to assure neutrality and objectivity.

Although different polls are conducted in this phase to analyze the effectiveness of the deliberative process, to capture the social or respectively communal choice a vote is needed. We will mention two voting systems further below. 

Representing the Outcome to the Public

Once deliberation concludes, it is essential to communicate the findings transparently to the broader public. This dissemination can be through public campaigns, media partnerships, or educational initiatives. Ideally, the deliberation process ought to be broadcast live.

For a society to vote knowledgeably, people must be adequately informed. Robust educational initiatives are crucial. Various tools like community workshops, online platforms, and town hall or public online meetings can be employed to ensure individuals have access to information.

The Voting Process

Finally, when it’s time to cast votes, the method to collect individual choices and calculate the social choice must be representative and fair, especially when there are more than two options to vote for. Techniques such as ranked-pairs or the Schulze method can be used. These methods are lauded for their ability to determine the strongest paths between choices, ensuring a more democratic outcome.

The art of decision-making is as difficult as it is important. Mastering this social art needs communities that are honest, ethical and willing to take responsibility for a fairer and more resilient community, as “in which alone the free and full development of individual’s personality is possible.”

چکیده‌ای تا اندازه‌ای متفاوت به فارسی

فرایند تصمیم‌گیری

و توضیح مختصری درباره مراحل اصلی آن

در طول سال گذشته و به موازات نزدیک شدن به سالگرد ژینا امینی، موج قابل‌توجهی از  بازسازمان‌دهی و تشکل‌های جدید پدید آمده است. این تشکل‌ها دربرگیرنده‌ی احزاب سیاسی، اندیشکده‌ها، گروه‌های بحث، سازمان‌های مردم نهاد، و سایر انجمن‌های گروهی استند. ایرانیان، هم در داخل کشور و هم در تبعید، برای مواجهه با مجموعه‌ی جدیدی از درگیری‌ها آماده می‌شوند (همراه با عاملان و بهانه‌تراشان حکومت اسلامی).

برای ایرانیانی که تازه به فعالیت‌های سیاسی پیوسته‌اند، جزئیات سازمان‌دهی و شکل‌دهی به گفت‌و‌گوهایشان(و در معنایی گفتمان) به تدریج واضح‌تر می‌شود. آنها با چالش‌های پرتعدادی مواجه‌اند: چگونگی برقراری تعادلی بین امنیت و مشارکت آزاد، چگونگی حصول اطمینان از واقعیت نمایندگی(نمایانگری) گروه‌شان از پایگاه وسیع‌تری در جامعه(هم‌بود)، توسعه‌‌ی پروتکل‌های تصمیم‌گیری منصفانه، گسترش گفت‌و‌گو با سایر گروه‌ها، حفظ پایداری کنش‌های‌شان، رویایی با تهدیدهای در حال تکامل، و بازآرایی منابع و گفت‌و‌گوها برای هماهنگی با اهداف در حال تکامل‌شان.

این نوشته تلاشی است تا روی گوشه‌ای از چالش‌های برجسته نور بتاباند.

نمایندگی در گروه تصمیم‌گیری

در هسته‌ی تصمیم‌گیری هم‌بودین، گروهی قرار دارد که هم‌بودی را که به آن خدمت می‌کند بازتاب می‌دهد. چالش در دستیابی به یک نمایندگی واقعی است، که پیچیدگی‌های گوناگون جامعه‌ی گسترده‌تر را بازتاب دهد، و این دربرگیرنده‌ی گروه‌های نماینده‌نشده یا اقلیت است. چنین نمایانگری‌ای از راه نمونه‌گیری تصادفی از شهروندان و انتخاب نهادهای نمایانگر هم‌بود از میان آن‌ها به دست می‌آید. همین موضوع برای سازمان‌ها نیز صادق است. اگر یک هیئت تصمیم‌گیری وجود داشته باشد، اعضای آن باید گروه‌های بزرگتری از اعضای سازمان را نمایندگی کنند. یک هیئت متشکل از نمایندگان کارگروه‌ها می‌تواند تا حدودی نمایندگی از پایین به بالا را تضمین کند.

شناسایی موضوعات اساسی

بحث پس از ایجاد یک گروه نماینده، گام بعدی تعیین موضوعاتی اساسی است که نیاز به بحث دارند. تعیین “اساسی بودن” یک موضوع می‌تواند پیچیده باشد. می‌توان از روش‌هایی مانند نظرسنجی‌های هم‌بودی، ابزارهای تحلیل حساسیت عمومی، مشاوره‌ی همگانی و یافته‌های پژوهشی بهره برد.

فرآیند ترازیدن

ترازیدن تامل بنیاد تصمیم‌گیری دموکراتیک(مردم‌گردان) است. برای تامل می‌توان از روش‌های مختلف بهره برد. یکی از آن‌ها نظرسنجی تاملی استنفورد است. این روند نظر یک نمونه‌ی تصادفی از شهروندان را می‌سنجد، اطلاعات مربوط به یک مسئله را به آن‌ها می‌دهد، فضای تامل را فراهم و تامل را تضمین می‌کند، و سپس دوباره نظر آن‌ها را می‌سنجد تا تغییرات نظر را اندازه بگیرد. ضمانت انصاف در فرآیند تاملی بسیار حیاتی است. این موضوع ممکن است شامل قالب‌های منظم بحث، دلیل‌ها یا ترتیبات گفت‌وگو باشد تا اطمینان حاصل شود که تمام استدلال‌ها به صورت منصفانه شنیده شده‌اند. سپس موضوع کارشناسان به میان می‌آید: چه کسی به عنوان یک کارشناس معتبر است و چه زمانی کارشناسان باید به فرایند تاملی وارد شوند؟ نقش کارشناسان افزایش وضوح مفاهیم، تأیید واقعیت‌ها و ارائه بینش به‌گونه‌ایست که بر دیدگاه عمومی سایه‌ نیندازد. هدف اصلی در این مرحله تضمین  ناسوداری و آبجکتیویتی است.

دادن نتیجه به همگان

پس از اتمام فرایند تامل، ضروری است که یافته‌ها به صورت شفاف به هم‌بود گسترده‌تر ارایه شوند. نشر پی‌آمدها می‌تواند از راه کمپین‌های همگانی، و برنامه‌های رسانه‌ای یا آموزشی انجام شود. در شکل ایده‌آل، خود فرآیند تامل می‌تواند به صورت زنده پخش شود.

فرآیند رای‌گیری

در پایان، زمانی که وقت رای دادن فرا رسیده است، این روش جمع‌آوری گزیده‌های فردی و محاسبه‌ی گزیده‌ی هم‌بودی است که باید بازتاب‌دهنده‌ی هم‌بود و منصفانه باشد، به خصوص زمانی که بیش از دو گزینه برای رای‌دادن وجود دارند؛ روش‌هایی مانند جفت‌های رتبه‌بندی‌شده یا روش شولتز را می‌توان در این مرحله به کار برد.


فراگیری هنر تصمیم‌گیری به همان اندازه که چالش برانگیز است، حیاتی است. داشتن این هنر هم‌بودی نیازمند اجتماعاتی (هم‌باشان، community) و افرادی است که صادق، اخلاقی و مایل به پذیرفتن مسئولیت برای ایجاد یک هم‌بود منصفانه‌تر و مقاوم‌تر باشند، زیرا «که تنها [در چنین هم‌بودی] رشد آزاد و کامل شخصیت فرد میسر است.»


  • checked Check for sources
  • checked Explain the diaspora/homeland stratification, add provision for user in Iran
  • unchecked Add mechanisms of forming representative groups, focus on ‘stakeholder participation’ and ‘inclusive growth’– preferably in a separate page at the bottom to keep the doc. light; this applies to the below
  • unchecked Mention importance of the divergence of the distribution of the sample from the base (national statistics (?))
  • unchecked How not to resort to an atomist ontology in efforts to form representative samples
  • unchecked Reaching out to non-respondents to assess the magnitude of difference between them and sample
    • unchecked Weigh proposing compass/social media data as sampling universe
      • unchecked Propose that open calls to participation linked to pseudonymisation & compass tools (done via mass media) might diversify the sampling universe 
    • unchecked Focus on self-education with respect to social relationships and ways to distance from pedagogy that feeds individual as solely individuals (in contrast with individuals as social-beings)
  • checked Restrict re-distribution of the doc. and include ongoing projects’ details. (same could apply to the compass)
  • unchecked Embed the spirit of compromise in deliberative process, emphasise constants like human rights instruments. 
  • unchecked Prepend concise history of deliberative decision-making – mention Iranian equivalents (if time allowed) 
  • If similar designs are properly implemented in Iran (secretly of course due to the threats), the cumulative results can be analysed for commonalities. 
  • unchecked Expand the deliberative decision-making section with references to cases of using innovative citizen participation methods (and best practices if time allowed)
    • unchecked Append a reference to the co-creation of solutions and collective recommendations 
    • unchecked Usefulness of tools like for both reflective and formative phases are proven. There are many open source software options for both phases. These include platforms to collect opinions, contextual link those input and so on.  
  • checked Prepare a presentation file summarising this document
    • checked Check for time to present – consider a limit of total 4*3 mins breaks (bio & questions) – constrain to an hour ~48 mins!

Representative deliberative decision-making processes

  • unchecked Translate to Persian
  • unchecked Tools
    • unchecked Append the design proposal of the open and dynamic one-way opinion polling tool (قطب‌نمای مدنی Civic Compass)
    • unchecked Kialo, Swarm.AI, etc
      • unchecked SWOT analysis (Kialo)
    • unchecked Mass education platform
      • unchecked Publication platform
    • unchecked Tools for reflective phases
  • checked Propose an action plan – distribute internally
    • unchecked Building representative sample
      • unchecked Compile the introductory text and send it to the Tue. session. 
    • unchecked Design and elements of design:
      • unchecked Experts and reading material
        • unchecked deduplication and record linkage of all of the hitherto published manifests, charters, draft proposals for constitution, codes of conduct and similar documents


  • unchecked Idea DNA (Backward tracking the concepts introduced to the code to individuals’ ideas)

See how this idea is implemented in a digital democracy platform:

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *