Commence Debate: G5

Pentads

There are competing G4-scenarios in society about the condition and future of any institution, with everyone claiming to represent the public interest. So there is a need to address differences openly. Exposure is possible by commencing open debate about possibilities and their implications.

This development is made possible by adding a 5th level to create pentadic structures. Examination of any institution via public debate occurs when there is a sense of momentum for change, confirming, fostering and seeking to manage that momentum.

Institutions are so large and complicated that any debateis unavoidably selective in its coverage.

Means of Exposure

Politician-driven Debate (G53)

Because institutions are so intractable and uncontrollable, politicians try to ignore most issues. However, they can be forced to address the issue and get it on their debating agenda. The debates that seem the most authoritative and powerful occur with the parliament (or its equivalent), that is to say amongst representatives elected by the public with the power to pass laws and assign funds.

Such debate is fervent reflecting the intensity of public controversy around certain issue. It proceeds by demanding transparency radically but selectively, even though the government agencies or commercial entities involved are usually most unlikely to provide access. The debate is commonly ideological and should challenge damaging perspectives skillfully, which is why investigations and legal minds are often brought to bear. These debates use statistics to demonstrate thoughtfulness, and each side is expected to provide a convincing narrative.

Media-driven Debate (G52)

Responsible elements in the media see their role as holding power to account. In order to do so, media organisations have the power to use their reach to generate and drive debate. When issues of institutional failure, corruption or malfeasance emerge, media organisations can place them in the spotlight with regular articles, invited opinions, and the commissioning of investigations.

The media can address matters that politicians of all stripes are loath to address, either because they are viewed as vote-losers for the party, or because it is simply not in their self-interest as individuals.

Examples from AustraliaClosed:

At the time of writing: Tax reform is essential and Ken Henry, a former head of the Treasury, was commissioned in 2008 to produce a report which he delivered in 2009. But it has been avoided by both sides because it is viewed as a vote-loser. See news article from 2019.

Both political parties have introduced policies that have created house-price inflation and contributed to a homelessness crisis. Because most politicians, unlike the general public, own multiple properties, they are unwilling to address the issues.

Any media-generated debatefervently offers remedies and justifies these by a selective challenge to a current perspective deemed to be damaging. Media-driven debates focus on being convincing in the analyses of controversies, skillful in the choice of relevant statistics, and thoughtful in the construction of a narrative.

Popular Debate (G51)

The general public in the form of concerned citizens, some campaigning bodies, independent journalists, and activist organisations can generate critiques of institutions with the intention of spawning public debate.

Such debate may occur in public arenas like social events, public places, social media, and the conventional media—which are all mechanisms that any person can potentially use to disseminate their views.

At the top level, debates that emerge from the general public typically are controlled by selective use of comparative statistics that can be viewed as scandalous. At the bottom level, such debates are all about promoting the public interest fervently. The debate depends on the skillful capture and management of a narrative, gets its impact from the thoughtful analysis of controversies, and requires convincing discussions of remedies.

Schema

Function:

To debate in ways and fora that energize and activate society so that a sense emerges that change is possible.

Quality: Selective i.e by choosing so as to support values and beliefs regarded as relevant to the issue.

Integration within the Group:  Politicians take their concern for the public interest for granted, and remedies are too specific and distract from the "real" debate. For popular debate, transparency and perspectives are distracting and outside their power. Media organisations work with what exists, assuming they are promoting the public interest and not calling for additional transparency.

Integration across the Groups: Progressively more influential and potentially powerful.

Psychological Correlate: According to the quality of the debate, feelings of energy and optimism or despair and pessimism.

Institutional Tension: Gratified by the attention caused by debate and waiting in expectation of constructive outcomes.

Practical Implications: Potential for change exists.

Transition

G5-debates can generate the necessary momentum for improvement, even if they often go nowhere due to powerful vested interests—which they usually expose.

If society is mature enough to build on the momentum, then public awareness created by these processes should be reflected in an expectation of progress and some form of re-orientation to the institutions within society.

This is possible by the additional of an additional level to form hexads.

Originally posted: 18-Mar-2024