Getting to the Future

This chapter makes three arguments in support of the claim that we need inclusive deliberative processes to shape the future in collectively intentional, mutually accommodating ways. First, inclusive collective decision-making processes are needed to avoid futures that favour the interests of some groups of people over others. Second, deliberative processes are needed to shape our shared futures in collectively intentional ways: we need to be able to talk to ourselves about what we are doing and where we want to get to in the future. Third, deliberative exchanges are needed to help collectivities avoid the policy oscillations that are (or may be) associated with the political dynamics of short electoral cycles. Effective processes of reciprocal reason giving can help collectivities maintain policy continuity over the long term—when continuity is justified—even as governments and generations change.

Future Publics

This book challenges the idea that democratic processes are functionally short-sighted. Many observers assume that long-term issues will be ignored or discounted in democratic systems because of the myopic preferences of voters, the political dynamics of short electoral cycles, the exclusion (or absence) of future others in decision-making processes, and the reality that democratic processes are often captured by powerful actors with dominant short-term interests. The evidence is clear: we have poorly managed many long-term issues, including climate change, nuclear waste disposal, plastics pollution, natural disaster preparedness, infrastructure maintenance, and budget deficits. This idea—which Michael K. MacKenzie calls the “democratic myopia thesis”—is a sort of conventional wisdom: It is one of those things that scholars and pundits take for granted as a truth about democracy without subjecting it to adequate critical scrutiny. This book challenges this conventional wisdom and articulates a deliberative, democratic theory of future-regarding collective action. It is argued that each part of the democratic myopia problem can be addressed through democratic—rather than authoritarian—means. At a more fundamental level, the book argues that if democratic practices are world-making activities that empower us to make our shared worlds together, they should also be understood as future-making activities. Despite the short-term dynamics associated with electoral democracy, MacKenzie argues that inclusive and deliberative democratic processes are the only means we have for making our shared futures together in collectively intentional, mutually accommodating ways.

Conclusion

This chapter deals with a number of topics that are alluded to but left unresolved in the rest of the book. These include the relationship between capitalism and democracy, the challenges and promises of digital democracy, the role of ideas and concepts in shaping our temporal perspectives and understandings, and the challenges of—and prospects for—the sorts of institutional reforms that may be necessary if we are going to make our shared futures together in collectively intentional ways. It is not clear that we will create democratic systems that are more future-regarding than the ones we have. This book argues that it is possible to do so, and we will need to do so to get the futures that we think we might want for our future selves and future others. Whether we are going to do so is another question entirely.

Future-Regarding Democratic Institutions

This chapter argues that we need inclusive deliberative processes at all levels of governance—in political and economic spheres, and at the local, subnational, national, transnational, and global levels—if we are going to shape our shared futures in collectively intentional ways. The chapter identifies three design criteria for future-regarding institutions: inclusion, deliberation, and independence, as well as other design considerations having to do with the scope and jurisdictional reach of institutions. These criteria and design considerations are used to assess institutional options, including future-regarding constitutional clauses, referendums, citizens’ initiatives, randomly selected legislatures and assemblies, and posterity impact statements. The purpose is to illustrate that there are democratic institutions and practices that can help counterbalance the short-term dynamics associated with each component of the democratic myopia thesis.

Serving Higher Purposes: University Mergers in Post-Apartheid South Africa

"Universities of the 21st century and beyond must be about teaching, learning, research excellence, creativity and innovation as much as they must be about enabling the destiny of students, communities and nations to realize their potential. UJ succeeded in her vision and responsibilities to transform the divisions, prejudices and limitations that often restrain the advancement of society. The story of UJ’s transition to an inclusive, diverse, dynamic, bold and purposeful institution of learning demands to be read by everyone, South African, African and beyond. It is a story of how to be an object rather than the subject of history, while dynamically shaping our shared futures, laying a solid foundation for future generations to be advocates and architects for social change and cohesion. It is a story of courageous and visionary leadership. The book offers our nation profound lessons in leadership that should enrich all our efforts to transform institutions in a sustainable way, to play a meaningful role in building ONE NATION. - DR WENDY LUHABE, Economic Activist, Social Entrepreneur, First Chancellor of the University of Johannesburg "

Indigenous Language Revitalization and Applied Linguistics: Parallel Histories, Shared Futures?

Damages done to Indigenous languages occurred due to colonial forces, some of which continue to this day, and many believe efforts to revive them should involve more than Indigenous peoples alone. Therefore, the need for learning Indigenous languages as “additional” languages is a relatively new societal phenomenon and Indigenous language revitalization (ILR) an emerging academic field of study. As the ILR body of literature has developed, it has become clear that this work does not fit neatly into any single academic discipline. While there have been substantial contributions from linguistics and education, the study and recovery of Indigenous languages are necessarily self-determined and self-governing. Also, due to the unique set of circumstances, contexts, and, therefore, solutions needed, it is argued that this discipline is separate from, yet connected to, others. Applied linguists hold specific knowledge and skills that could be extended to ILR toward great gains. This paper explores current foci within ILR, especially concepts, theories, and areas of study that connect applied linguistics and Indigenous language learning. The intention of this paper is to consider commonalities, differences, current and future interests for shared consideration of the potential of collaborations, and partnerships between applied linguistics and ILR scholars.

‘Reset the relationship’: decolonising government to increase Indigenous benefit

Aboriginal Tasmanian peoples have been characterised by extinction myths as an outcome of colonialism. The subsequent dispossession and exile from lands and seas for surviving communities have increased trauma. This article analyses the recent efforts of Aboriginal Tasmanian peoples to reframe relationships with the Tasmanian Government and create conditions for our emancipation away from colonial harms. To decolonise political negotiating environments and inject Indigenous-led strategies of ‘love-bombing’ that reflect cultural processes of kinship and reciprocity, we reset the relationship for good governance. Two case studies of Tasmanian land and sea management illustrate how an Indigenous politic has been created for reclaiming identity among shared futures.