Politics is nothing like parenting. But there are similarities between the two. I parent two stubborn children and, whether it is the last slice of cake or the smallest serving of vegetables, neither will give way. Ever.

It leads to frustration, distrust and interminable deadlock. But this behaviour is hardly surprising in school kids, given that immaturity is evident among the nation’s leading politicians.

Having imbibed too much of the “never split the difference” mentality, our politicians regard compromise as a dirty word; perhaps that’s why they dread a hung parliament. Yet, simultaneously, they bemoan the decline in “social cohesion”, worry about extremism and complain about political apathy. Politicians recognise a lack of trust could be one cause of these issues, but flinch from reforming political donations or taking responsibility for fiascos ranging from Robodebt to dialling up tensions over a fake terror plot.

However, there are Australians who are concerned about increasing divisions in society. Inspired by experiments overseas and the commitment shown to deliberative democracy in the Victorian Local Government Act, they acting to implement deliberative processes, bringing Australians together to debate important issues.

More than a decade ago, two women with a shared concern for declining commitment to democracy formed democracyCo, a facilitation and engagement social enterprise. One promising innovation is the People’s House, which offers federal and state politicians a suite of low-cost deliberative democracy tools. So far, they have helped two Liberal and two Labor MPs, bringing politicians and their constituents together to discuss issues ranging from energy to housing and the Voice. On a nationwide scale, Amplify has recently been set up to create a space for “uncommon” wisdom. This refers to wisdom that emreges from bringing people together to generate policy recommendations on issues which have politically poisonous solutions. Their first foray was into housing. And in June, the community group, Citizens Assemblies for South Australia, is hosting a national conference on "policy without politics". Speakers include Nick Gruen and Jay Weatherill.

A major difference between a deliberative process and an antagonistic debate is that deliberation encourages people to change their views, to take a “yes, and” approach, rather than a “no, but” approach. This is reflected in the wide consensus often reached. For the Amplify process, more than 70% of participants agreed with all 13 proposals put forward and refined over a weekend. While detractors see this as evidence of foul play, observers instead posit that underlying values are universal.

These initiatives are a growing international trend. In the US, deliberative advocates Josh Lerner and Marjan Ehsassi have called for a fourth branch of government, a House of the People, and provided two pathways to get there. In the UK, the Sortition Foundation (whom I work for) has launched a campaign to replace the House of Lords with a House of Citizens, a deliberative chamber chosen by democratic lottery. Where these initiatives have been introduced, deliberative assemblies have cut across ideological divides to bring people together and cultivate a shared sense of citizenship.

Take the example of Ireland’s first citizens’ assembly in 2016, on same-sex marriage. Not only did the assembly propose marriage equality, it also saw an unlikely friendship spring up between child sexual abuse survivor Finbarr O’Brien and an overtly gay young man, Chris Lyons. Finbarr initially was firmly against same-sex marriage, but changed his mind over the course of the deliberations. This capacity (career politicians largely excepted) to change one’s mind comes to the fore in deliberative democracy. And we urgently need forums where we can get out of social media echo chambers and build relationships.

Even citizens’ assemblies, that have been criticised for being largely ineffective, have generated positive change. Take the French Climate Convention, held from 2019 to 2020, and deemed a “failed experiment” by some. Yet, recently published research by the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies shows that 20% of recommendations were implemented in full, while a further 51% were partially implemented. This rate of uptake is more remarkable as about 46% of recommendations came after deliberation, rather than from expert input. New ideas emerged from the process, and government adopted some of them.

Nicholas Gruen, economist and “public figure”, is a fan of Sortition, and he has made some concrete proposals for how Australia could incorporate it into its legislative process. It’s a great start to re-imagining our democracy. As elections draw near, perhaps we can ask candidates what they are doing to strengthen democracy, and ask for greater commitment to initiatives that will bring Australians together.