The Jury process: Incisive and insightful
What makes for a good jury? This has been a question that has forever been asked in the legal profession. Should the jury comprise twelve or thirteen wise men? The question then changed with some gender empowerment ad started including women. Should a jury comprise thirteen lay persons? Or should it only include specialists who understand the subject being debated? Does it necessarily require people with legal or scientific backgrounds or people who simply understand the basics and natural principles of justice?
Who should judge films and documentaries? Are popular awards better than those judged by critics? Should those who judge have previous experience in the field, should they have been participants in the contest themselves? Should the jury look at pure quantitative measures, or should it evaluate the contestants on subjective and qualitative parameters? Should jurors get the opportunity to influence their fellow jury persons or should each one be isolated?
These are the various questions that we at mBillionth and the Manthan awards grapple with each time we collect to judge a fascinating new set of entries. Some entries are blatantly commercial, yet serve a social purpose better than most others. Some are fresh off the block and while they hold great promise, show little evidence of filed success. Some persistent contestants surface again and again, a few of them who have successfully participated in previous rounds and few who have consistently failed to impress the jury.
Each time we go through the process we realise how the jury evolves. The various nuances of conflicts of interests or ideological biases, of regional influences and of individual preferences come into the discussion and pose serious problems. the jury typically consists of a few old timers who have been though the process a few times, a few who are absolutely new to the process, a couple who have contested and won the award in previous years and the rest who are technically the best in the business of digital and mobile media.
What guides the entire exercise is a strong belief in each decision being a collective one. Jurors are allowed to blatantly argue for entries they themselves feel strongly about. So long as they have no commercial or professional interests there. The idea is that they should be able to convince a bunch of extremely strong willed individuals who are however willing to be persuaded. It is through this vigorous and robust debate that the eventual winner is decided. The process of nomination, shortlisting and discussion then takes care of a number of issues discussed earlier in this note.
Each year, the jury goes through some of the most fascinating insights into what a developing country needs as seen through the lens of service providers working in various parts of the region. While some ideas are innovative in their sheer efficiency of delivery others are brilliant concepts in upstream design and development. While the good old philosophy of earnest debate producing the winner ensures objectivity in the exercise, what is most gratifying at a personal level is the exposure to these completely new sets of ideas and concepts.
Amir Ullah Khan
Development Economist and President at Glocal University