Beyond Deliberative Systems (original) (raw)
Related papers
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy , 2022
Research on deliberative democracy has been flourishing over the past decades. We now know more about the conditions that enable or hinder inclusive and consequential deliberation, and how different actors, such as politicians, activists, and citizens, perceive and experience deliberative practices. Yet there are still many unknowns that drive research in deliberative democracy, especially as the field continues to develop in new directions and seeks to offer remedies for the problems democracies face today. This chapter unpacks what deliberative democracy research is, what it involves, and how we might go about conducting it. It discusses how the normative theory interacts with empirical research and how the deliberative ideals shape the practice and purpose of research. The chapter makes a case for methodological and epistemological diversity and outlines thirty-one different methods for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy.
Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems
This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.
Deliberative Democracy and Public Engagement (PSA 2015).docx
The civic benefits of participating in public deliberation have been proven: increased political participation and engagement and a sophisticated understanding of complex issues to name a few. This puts deliberative processes in the perfect position to be used for public engagement and to engage the public with complex political issues. However, there is a tension at play here – is deliberative democracy essentially a ‘tool’ that can be utilised by public officials, or should it retain its radical, normative roots? In this paper I argue that the two might be reconciled. This is done through re-imagining ten principles of public engagement as the deliberative process itself. I suggest that a deliberative process could be used – not to enhance the public understanding of politics – but to bring citizens and political elites together as equal participants to deliberate on a mutual, co-developed understanding of politics. Using insights from my observation of a Citizens’ Jury , I argue that participating in a deliberative process can demonstrate to both citizens and elites that there is an alternative and accessible form of politics that differs from the adversarial, ‘yah-boo’ politics of Westminster.
The meanings of deliberation and citizen participation
Routledge eBooks, 2023
When political concepts such as deliberation are widely used and involve normative exigencies intended to legitimate institutional reforms, clarification becomes unavoidable. But clarifying is not the same as trying to find and adjudicate an unequivocal (uncontested) meaning. On the contrary, this exercise shows the implications of selecting its core components, something that always takes place within an academic and political context that determines where the emphasis is placed. So much has been written about deliberation, from so many theoretical perspectives, that it is difficult now to map these meanings and to define the criteria by which it can be assessed, whether normatively or empirically. Therefore, instead of explaining differences in the approaches organized in what has become assumed as the various "turns" of deliberative theory, highlighting the changes on the variegated interest of academics adopting a deliberative standpoint (Elstub et al., 2016; Owen and Smith, 2015; Parkinson, 2012 ; Dryzek and Niemeyer, 2010), it may be more fruitful to focus on the common questions they have tried to address. And their main concern is how to decide a fair common good in our pluralistic societies. In this note, we reflect on the normative content of deliberation, focusing on the way authors stressing its "democratic legitimating properties" have understood the main function of constitutions. Constitutions are the instruments that articulate the sovereign will of the People, but they are also the guarantee of its communicative power. This has been reflected in the tension between those defending a non-subjected sovereign will and those insisting on the limitations imposed by some preconditions (recognition of some basic rights and procedures). Therefore, to understand many current debates, it is important, firstly, to highlight how the family of meanings of deliberation has evolved. This genealogy shows us its deep connections with key (contested) issues related to the legitimacy of our democracies: the role and meaning of constitutions that embody them, as well as the construction of "the People" and the institutional expression of the "popular will" that is at their base. In this evolution, secondly, we can see how these meanings involve different images of citizens' role in democratic systems, as well as the right way they can be represented in decision-making processes. This allows us to understand differences in the approaches to deliberation nested on these first articulations of the deliberative stance from those that privilege the participatory narrative. To stress these differences, thirdly, help us identify the normative criteria
Deliberation and Participatory Democracy
The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, 2018
Participatory democracy and deliberative democracy are often confused, equated, or at the very least treated as strongly related theories of democracy (Floridia 2014). It is easy to see why as both theories offer powerful normative critiques of liberal democracy, with protagonists from both arguing it suffers from an avoidable democratic malaise and legitimation crisis, advocating overarching democratic reform and rejuvenation to supplement and improve representative institutions, rather than replace them. In addition, both participatory and deliberative democracy developed in response to the dominance of empirical democratic theory (Schumpeter 1942; Berelson 1952; Downs 1957; Converse 1964), critiquing the negative conclusions drawn about the capacity of citizens (Vitale 2006; Böker and Elstub 2015). Despite these similarities the relationship between the two is highly contested. There seems to be agreement that deliberative democracy developed from participatory
2018
At the heart of the ideal of deliberative democracy lies an emphasis on the political autonomy of citizens participating in procedures of public justification aimed at the promotion of the common good. The recent systemic turn in deliberative democracy has moved so far away from this ideal that it relegates the deliberations of citizens to a secondary matter, legitimizing forms of rule that may even undermine the normative impulses central to the project of deliberative democracy. We critically discuss this theoretical development and show how deliberative agency can effectively be exercised in complex political systems. We argue, in particular, that political parties play a central role in facilitating the exercise of deliberative agency, fostering deliberation among citizens and linking their deliberations to decisions. Instead of giving up on the possibility that citizens participate in procedures of public justification, deliberative democrats should look to parties' unique ability to enable deliberation.
The chapter addresses the relations between social movements and deliberative democracy, pointing at opportunities but also at tensions in theorization and practices of democracy. While social movements are important for deliberative democracy, and vice versa, activists and deliberative democrats alike have addressed a number of tensions between deliberative democracy and protest. The global diffusion of deliberative norms, practices, and experiences of democracy in social movements is discussed in the light of the growing literature on deliberative democracy. In particular, faced with challenges to the legitimacy and efficacy of representative democracy, social movements' democratic innovations, such as the Forum and the Camp, represent important experiments in cooperation in settings of deep diversity and inequality. In addition, the reflections on social movements' conceptions and practices help in specifying some conceptualization of deliberative politics.