The epistemic benefits of deliberative democracy

One instrumental defense of democracy is epistemic in character: Insofar as there is a correct answer to be found to some question being politically addressed, democratic decision-making procedures are more likely to find it than any other. But that assumes that the correct answer appears on the agenda in the first place, and that the agenda is not so cluttered that it gets lost there. Two-stage deliberative procedures can help with both problems, first by populating the agenda and then by winnowing it. A good example of both occurring is found in the detailed records now available of top secret ExComm deliberations surrounding the US government’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.     

The emotional dimensions of reason-giving in deliberative forums

Policy Sciences - This study investigates the role of emotions in the context of a controversial debate surrounding criminal legislation in Brazil. While several thinkers have criticized...     

Deliberative citizenship and deliberative governance: a case study of one deliberative experimental in China

Deliberative democracy requires a new type of deliberative citizenship and deliberative governance. However, there has been little examination of the connection between deliberative citizenship and deliberative governance. Moreover, despite a growing literature that has examined a diversity of concepts of Chinese citizenship, the newly emerging deliberative citizenship has not been studied. This paper attempts to fill these two gaps by studying the role of deliberative citizenship in deliberative governance practice. Drawing on an experiment this author organized in 2010, this article examines the question of whether deliberative citizenship can be harnessed to solve a particular social problem and how deliberative forums can become a new form of deliberative governance mechanism. It examines what kind of conditions help or hinder the development of deliberative citizenship and deliberative governance, and identifies the limitations of local deliberative democracy in China.     

Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system

This paper argues that while research on deliberative democracy is burgeoning, there is relatively little attention paid to the contributions of civil society. Based on an interpretive conceptualization of deliberative democracy, this paper draws attention to the ways in which civil society organizations employ “storylines” about environmental issues and deliberative processes to shape deliberative policy making. It asks, how do civil society organizations promote storylines in the deliberative system to change policy? How do storylines constitute policy and policy-making processes in the deliberative system? I answer these questions through an empirical analysis of two environmental controversies in the USA: environmental justice in New Mexico and coalbed methane development in Wyoming. Findings indicate that civil society organizations used storylines in both cases to shift the dynamics of the deliberative system and to advance their own interpretations of environmental problems and policy-making processes. Specifically, they used storylines (1) to set the agenda on environmental hazards, (2) to construct the form of public deliberation, changing the rules of the game, (3) to construct the content of public deliberation, shaping meanings related to environmental policy, and (4) to couple/align forums, arenas and courts across the system. These findings suggest that promoting storylines through accommodation and selection processes can be an important mechanism for shaping policy meanings and for improving deliberative quality, although these effects are tempered by discursive and material forms of power, and the competition among alternative storylines.     

Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design

A significant shortcoming in contemporary deliberative systems is that citizens are disconnected from various elite sites of public deliberation. This article explores the concept of ‘coupling’ as a means to better link citizens and elites in deliberative systems. The notion of ‘designed coupling’ is developed to describe institutional mechanisms for linking otherwise disconnected deliberative sites. To consider whether it is possible and indeed desirable to use institutional design to couple different sites in a deliberative system, the article draws on insights from a case study in which a mini‐public was formally integrated into a legislative committee. The empirical study finds that it is not only feasible to couple mini‐publics to legislative committees, but when combined, the democratic and deliberative capacity of both institutions can be strengthened. To be effective, ‘designed coupling’ requires more than establishing institutional connections; it also requires that actors to step outside their comfort zone to build new relationships and engage in new communicative spaces with different sets of ideas, actors and rules. This can be facilitated by institutional design, but it also requires leaders and champions who are well‐placed to encourage actors to think differently.     

The June 2015 legislative election in Turkey

The Republic of Turkey held its first presidential election, which employed a universal suffrage based on popular vote, on 10 August 2014. Unlike most of the countries organizing separate ballots for electing the president and the MPs, Turkey did not hold both elections on the same day. Instead, the subsequent parliamentary election would be held ten months later, i.e. on 7 June 2015. The reason behind this is not only due to the differences of the term lengths between parliament and the President (which are four and five years respectively), but also the peculiarity in the inclusion of a “presidential element” (a president elected by popular vote) into a political regime which must still be seen as a parliamentary system. This oddness arose from the political crisis in 2007.     

The politics of institutional reform in Italy

This article reviews the recent Italian debate on possible constitutional and institutional reforms aimed at improving governmental decision‐making capacity. In the first section, the post‐war institutional developments are briefly discussed to show how the present problems have emerged. Various reform proposals affecting the electoral system, Parliament and government are then analysed, together with the political pre‐conditions and consequences linked to their possible adoption. With reference to these political considerations, the various kinds of reform are evaluated in terms of their capacity to achieve their goals and of their acceptability to the political parties.     

Explaining non‐participation in deliberative mini‐publics

This article investigates citizens’ refusal to take part in participatory and deliberative mechanisms. An increasing number of scholars and political actors support the development of mini‐publics – that is, deliberative forums with randomly selected lay citizens. It is often argued that such innovations are a key ingredient to curing the democratic malaise of contemporary political regimes because they provide an appropriate means to achieve inclusiveness and well considered judgment. Nevertheless, real‐life experience shows that the majority of citizens refuse the invitation when they are recruited. This raises a challenging question for the development of a more inclusive democracy: Why do citizens decline to participate in mini‐publics? This article addresses this issue through a qualitative analysis of the perspectives of those who have declined to participate in three mini‐publics: the G1000, the G100 and the Climate Citizens Parliament. Drawing on in‐depth interviews, six explanatory logics of non‐participation are distinguished: concentration on the private sphere; internal political inefficacy; public meeting avoidance; conflict of schedule; political alienation; and mini‐public's lack of impact on the political system. This shows that the reluctance to take part in mini‐publics is rooted in the way individuals conceive their own roles, abilities and capacities in the public sphere, as well as in the perceived output of such democratic innovations.