Institutions of Deliberative Democratic Processes and Interest Groups: Roles, Tensions and Incentives

There are inherent tensions between traditional, more pluralist forms of public participation and new deliberative democratic processes, such as citizens' juries. These innovative processes, known collectively as citizens' forums, challenge existing roles and power relationships between interest groups and the state. Instead of having key access to the policy stage, interest groups are required to be 'bystanders', 'information providers', and ultimately 'process legitimisers'. With such a radical shift in roles and power structure, there are few apparent reasons why interest groups would want to participate in such deliberative processes. In some cases, to the detriment of the process, they decide not to.     

The New Right and family politics

Political concern for the family has historically been intermittent; the present context is that there are considerable consequences for individuals, families, and personal life. Socioeconomic and cultural changes brought the rise of the New Right; The Thatcher (UK) and Reagan (US) administrations were committed to strengthening the traditional family. The emergence of the family as a social problem and the political agenda are discussed. The costs of liberalism were felt in a recessionary economy. The US political agenda of Carter to hold a White House Conference on the American Family never materialized. Reagan used the restoration of the traditional American family as a way to get the economy back on its feet. Moral crusaders and the new evangelical Christian movement merged with the political right; the "Gang of Four" (Republican Party right) politicians involved morally conservative communities normally outside the political area into the New Right. Grass roots organizations were mobilized on the Right. The British situation is explained; differences existed in that there were no antiabortion and moral lobby groups tied to the Right although their influence was felt. Pressure group politics is relatively novel to Britain. The Moral Majority in the US and right wing pressure groups on the Tory government are but 1 part of the New Right; it is characterized as populist, proclaiming the Radical Conservatism of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. The approach in this article is to show the complex interactions of theory, biography, and public opinion in the practical politics of the New Right. Policy outcomes are not predictable because of ideological differences in New Right attitudes toward the family. The attitudes of the moral order and the family is exemplified in the work of Roger Scruton's neoconservative stand on social order, Robert Nozick's Kantian proposition that human beings are ends with natural inviolable rights of individual freedom, Hayak and Friedman's efficacy of the market in guarantees of freedom, and Ferdinand Mount's concern for family based in humanist, secular, and anticollectivist thought. Thatcher and Reagan both incorporated the ideological contradictions of the aforementioned positions. The failure of the New Right in implementing policy is explained. The greatest obstacle was the major demographic, economic, social, and cultural shifts which impacted on the role of women. The camp was divided. Economic policies did not strengthen the traditional family. It is likely that the family will remain as a political pressure point.     

Commissions of inquiry and policy change: Comparative analysis and future research frontiers

Canadian governments have spawned hundreds of federal and provincial commissions of inquiry (COIs). Many scholars have completed in‐depth analysis of particular COIs but less attention has been paid to policy impact and comparisons across COIs. This study addresses the following questions. What role do COIs play in policy change? Would policy change likely have occurred without the COI? Why do some COIs result in policy change and others do not? This analysis reports on findings from in‐depth case studies of ten COIs. It uses a theoretical framework focusing on ideas, institutions, actors and relations to examine whether and how COIs lead to policy and administrative change.     

Asylum-seekers and national histories of detention

The Australian system of mandatory detention of asylum–seekers has become increasingly controversial. Insofar as commentary on detention has been framed historically, critics have pointed to Australia's race–based exclusionary laws and policies over the twentieth century. In this article, we suggest that exclusion and detention are not equivalent practices, even if they are often related. Here we present an alternative genealogy of mandatory detention and protests against it. Quarantine–detention and the internment of "enemy aliens" in wartime are historic precedents for the current detention of asylum–seekers. Importantly, in both carceral practices, non–criminal and often non–citizen populations were held in custody en masse and without trial. Quarantine, internment and incarceration of asylum–seekers are substantively connected over the twentieth century, as questions of territory, security and citizenship have been played out in Australia's histories of detention.