Search Results

< Back Peter Bridgewater Adjunct Professor About Peter Bridgewater is an expert in environmental science and management. His expertise spans conservation and biodiversity, natural resource management , ecology, wildlife and habitat management, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander environmental knowledge. His expertise in public and environmental policy has been sought in internationally.

< Back Policy making and democratic responsiveness: The explanatory potential of values Linda Botterill, University of Canberra Tue 14 July 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Building 24, University of Canberra / Virtual Seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This presentation will consider policy as the output of the democratic process, the endpoint of Powell’s “chain of democratic responsiveness”. Understanding fully how citizens’ preferences are reflected in policy outcomes requires the effective integration of politics into models of the policy process. One way to do this is to consider policy and politics through a values lens. I will argue that values constitute the common thread that connects all the stages of the chain of responsiveness, with each choice from citizens’ voting to policy decisions involving the prioritisation of one value or set of values over others. Drawing on the work of Shalom Schwartz, I will consider what is meant by the term ‘values’ and then discuss how they are evident in every stage of the democratic process. I will conclude with a few observations about what this approach means for policy studies. About the speaker Linda Botterill is Professor in Australian Politics and Head of the Canberra School of Politics, Economics & Society. She is a political scientist working in the areas of Australian politics, and public policy theory. The focus of her current work is the role of values in politics and policy, and she has also published extensively on Australian rural policy and politics. Prior to commencing her academic career, Professor Botterill worked as a policy practitioner – including over a decade in the APS, as an adviser to two Ministers for Primary Industries and Energy in the Keating government, and as senior policy adviser in two industry associations. She was elected as a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia in 2015. Previous Next

Professor < Back Nicole Curato Professor About Nicole Curato is a Professor of Democratic Governance at the University of Birmingham's School of Government. Previously, she was a professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, where she founded the Deliberative Democracy Summer School, edited the Journal of Deliberative Democracy, and led the development of the MPP unit on Co-Design and Deliberative Engagement. She also founded the Global Citizens' Assembly Network. A recipient of five Australian Research Council grants (DECRA, Future Fellowship, Linkage Project, Discovery Project, Special Research Initiative), she has led groundbreaking research on deliberative democracy in fragile and conflict-affected settings and developed the theory and practice of deliberative integrity. She may be contacted at n.curato@bham.ac.uk .

The CDDGG 10th Anniversary Conversation Series In 2024 the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, at the University of Canberra, turns 10 years old. In celebration, we are organising a conversation series that is open to all, addressing 10 of the most pressing questions facing deliberative democracy today. Each month we will host a one-hour hybrid conversation featuring two short talks by world-leading scholars and practitioners, followed by a moderated discussion. Events will be filmed and posted on our YouTube channel for wider dissemination. Please keep checking our upcoming events page for the details and registration of each month’s conversation. Next event 10 Big Questions 20 February 2024 11:00 am HYBRID How can deliberative democracy listen to nonhumans? Prof Danielle Celermajer, University of Sydney, Australia Frederic Hanusch, Justus Liebig University, Germany Watch Recording Moderated by Dr Hans Asenbaum 12 March 2024 11:15 am HYBRID Can deliberative democracy take root in settler colonial states? Dr Justin McCaul, Australian National University, Australia Dr Emily Beausoleil, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Watch Recording Moderated by Dr Adele Webb 9 April 2024 11:00 am ONLINE Are mini-publics enough to promote deliberative democracy? Prof Simone Chambers, University of California Irvine, United States Prof Hélène Landemore, Yale University, United States Watch Recording Moderated by Prof John Dryzek 14 May 2024 6:00 pm ONLINE Does deliberative democracy stand a chance in neoliberal times? Prof John Dryzek, University of Canberra, Australia Prof Oliver Escobar, University of Edinburgh Watch Recording Moderated by Prof Nicole Curato 18 June 2024 6:00 pm ONLINE Are everyday citizens competent deliberators? Prof Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Prof Daniel Kübler, University of Zurich Watch Recording Moderated by Dr Lucy J Parry 2 July 2024 11:00 am HYBRID How should deliberative democracy respond to extremism? Dr Jordan McSwiney, University of Canberra Prof John Gastil, Pennsylvania State University Watch Recording Moderated by Prof Selen Ercan 6 August 2024 10:00 am ONLINE How can deliberative democracy challenge macho populism? Dr Hans Asenbaum, University of Canberra Dr Maria Esperanza Casullo, Universidad Nacional de Río Negro Watch Recording Moderated by Dr Jordan McSwiney 24 September 2024 6:00 pm ONLINE How can we build a global deliberative democracy? Nicole Curato, University of Canberra William Smith, Chinese University of Hong Kong Watch Recording Moderated by Wendy Conway-Lamb 8 October 2024 6:00 pm ONLINE What can deliberative democracy learn from social movements? Nicole Doerr, University of Copenhagen Claire Mellier, Iswe Foundation Watch Recording Moderated by Madeleine Egan 19 November 2024 6:00 pm HYBRID How deliberative is Australian Democracy? Selen Ercan, University of Canberra, Adele Webb, University of Canberra Andrea Carson, La Trobe University Ariadne Vromen, Australian National University Watch Recording Moderated by Ariadne Vromen Recordings The CDDGG 10th Anniversary Conversation ... Play Video Play Video 01:12:37 How deliberative is Australian democracy? Australian politics is becoming increasingly toxic. The ability to hold constructive discussions or to respectfully disagree on key political debates seems out of reach. While many democracies are embracing a surge in public deliberation, Australian political institutions seem hesitant to adopt innovations that could broaden and deepen democratic conversations. How can we improve the quality of political discourse in Australia and create space for diverse and marginalised voices? You are invited to watch this timely discussion featuring Selen Ercan (University of Canberra), Adele Webb (University of Canberra), and Andrea Carson (La Trobe University). The panel will unpack the reasons behind the state of deliberation in Australia and explore new ways of living together based on justice and mutual respect. The discussion will be moderated by Ariadne Vromen (ANU). Speakers Ariadne Vromen holds the Sir John Bunting Chair of Public Administration at ANU’s Crawford School of Public Policy. She is also Deputy Dean (Research) at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Selen Ercan is a Professor and Director at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. Adele Webb is a Research Fellow in Democracy and Citizen Engagement at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. Andrea Carson is a Professor of Political Communication in the Department of Politics, Media and Philosophy at La Trobe University. Andrea is a political scientist and journalism scholar. This event is part of the University of Canberra's Research Festival 2024 and hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Play Video Play Video 36:19 What can deliberative democracy learn from social movements? Around the world, social movements are prompting deliberative democracy's community of practice to reflect on their theories of change. What principles and taken-for-granted assumptions underpin the so-called 'deliberative wave' in OECD countries? Can deliberative mini-publics commissioned by public authorities spark systemic change, or do they reinforce existing power structures? How can social movements' communicative practices that involve narrative, visual, and artistic forms of expression transform deliberative thinking? What can deliberative democracy learn from social movements? You are invited to watch this conversation on this timely topic featuring Dr. Nicole Doerr (University of Copenhagen) and Claire Mellier (Iswe Foundation). This seminar was chaired by Madeleine Egan. This event is part 9 of a 10-part seminar series on 10 Big Questions on Deliberative Democracy convened by Dr Adele Webb. Speakers Nicole Doerr is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Copenhagen. Her work is on deliberative democracy and visual practices, deliberation and critical practices of intersectional translation and migrants' and minorities' contributions to deliberative democratic practice and theory. Claire Mellier is the Knowledge and Practice Lead at Iswe Foundation. She co-initiated and organised the world's first Global Citizens' Assembly for COP26. Moderator Madeleine Egan is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Play Video Play Video 34:42 How can we build a global deliberative democracy? How can we build a global deliberative democracy? Attempting to build a global deliberative democracy before we’ve succeeded in building a national or even local deliberative democracy may seem premature, but the scale of the collective challenges facing humanity makes the question unavoidable. In this conversation, Nicole Curato and William Smith will chart plausible political strategies to build deliberative democracy within and beyond formal institutions of global governance. This event is part 8 of a 10-part seminar series on 10 Big Questions on Deliberative Democracy convened by Dr Adele Webb. About the speakers Nicole Curato is Professor of Political Sociology at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She is the founder of the Global Citizens' Assembly Network and is leading the research on the world's first global citizens' assembly on the climate and ecological crisis. William Smith is a political theorist with interest and expertise in contemporary democratic theory and contentious politics. He has written extensively about deliberative democracy, exploring its relevance to topics such as civil disobedience, police reform, and transnational and global politics. In relation to the latter, he is currently exploring the limits and potential of ‘mini-publics’ as a means of enhancing the deliberative democratic credentials of transnational and global governance. Moderator Wendy Conway-Lamb is a PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. She explores how those most affected by climate impacts at local levels can be more meaningfully included in global adaptation governance, with an empirical focus on Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Seminar Convener: Adele Webb Online floor manager: Ferdinand Sanchez All Centre seminars are recorded. To access the recording of our seminar series and other events, visit our YouTube channel. Play Video Play Video 34:51 How can deliberative democracy challenge macho populism? Can deliberative democracy challenge macho populism? Can deliberative democracy challenge macho populism? For Hans Asenbaum, the field of deliberative democracy may have come a long way in recognising female marginalisation, but it has so far neglected cisgender, heterosexual, masculinities. Only when deliberative democracy recognises such hegemonic identities can it challenge the heterosexist domination underpinning macho populism. María Esperanza Casullo has a different take. For her, deliberative democracy can challenge macho populism by upholding the value of the most basic of human activities: talking. Macho populism seeks to define the simple act of talking as unproductive, decadent, in sum, feminine. It has a clear preference for supposedly masculine performances of aggression. Therefore, the act of deliberation itself has the potential to become the grounds for resistance. This event is part 7 of a 10-part seminar series on 10 Big Questions on Deliberative Democracy convened by Dr Adele Webb🌟 This seminar was chaired by Dr Jordan McSwiney. Speakers: Hans Asenbaum is a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. María Esperanza Casullo is an Associate Professor at the National University of Rio Negro and a researcher at CONICET in Argentina. Jordan McSwiney is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Load More

Publications End of Year Report 2025 Centre for Deliberative Democracy 2025 , University of Canberra Read more End of Year Report 2024 Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance 2024 , University of Canberra Read more Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, Peter Balint, and John S. Dryzek 2022 , State of NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet Read more Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy Selen A. Ercan, Hans Asenbaum, Nicole Curato, Ricardo F. Mendonca 2022 , Oxford University Press Read more Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. 2021 , Cambridge University Press Read more Deliberative Minipublics: Core Design Features Curato, N., Farrell D., Geißel, B., Grönlund, K., Mockler, P., Renwick, A., Rose, J., Setälä, M. and Suiter, J. 2021 , Bristol Policy Press Read more Mending Democracy: Democratic Repair in Disconnected Times Carolyn M. Hendriks, Selen A. Ercan, and John Boswell 2020 , Oxford University Press Read more The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Read more Assessing the poor’s deliberative agency in media-saturated societies Nicole Curato 2020 , Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-020-09421-1 Read more Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality André Bächtiger and John Parkinson 2019 , Oxford University Press Read more 1 2 3 1 ... 1 2 3 ... 3

< Back Ron Brent Adjunct Professor About Ron Brent is a retired public servant who previously worked as Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Commonwealth Ombudsman, was the first Australian Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, and the initial Chair of the Australian Research Integrity Committee.

< Back Ferdinand Sanchez Research Assistant About Ferdinand Sanchez II is a research assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He recently completed his bachelor's degree in Sociology at the University of the Philippines Diliman in 2022.

Former PhD student < Back Pierrick Chalaye Former PhD student About Pierrick Chalaye's work focuses on global and comparative environmental politics, cross-cultural approaches to decision-making and participatory and deliberative democratic theories and practices. H is now a research associate with the Centre.

< Back DEMOCRACY BEFORE LIBERALISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Josiah Ober, Stanford University Tue 6 November 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What did democracy mean before it was hybridized as "liberal democracy"? Is democracy without liberalism necessarily illiberal, an oppressive tyranny of the majority? Combining history with political theory, this talk aims to restore the basic meaning of democracy as collective and limited self-government by citizens. That, rather than majority tyranny, is what democracy meant in ancient Athens, long before the development of modern liberalism. Participatory self-government is the basis of political practice in “Demopolis,” a hypothetical modern state sketched as a thought experiment. Demopolis’ residents aim to establish a reasonably secure, moderately prosperous, and non-tyrannical community, where citizens govern as a collective, both directly and through representatives. They willingly assume the costs of self-government because doing so benefits them, both as a group and individually. Basic democracy, as exemplified in real Athens and imagined Demopolis, can provide a stable political foundation for a liberal society. It may also offer a possible way forward for religious societies seeking a realistic alternative to autocracy. About the speaker Josiah Ober, Mitsotakis Professor in the School of Humanities and Science at Stanford, works on historical institutionalism and political theory, focusing on the political thought and practice of the ancient Greek world and its contemporary relevance. He is the author of a number of books mostly published by Princeton University Press, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (2008), Democracy and Knowledge (2008). He has also published about 75 articles and chapters, including recent articles in American Political Science Review, Philosophical Studies, Hesperia, Polis, and Transactions of the American Philological Association. Previous Next

Research Intern < Back Atosha Birongo Research Intern About Atosha Birongo is doing research on citizen participation in the world's first Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. She is a third-year student majoring in Government and Policy at the Faculty of Business, Government and Law. She joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance as research intern in 2022.

< Back Learning to value nature? International organizations and the promotion of ecosystem services Hayley Stevenson, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella Tue 11 December 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The idea of valuing nature has become a core element of contemporary sustainable development and green economy agendas. This has been enabled by the widespread acceptance of the ‘ecosystems services’ concept, which tries to capture the value of the environment for human wellbeing. As the ecosystem services concept is embedded in development planning and economic policy-making, it is important to understand the opportunities it creates for environmental conservation and social development, and its inherent tensions and limitations. This requires a degree of reflexivity in policy-making to ensure that policies are informed by the historical lessons of ecosystem services experiments, the diverse knowledge of contemporary stakeholders, and self-critical awareness of uncertainty and multiple ontological perspectives. An international research team led by Hayley Stevenson and James Meadowcroft is studying the emergence and political uptake of this concept at international and national levels. In this presentation Hayley will share some initial findings about how nature valuation has been integrated into the work of international environmental and development agencies, and the patterns of reflexivity we observe. These findings also cast doubt on the political future of the ecosystem services concept. About the speaker Hayley Stevenson is Associate Professor in International Relations at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina), and Reader in Politics at the University of Sheffield (UK). She is the author of Institutionalizing Unsustainability, Democratizing Global Climate Governance (with John S. Dryzek), and Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy, and Practice. She is currently leading an international project with James Meadowcroft, “Ecosystem Services: Valuing Nature for Sustainable Development and a Green Economy”. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch 13 Oct 2022 On 13 October, we launched the report Building Democratic Resilience - Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism, commissioned by the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. The launch took place at the ANU, hosted by the F reilich Project for the Study of Bigotry . Panelists included Dr Jordan McSwiney, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) at the University of Canberra, Dr Emily Corner, Senior Lecturer of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the Australian National University, and Pia van de Zandt, Director of the Connected Communities team in Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW. Pictured: Selen A. Ercan (CDDGG), Peter Balint (UNSW), Pia van de Zandt (NSW Government) and Jordan McSwiney (CDDGG)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow < Back Francesco Veri Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Francesco Veri is specialized in the field of configurational comparative methods with an emphasis on fuzzy logic applied to social sciences. His methodological research focuses on concept operationalization and strengthening the quality of parameters of fit in set theoretic methods.

< Back Democratic proceduralism and its limits: From philosophical principles to political institutions Dannica Fleuss, Helmut Schmidt University Hamburg Tue 25 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent years Western democracies’ legitimacy has been heavily under attack. The decline in public support for democratic institutions manifests particularly in anti-elitism, the rise of populist and post-truth politics. A branch of political science- and public policy-scholars suggested to counteract such developments by strengthening the role of experts in political decision-making (e.g., Brennan 2016, chapter 8; Willke 2007; 2014). Such expertocratic proposals for reforming existing democratic institutions and political practices, however, contradict normative perspectives that consider the equal participation of all affected to be the core requirement of democratic legitimacy. Proceduralist political philosophy proposes a “genuinely democratic” understanding of democratic legitimacy: Proceduralists argue that the equal inclusion of all affected citizens must be the only criterion for legitimacy (Fleuß 2017; see Peter 2008; Estlund 2007; Christiano 2004). This philosophical stance has so far not been translated into institutional design and application-oriented proposals for political practice. To provide a comprehensive conception of proceduralist legitimacy, I aim at “bridging the gap” between proceduralist philosophy and application-oriented discussions of institutional design. I provide a brief overview of the argumentative path that starts out by abstract philosophical debates and, guided by a meta-theoretical framework, ultimately proposes concrete suggestions for institutions. Against this background, the lecture focuses on two claims that are at the heart of the book’s approach: A Critical Theory-inspired conceptualization of proceduralist legitimacy can provide a coherent and appealing normative ideal for contemporary democratic politics (and thereby avoids the major pitfalls of “classic” proceduralist approaches). Radically proceduralist institutional devices must be created, criticized and, potentially, changed by the citizens of democratic societies. To realize this ideal in political reality and to create institutional devices for this purpose, we must (a) adopt a systemic perspective on ‘institutional design’ and (b) create institutions that facilitate the reversibility of decisions and procedural regulations. References Christiano, T. (2004). The Authority of Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(3), 266– 290. Estlund, D. M. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fleuß, D. (2017). Prozeduren, Rechte, Demokratie. Das legitimatorische Potential von Verfahren für politische Systeme. [English Title: “The Normative Legitimacy of Democracies. On the Limits of Proceduralism”]. Dissertation, Heidelberg University. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/23203/. Peter, F. (2008). Pure Epistemic Proceduralism. Episteme, 5(1), 33–55. Willke, H. (2007). Smart governance: governing the global knowledge society. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus/Chicago University Press. Willke, H. (2014). Demokratie in Zeiten der Konfusion. Berlin: Suhrkamp. About the speaker Dannica Fleuss is a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg) and a research associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds an MA in philosophy and political science and a PhD in political science from Heidelberg University. From 2014 until 2017, Dannica worked as a lecturer at the departments of political science and philosophy at Heidelberg University. In 2018 and 2019, she spent research visits at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of Westminster). Her research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. Dannica’s postdoctoral project aims at developing a measurement of nation states’ democratic quality that is firmly grounded in deliberative democratic theory. Previous Next

< Back Boosting the legitimacy of global climate governance: How can meta-deliberation help? Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 13 September 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many commentators have voiced concerns about the legitimacy of the multilateral climate change regime due to its limited progress in slowing greenhouse gas pollution as well as its cumbersome decision-making processes. Recent accounts of deliberative democracy argue that, in order to be legitimate, deliberative systems must cultivate a capacity for “meta-deliberation”, namely critical reflection about the nature, scope and structure of the deliberative system itself. Stevenson and Dryzek (2014) conclude that the climate regime lacks sufficient capacity for meta-deliberation. Yet, the concept of meta-deliberation requires further theoretical elaboration, and more in-depth empirical analysis is needed on the conditions under which meta-deliberation could work in practice. In this paper I outline an account of meta-deliberation and compare it with related concepts such as reflexivity and meta-governance. I argue that one important function of meta-deliberation is to deliberate about the extent to which decision-making processes are centralised or decentralised (“polycentric”). I then apply this analytical framework to a case study of meta-deliberation about one prominent aspect of the global climate regime in which decision-making arrangements are significantly fragmented: funding to assist developing countries’ efforts to address climate change. I present preliminary results of a case study of the Standing Committee on Finance, which was established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010 to improve coherence and coordination in the delivery of climate finance. Drawing on documentary analysis and observation of a recent Forum held by the Committee in the Philippines, the case study assesses the Committee’s potential to engage in meta-deliberation about how decision-making on climate finance should be distributed across multilateral, national and sub-national institutions. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

< Back DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAL CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. About this event In this talk Bobby Banerjee provides a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. Legacies of colonialism have generally been overlooked in theories of democracy. These omissions challenge several key assumptions of deliberative democracy. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy does not travel well outside Western sites and its key assumptions begin to unravel in the ‘developing’ regions of the world. The context for a decolonial critique of deliberative democracy is the ongoing violent conflicts over resource extraction in the former colonies of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Banerjee argues that deliberative democracy cannot take into account the needs of marginalized stakeholders who are defending their lands and livelihoods. Consequently political corporate social responsibility and multi-stakeholder initiatives, which reflect deliberative processes at the market-society interface can diminish the welfare of communities impacted by extraction. Several governance challenges arise as a result of these power asymmetries and Banerjee develops a translocal governance framework from the perspective of vulnerable stakeholders that can enable a more progressive approach to societal governance of multinational corporations. Bobby Banerjee is Professor of Management and Associate Dean of Research & Enterprise at Bayes Business School, City University of London. He researches and teaches on corporate social irresponsibility, unsustainability, climate justice and decolonial resistance movements. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Overview of the law of deliberative democracy Ron Levy, Australian National University Tue 24 February 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Laws have colonised many corners of democratic practice. After several decades of the juridification of politics, the so-called ‘laws of politics’ now are often integral to (even constitutive of) the sites of political deliberation. Yet much deliberative theory neglects to address law as a set of norms whose influences on political practice are both substantial and varied. Equally, legal scholars have been slow to join the deliberative turn in research. Few scholars on either side of the disciplinary divide have sought comprehensively to bridge studies of the law of politics with deliberative theory. My current research (with co-author and co-CI Prof Graeme Orr) aims to do exactly this. In the seminar I will update Centre members on the progress of our book and ARC project entitled ‘The Law of Deliberative Democracy’. Making use of the opportunity of an audience familiar with deliberative theory, I will focus not on narrow examples from the book, but on overall arguments. A key contention is that, though the laws of politics may often frustrate the best laid plans of deliberative democrats, this outcome is not inevitable. In particular, it is not the form of common-law decision-making that determines law’s fit to deliberative democracy, but only the particular substantive legal choices that judges make. I will touch on three areas of doctrine in the law of politics (relating to political liberty, equality, and anti-corruption) where such judicial choices have either thwarted or helped to realise deliberative democratic ideals. About the speaker Dr Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy. He is the winner of several research awards including grants from the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Australian Research Council. Ron is currently a chief investigator on two ARC Discovery Projects: 'The Law of Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Reform' (DP130100706, 2012-2015, with Graeme Orr) bridging research on election law with deliberative democratic theory and 'Confronting the Devolution Paradox' (DP140102682, 2013-2016, with AJ Brown, Robyn Hollander, Paul Kildea, Rodney Smith, Richard Cole and John Kincaid) on federalism and political culture. Ron has also been guest co-editor of the Election Law Journal's 2013 symposium issue on 'the law of deliberative democracy' and is co-writing a monograph: The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, under contract, with Graeme Orr). Ron's other projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy. He has been a Visitor at Yale Law School, Cambridge University and King's College London. At the ANU College of Law, he convenes Advanced Constitutional Law and Torts, and gives seminars in Commonwealth Constitutional Law. Previous Next

Research Assistant < Back Alessandra Pecci Research Assistant About Alessandra worked as Research Assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Australian National University from 2009 to 2011.

< Back Women's participation in the Bougainville peace process and post-conflict political order: Understanding post-conflict gender norm shift on the level of local government Anjte Busch, RWTH Aachen University Tue 26 June 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Conflicts and the following time of resolution may be simultaneously empowering and disempowering for women. The recent history of Bougainville (Autonomous Region of Bougainville, Papua New Guinea) is such a case, providing an opportunity to examine the participation of women in the Bougainville peace process and its post-conflict political order. I explore in my PhD-project women’s role in local government to see if a societal shift of gender relations and identities can be found in Bougainville’s local institutions, or if the changes occurred are different expressions of gender relations which remain equally rooted in previous gender roles. About the speaker Antje [Anita] Busch, M.A. studied Political Science and English Studies in Germany, the USA and Spain, and holds a Bachelor and Master degree from the RWTH Aachen University (Germany). Since 2014 she works as a researcher and lecturer for the Chair of International Relations at RWTH Aachen University Department for Political Science. Her PhD-project is about women’s participation in the Bougainville peace process and post-conflict political order. For that she plans to conduct semi-structure interview with women’s representatives on the local government level in north and central Bougainville from April until June 2018. She is the Junior Speaker for the Development Politics and Theory Section of the German’s Association of Political Scientist and Speaker of the Researcher’s Colloquium at her department. Previous Next

< Back Problems with liberal proceduralism in normative democratic theory Quinlan Bowman, University of Canberra Tue 2 May 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflection on lived experience seems to indicate that when we reason intelligently about how to craft a “democratic” process, we recognize the need to reason about procedures, virtues, and cultural practices in conjunction. And this would seem to suggest that the role of normative democratic theory should partly be to help democracy’s participants to engage in such reasoning. Yet, a close consideration of the prominent normative democratic theories of Robert Dahl, Joshua Cohen, and Jürgen Habermas reveals that none of these theorists has explicitly depicted the role of normative democratic theory in this way. Part of the explanation for this concerns the kind of “liberal proceduralism” that characterizes their respective theories. A related concern is that in each case it is either unclear how, if at all, the author views his theory as having emerged out of empirical inquiry or how he expects it to guide further such inquiry (or both). Correspondingly, none of these authors presents the “proper” status and function of normative democratic theory in the way that I believe we should: as emerging out of reflection on lived experience with the values of treating persons as free and as equal and as guiding further inquiry into the procedures, virtues, and cultural practices that, in some particular context, are most apt to promote the realization of those values. About the speaker I joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance as a Postdoctoral Fellow in 2016, after completing my PhD in Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Currently, I am working on a book project, based on my PhD dissertation, entitled “Deliberative Democracy as Reflexive Social Inquiry.” The project juxtaposes selected aspects of the literature on deliberative democracy with ideas drawn from pragmatist approaches to ethics and social inquiry. Broadly speaking, pragmatists theorize by explicitly drawing on the resources provided to us by our actual practices and by reflecting on the consequences they have for actual lives. I deploy pragmatist ideas to develop a normative theory of the democratic process, meant as a contribution to a public philosophy for citizen participation in democratic governance under conditions of significant cultural diversity. The theory is developed through what I refer to as “anthropological-interpretive inquiry” into lived experiences with “treatment as free and equal in joint or collective decision-making.” The theory is basically a deliberative one; yet, my pragmatist orientation makes me critical of certain depictions of deliberative democracy. While at the Centre, I will also be collaborating with John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Fellowship project, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System. In particular, we will be collaborating on the topic of “deliberative cultures.” Cognitive science suggests that deliberation manifests a universal human competence to reason collectively. Yet, the character of deliberation varies considerably across space and time. Cross-cultural studies of political deliberation thus promise to provide new insight into the various forms that deliberative practices can take and the various circumstances in which they can flourish. A third project, jointly undertaken with Mark Bevir at the University of California, Berkeley, is entitled “Innovations in Democratic Governance.” The book project, based on a previously published book chapter by the same name, explores how direct citizen participation can feature throughout the varied stages of the public policy cascade. It discusses a range of democratic innovations for public participation. Drawing on case studies from all over the world, the project investigates how public participation can operate at multiple geographical scales – ranging from the neighborhood level all the way up to the transnational – and illustrates how participation at different levels might be linked up. The discussion explores ways that citizens might craft their own rules for participation; monitor those rules and the policies they help generate; and cooperatively implement their own local policies. It also investigates ways in which the role of experts and officials might be transformed into one of largely supporting and facilitating public participation. Previous Next