Search Results

< Back Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Nicole Curato 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the Virginia Miralao Best Book Prize from the Philippine Social Science Council Summary Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedy to Deliberative Action investigates how democratic politics can unfold in creative and unexpected of ways even at the most trying of times. Drawing on three years of fieldwork in disaster-affected communities in Tacloban City, Philippines, this book presents ethnographic portraits of how typhoon survivors actively perform their suffering to secure political gains. These ethnographic descriptions come together in a theoretical project that makes a case for a multimodal view of deliberative action. It underscores the embodied, visual, performative and subtle ways in which affective political claims are constructed and received. It concludes by arguing that while emotions play a role in amplifying marginalized political claims, it also creates hierarchies of misery that renders some forms of suffering more deserving of compassion than others. Read more Previous Next

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance.

< Back DELIBERATIVE PEACE REFERENDUMS ABSTRACT Peace referendums, which seek to manage conflict between warring groups, are increasingly common. Yet they remain erratic forces—liable as often to aggravate as to resolve tensions. Ron Levy will speak about his recent book Deliberative Peace Referendums (OUP 2021). Levy and his co-authors Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong argue that, despite their risks, referendums can play useful roles amid armed conflict. Drawing on a distinctive combination of the fields of deliberative democracy, constitutional theory and conflict studies, and relying on comparative examples (eg, from Algeria, Colombia, New Caledonia, Northern Ireland, Papua New Guinea, and South Africa), the book shows how peace referendums can fulfil their promise as genuine tools of conflict management. For more on the book see here BIO Associate Professor 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. Levy's books include Deliberative Peace Referendums (Oxford University Press, 2021, with Ian O'Flynn and Hoi Kong); The Law of Deliberative Democracy (Routledge, 2016, with Graeme Orr) and The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press, 2018, with Hoi Kong, Graeme Orr and Jeff King eds). His projects include studies of constitutional reform, including prospects for reform via deliberative democracy and referendums in conflict societies. Levy is the General Editor of the Federal Law Review and also leads the International Advisory Panel on Referendums, an international group that provides advice to governments and civil society groups on designing more deliberative referendums. Previous Next

< Back People haven't had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European countries Daniele Caramani, University of Zurich Tue 9 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract Democratic theory postulates that technocracy and populism mount a twofold challenge to representative democracy and parties, while also standing at odds with each other in the vision of representation they advocate. Can these relationships be observed empirically at the level of citizen preferences and what does this mean for alternative forms of representation? The talk presents results from an investigation of technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine EU member states. Attitudes follow three dimensions – Expertise, Elitism, Anti-politics Using latent class analysis, empirical data allows to identify groups of citizens that follow a technocratic, populist and party-democratic profiles. Results show that technocratic attitudes are pervasive and can be meaningfully distinguished from populist attitudes, though important overlaps remain. The analysis also points to differences in demographics and political attitudes among citizen profiles that are relevant to political behaviour. This highlights the role that citizens’ increasing demands for expertise play in driving preferences for alternative types of governance in an increasing complex and inter-connected global society. About the speaker Daniele Caramani has joined the University of Zurich in 2014. He grew up in Milan and Paris and studied political science at the University of Geneva where he has also worked as teaching assistant. He holds a Ph.D. from the European University Institute, Florence, where he subsequently has been Vincent Wright Fellow (Robert Schuman Centre). He has been an assistant professor at the University of Florence, has spent four years at the University of Mannheim (MZES) as a researcher, and has been senior lecturer/reader at the University of Birmingham. From 2006 to 2014 he has been a professor at the University of St. Gallen. In 2019 and 2020 he is visiting Fellow at the Australian National University, Canberra. In the past, he has held fellowships at the EUI, Florence, at Nuffield College, Oxford, and at the Rokkan Centre in Bergen. He is the author of Elections in Western Europe since 1815: Electoral Results by Constituencies (Palgrave 2000, with CD-ROM), The Nationalization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2004) for which he has been awarded UNESCO's "Stein Rokkan Prize for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences", and The Europeanization of Politics (Cambridge University Press 2015). He has authored Introduction to the Comparative Method with Boolean Algebra (Sage, "Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences" 2009), which has been translated into Chinese and Farsi, and edits the textbook Comparative Politics (Oxford University Press 2017, fourth edition, translated into Italian and Croatian). He regularly publishes articles in scientific journals. Daniele Caramani is Co-Director of the Constituency-Level Elections Archive which has received the APSA "Dataset Award" in 2012. He is Director of the Doctoral Programme "Democracy Studies". His research and teaching profile is broadly comparative. It has a strong historical dimension with time series reaching back to the first phases of democratic transition, state building, and industrialization up to the present day. Empirical research is based on comparative and quantitative-statistical methods, and has produced documented datasets and archives which are available to the academic community. It includes work on elections and representation, electoral systems and electoral behaviour, parties and party systems, democratization, state formation and nation-building, methodology, European integration, globalization, regionalism and nationalism, and political geography. His main contribution has been in the field of the theory of the nationalization and Europeanization of politics. Currently, he works on extending that research with a third monograph on the "globalization" of politics. Further projects include work on technocracy, populism, left-right in global perspective and global voting rights. Previous Next

< Back Ian O'Flynn Associate About Ian O'Flynn's main research interest is in exploring the implications of deliberative democracy for questions of social and political integration in multicultural and multinational societies. is Senior Lecturer in Political Theory in the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, UK.

< Back Deliberation in an age of (un)civil resistance William Smith, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Tue 15 September 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Richard Spencer, an influential ‘Alt-Right’ provocateur, was punched in the face while giving an interview on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration as United States president. The assailant was affiliated with ‘Antifa’, an activist network committed to combatting the rise of far-right movements through confrontational and often violent means. Antifa are emblematic of a wave of movements whose tactics and conduct cannot be subsumed under the traditional category of nonviolent civil disobedience. There has, concurrently, been a surge of interest among political philosophers on the idea of ‘uncivil disobedience’, with a range of theorists converging on the view that there is often no compelling rationale for limiting dissent to the nonviolent repertoire associated with civil disobedience. This paper takes these political and theoretical developments as a catalyst for reconsidering deliberative democratic approaches to activism and protest. It argues that the tendency to frame protest through the catch-all category of ‘non-deliberative’ behavior elides the important distinction between civil and uncivil disobedience, treating as analogous forms of conduct that are quite different in terms of their potential consequences and their ethical complexion. The paper focuses in particular on the difficult case of violence, exploring the normative scope for deliberative theorists to treat it as a potentially legitimate mode of uncivil resistance. About the speaker William Smith is Associate Professor in Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He works in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on civil disobedience, deliberative democracy and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (Routledge 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including Ethics & International Affairs, The Journal of Political Philosophy, and Political Studies. Previous Next

< Back Li-Chia Lo Associate About Li-Chia Lo has adopted the interpretivist approach to investigate the cross-cultural transformation of political ideas and he is curious about how introducing new ideas can trigger political participation and promote political communication. His broader areas of interest include critical theory, democratic theory, China studies, and Taiwan studies.

< Back UPCOMING: DOES FOOD DEMOCRACY MATTER? LINKING THE DELIBERATIVE QUALITY OF SOY AND COFFEE VALUE CHAINS TO ECOLOGICAL 'FOODPRINTS' The global food system is facing a multiple sustainability crisis. Agri-food value chains are among the main drivers of humanity’s overstepping the planetary boundaries related to climate change, loss of biodiversity (genes, species, and habitats) deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution, and nutrient imbalances. At the same time, key food producers like small- and medium-scale farmers are being driven from their land as a result of expanding extractivist resource use and highly asymmetric market access. Among the root causes of the global food system’s sustainability crisis are the multidimensional and increasingly asymmetric power relations – defined as the uneven capacity to influence goals, processes, and outcomes of governance – between the actors involved. Peasant communities, family farmers, rural workers, women, small-scale traders, artisanal food processors, and resource-poor consumers remain widely excluded from the decision-making processes through which agri-food value chains are governed. Deliberation – citizens’ political conversation and collective decision-making – has been described as a “partial antidote” to unequal power relations and as an important lever for rendering decision-making less power-driven. Democracy research argues that deliberation brings to the fore public goods and society’s ecological interests. However, empirical knowledge supporting these claims in the context of food and agriculture is scarce. This research aims at understanding whether and how deliberation affects ecological outcomes (“foodprints”) of soy and coffee value chains and power asymmetries among their key actors. Specific aims are to (1) determine the deliberative quality of selected agri-food value chains; (2) understand the implications of varying degrees of deliberation for power relations among key actors; (3) assess the selected agri-food value chains’ ecological foodprints; and (4) determine how deliberative quality relates to power asymmetries and ecological foodprints. We take a mixed-methods approach in four interlinked research streams: (1) Deliberative quality, comprising analysis of soy and coffee value chains and their key actors, institutional analysis, and discourse analysis to determine deliberative spaces and deliberative quality, and (2) Power asymmetries, focusing on whether and how the deliberative quality of agri-food value chains affects power asymmetries from key actors’ perspective – with semi-structured interviews, participant observation, focus groups, and document review applied in both streams; (3) Ecological foodprints, comprising life cycle inventories to measure the selected value chains’ resource use intensity, land use, deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste/nutrient management, using semi-structured interviews, participant observation, as well as document and database review; and (4) Integration, applying process tracing to infer causal relationships between deliberative quality, power asymmetries, and ecological foodprints. BIO Dr. Johanna Jacobi is an Assistant Professor for Agroecological Transitions at ETH Zürich. She studied Geography, Biology and Social Anthropology. Her master thesis investigated wastewater-irrigated agrobiodiversity in peri-urban agriculture in Hyderabad, India. For her PhD studies at the University of Bern, she conducted research on the resilience of cocoa farms in Bolivia to climate change. In a post-doctoral project at UC Berkeley, she focused on agroforestry in Bolivia, where she then lived and worked in a transdisciplinary action- research project for several years. Her research focuses on agroecology as a transformative science, a practice and a social movement, and on power relations in food systems with approaches and methods from political ecology. Johanna Jacobi is also a member of the Latin American Scientific Society of Agroecology (SOCLA). Previous Next

< Back Deliberation and media policy studies: Towards a deliberative policy ecology approach Preeti Raghunath, The Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India Tue 20 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract The study of deliberative democracy has received great impetus in Political Science and associated fields of Political Philosophy and Environmental Policy Studies. My engagement with literature on deliberative democracy comes from my grounding in Critical Media Policy Studies and Habermasian thought. Drawing on theoretical literature and empirical ethnographic fieldwork conducted in four countries of South Asia, and through the use of Grounded Theory, I present the building of the Deliberative Policy Ecology (DPE) Approach to the study of media policies and policymaking in South Asia. About the speaker Preeti Raghunath is an Assistant Professor at the Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India. Her research and praxis are in the realm of critical media policy studies in South Asia. She is particularly interested in pushing the epistemological contours of the area from the Global South. She is the author of 'Community Radio Policies in South Asia: A Deliberative Policy Ecology Approach', published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020. She serves as a Vice-Chair of the Global Media Policy Working Group of the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back New Report Unpacks Risks to the Integrity of Deliberative Mini-Publics 17 Feb 2025 On 11 February 2025, close to 100 academics, practitioners, and policymakers joined the launch of Deliberative Integrity: Risks and Responses in Mini-Public Governance , authored by Dr Lucy J. Parry and Professor Nicole Curato (University of Canberra). The report highlights risks facing deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) and offers strategies to safeguard their integrity. Moderated by Professor Oliver Escobar (University of Edinburgh), the launch featured insights from the authors and expert discussants, including Tessa Dunlop (European Commission), Damien du Preez (Stellenbosch University), and Marjan H. Ehsassi (Federation for Innovation in Democracy – North America). The Report is based on three years of academic research, featuring interviews with over sixty members of the deliberative democracy’s community of practice from around the world. The project was funded by the Australian Research Council’s Special Research Initiative. Five Integrity Risks The report identifies five major risks that challenge the integrity of DMPs including economic pressures, control and constraint of commissioning authorities, the orthodoxy of design where "process is prioritized over people," poor governance structures, and ambiguous integration and impact to the wider political system. Responses to these risks, according to research respondents, are already taking place within the design and implementation of DMPs, within community of practice, and within the broader political systems, although more can be done to mitigate them. “Many people are acutely aware of and anticipate risks to deliberative integrity and try to address them, and that there is already a proactive and collaborative community of practice," said Lucy Parry, one of the report’s authors. “Our aim here has been to help provide a foundation upon which further collaborations can be built,” she added. A Call for Action The authors stress the importance of “honest and reflexive conversations” to uphold deliberative integrity and cautioned that failure to address these risks could reduce DMPs to “another form of citizen engagement instrumentalised for political or commercial gain”. With a growing appetite for institutionalizing participatory governance, the report urges policymakers, academics, and practitioners to adopt stronger safeguards and rethink DMPs' role within the political system. For more details, the full report is available via the University of Canberra . Access the presentation slides and event transcript, here (1) presentation slides and (2) transcript .

< Back Interconnecting deliberative systems: Functions and agents of transmission Stephen Elstub, Newcastle University Tue 5 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In recent times, the dominant focus in debates in the field of deliberative democracy has been on deliberative systems. The principal aim of the systemic approach is to promote deliberative democracy at the mass scale by utilising a division of labour in communicative activity between a diversity of interconnected parts. Despite this, ‘interconnection’ represents a lacuna within the systemic approach to deliberative democracy. There is broad agreement that public and empowered spaces need to be connected and that some form of discursive transmission is required to achieve this, however, little detail has been provided on what functions are vital to transmission, what type of agents can fulfil these functions, and how these agents could operate together. This paper contributes to filling this gap by identifying vital systemic transmission functions: dispersion, filtration, and penetration, which are necessary to avoid systemic pathologies emerging. It then proceeds to analyse the extent the media, mini-publics, and interest groups can contribute to fulfilling these transmission functions respectively. About the speaker Stephen Elstub ( stephen.elstub@ncl.ac.uk ) is a Lecturer in British Politics at the School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University. His research interests are on deliberative democracy, citizen participation, civil society, public opinion and political communication. He is the author of Towards a Deliberative and Associational Democracy (Edinburgh University Press 2008), editor of Democracy in Theory and Practice (Routledge 2012) and co-editor of Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases (Edinburgh University Press 2014). He is also the associate editor of the journal Representation. Previous Next

< Back Disability and deliberative democracy: The case for an embodied deliberation Bahadir Celiktemur, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract In its quest for normative legitimacy, deliberative democracy calls for qualified participation from citizens that would be demanding even in the most mature democracies. Its demands for rational reasoning and preference for the force of the better argument are almost impossible to meet for those who lack communicative abilities, and disqualify them from meaningful participation in deliberative sites. My research addresses the exclusion of disability from deliberative democracy and aims to close the gap between the demands of deliberative democratic theory and the reality of life with disability. My presentation today focusses on what disability teaches deliberative democrats. In this regard explore the spatiality of the deliberative site, problematize the disembodiedness of deliberation, and propose an embodied deliberation through which the voice of the disabled can be heard in deliberative sites. To explain how the embodiedness of disability changes the deliberative sites and gives space and voice to the disabled, I make use of the works of two unlikely names, Jacques Rancière and Judith Butler. About the speaker Bahadir Celiktemur is a final year PhD candidate at the University of Warwick (UK) and a visiting scholar at Griffiths University. His doctoral research, informed by his professional background in the third sector, explores how people with disabilities can be included in deliberative democracy. He also works with disabled people and their allies in Gloucestershire (UK) for a more disability-inclusive local democracy. Previous Next

< Back Turnout decline in Western Europe: Apathy or alienation? Viktor Valgardsson, University of Southampton Tue 19 March 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Academic literature on democratic developments in recent decades routinely cites turnout decline as a primary indicator of more fundamental changes to democracy, but this posited relationship is rarely tested. Conversely, studies of turnout decline have thus far failed to incorporate a major divide in this literature: that between theories of political apathy and political alienation. The former type of theories argue that citizens have become less interested in politics generally, while the latter argue that citizens are still interested but do not identify with their formal political systems. In this study, I test these fundamentally different expectations about the nature of turnout decline by using an extensive new dataset, consisting of combined national election studies from 121 elections in eleven Western European countries in the period 1956-2017. The results indicate that political apathy has in fact been declining in the region, while political alienation has been rising substantially. Reported turnout has been declining significantly in four of these countries and while alienation can only account for a small part of that decline, the negative effect of apathy on turnout has become much stronger over time; those citizens who are apathetic today are less likely to vote than before. About the speaker Viktor Valgardsson is a PhD candidate in Politics at the University of Southampton. His PhD focuses on drivers of turnout decline in Western Europe and his broader research agenda is on changing political attitudes and behaviours in established democracies and the implications of this for democratic theory and reform. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School 22 Mar 2024 On 7-9 February, the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) hosted the 2024 Deliberative Democracy Summer School at the Ann Harding Conference Centre, University of Canberra. Over the course of three days, more than 50 leading academics and talented PhD students from around the world delved into deliberative democracy’s most pressing issues, including global challenges on the climate emergency, pandemics and populism. The event provided a unique opportunity to discuss emerging themes, empirical findings and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy research, on a wide range of topics such as deliberative systems, mini-publics, social movements, transnational deliberation, non-human deliberation to feminist and decolonial deliberation. What metaphor best captures the state and future of Deliberative Democracy? Insights by participants and speakers. Visualised by Arran McKenna. "My experience during the Summer School was fantastic, both intellectually and personally. I was able to develop ideas and thoughts regarding my PhD research project. I also met so many wonderful new people and friends whom I'll be taking with me into the future," PhD student participant Maria Fernanda Diaz Vidal (University of Edinburgh) said. The event was generously supported by the Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Research and Innovation and the Faculty of Business, Government and Law. Watch the summer school video here . Photo by David Beach

< Back Neighbourly compensations: Lawyers, parliamentary submissions and coal seam gas Tue 4 February 2020 David Turton, Australian National University 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Landholder compensation is a critical part of Australia’s coal seam gas sector. One way to explore this is to scrutinise parliamentary submissions prepared by lawyers for government inquiries into coal seam gas-related legislation. Drawing on the lawyer-focussed work of Deborah Martin and colleagues (2010) and the notion of a ‘rural lawscape’ from Lisa Pruitt (2014), this presentation delves into a Queensland parliamentary committee’s inquiry into the then Mineral, Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. During this inquiry, arguments about the geographical scope of ‘compensatable effects’ for landholders impacted by coal seam gas development were raised by lawyers representing a variety of stakeholders. Their submissions gave voice to notions of distributive justice and the ability of landholders to seek compensation for coal seam gas activities. This presentation highlights the value of examining lawyer perspectives on legislation prior to its enactment, showcasing their role as public policy actors and creators of socio-spatial relations. In arguing about compensation and at what scale it should apply, lawyers attempted to shape the spatial limits of distributive justice. About the speaker Dr David Turton is an Honorary Lecturer with the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University. Prior to commencing his PhD in 2013, David worked for the Commonwealth Department of Veterans’ Affairs, in procurement, research and front-line service delivery roles. Building on his PhD, David’s research is focused on various aspects of Australia’s coal seam gas debate, including the involvement of lawyers and planners in CSG discussions. With undergraduate degrees in History and Law, David has also published on environmental history, public administration and socio-legal research topics. Previous Next

< Back Deliberation-as-ritual Ana Tanasoca and Jensen Sass, University of Canberra Tue 15 November 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this paper we argue that individuals and groups often engage in deliberation as a form of ritual—what we call “deliberation-as-ritual”—which has its own benefits that have been so far overlooked. We first isolate a set of defining features distinguishing rituals from other collective practices (section I). We go on to define deliberation-as-ritual and provide several examples that illustrate the ritualistic aspect of deliberation in various political institutional settings (section II). Next we elaborate on the value and function of deliberation-as-ritual comparing it with other rituals that are ubiquitous in political life (section III). In doing so we situate our argument within the wider scholarship of deliberative democracy, by identifying both points of convergence and divergence with our approach. Then we lay down the conceptual benefits of our approach and argue in favour of precisification (section IV). Finally, we discuss and rebuke a range of potential objections to our argument (section V). About the speakers Ana Tanasoca joined the Centre in 2015 as a postdoctoral research fellow working with Professor Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System.’ Jensen Sass is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre. His work at the Centre examines the way social norms and cultural meanings shape the character of deliberation within different contexts. Previous Next

< Back Descriptive representation revisited Anne Phillips, London School of Economics Tue 13 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract It is now part of the shared assumptions of liberal democracy that representation involves some component of what has come to be known (though it’s not a term I much like) as ‘descriptive’ representation. Politicians, political commentators, and citizens now routinely comment on the gender and ethnic composition of elected assemblies, and take it as self-evident progress when an election generates a higher proportion of women representatives or a more ethnically diverse legislature. The normative arguments are by no means settled, as is evidenced by the slow progress towards anything approaching parity, but my focus in this seminar is more specifically on the challenge posed by the recent rise in populism. Populism derives its power from a sense of not being represented by a political elite perceived as in some way not ‘of the people’: as metropolitan, intellectual, establishment, etc. To that extent, it seems to express a feeling of marginality and under-representation of the kind that fuelled claims for descriptive representation, though with an emphasis more on class than gender or racial exclusion. But in invoking ‘the people’, populist movements also typically reject preoccupations with anti-racism, LGBTQ rights, multiculturalism, gender equality , all of which are represented as elite preoccupations, at odds with the concerns of ‘working’ or ‘ordinary’ or ‘real’ people. The turn towards populism then seems simultaneously to confirm the importance of descriptive representation and to reject much of its founding principles. The point of the seminar is to think about this. About the speaker Anne Phillips is the Graham Wallas Professor of Political Science in the Government Department at the London School of Economics. Her work engages with issues of democracy and representation; equality and difference; feminism and multiculturalism; and the dangers in regarding the body as property. Her publications include The Politics of Presence (1995), Which Equalities Matter? (1999), Multiculturalism without Culture (2007), Our Bodies, Whose Property? (2013), and The Politics of the Human (2015). She also co-edited, with John Dryzek and Bonnie Honig, the 2006 Oxford Handbook of Political Theory. She was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2003, and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2012, and in 2016 received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the PSA. Previous Next

< Back WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy. About this event Deliberative democracy – as a set of norms, practices, and procedures for collective governance -- is an extension of liberalism and liberal democracy. More to the point, deliberative democracy is fundamentally rooted in intertwined logics of possessive individualism, positivism and universal truths, and settler colonialism. If theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy are serious about decolonizing the field, this normative inheritance must be confronted. Deliberative democracy cannot be decolonized without a sustained and thoughtful interrogation of its ontological, epistemological, and ethical roots that continue to feed it. “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy and whether this is even possible. Taking this moment is critical in ensuring that efforts to decolonize deliberative democracy do not in fact reinforce colonialism. Genevieve Fuji Johnson is a Yonsei settler of Japanese and Irish ancestry. Although proud of her family’s history of resilience, she is reckoning with their four generations of Indigenous dispossession. It is thus with gratitude and respect that she divides her time between the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and those of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation. Dr. Johnson is a professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Situation normal: Populism from antiquity to the age of trump Paul Kenny, Australian National University Tue 12 February 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Although populism has become a subject of intense interest since Donald Trump’s election victory in late 2016, populism itself – the charismatic mobilization of the masses in pursuit of power – is nothing new. Contrary to the oft-stated view that populism is a novel perversion of democracy, this project shows that it has in fact been democracy’s constant shadow. The liberal democratic era of the latter twentieth century – to which contemporary populism is typically compared – was the historical exception. Populists thrive both where modern bureaucratic parties have yet to exist and where they have begun to decay. Populism has been historically most successful in competitive patrimonial political systems, the kinds that prevailed in most democratic experiences outside of the twentieth century West, from Ancient Greece and Rome to the “third wave” democracies of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Only where patrimonialism is combined with authoritarian centralism has it proven relatively stable. In the West, in contrast, populism has only resurfaced as the modern bureaucratic political party has gone into decline. As organizations with deep roots in communities, unions, and churches, bureaucratic parties provided a stable link between people and the government. Populists in the West are thriving today because the exceptional socioeconomic foundations on which those parties were built have decomposed. Trump’s election signals a return to normal; a normal of weak, personalistic parties; a normal ruled by democratic volatility. About the speaker Paul Kenny is a Fellow and Head of the Department of Political and Social Change at the Australian National University. He joined the ANU in 2013, having completed his PhD in political science at Yale University. His research focuses on some of the major challenges to contemporary democracy, including populism, identity politics, and corruption. His first book, Populism and Patronage: Why Populists Win Elections in India, Asia, and Beyond (Oxford University Press, 2017) demonstrates a causal link between the disruption of political patronage networks and the electoral success of populist candidates. The book received the American Political Science Association's 2018 Robert A. Dahl Award for research of the highest quality on the subject of democracy. His second book, Populism in Southeast Asia (Cambridge University Press, 2019), examines the political economy of populism in the region. His research on populism, ethnic politics, and corruption has been published in The Journal of Politics, the British Journal of Political Science, and Political Research Quarterly among other outlets. He is currently working on a new book on populism across democratic history. Previous Next

Research Fellow < Back Sonya Duus Research Fellow About Sonya Duus' research interests relate to the intersections of human and natural systems as they relate to current dilemmas. She has a particular interest in incorporating historical dimensions in her work.