< 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.

< Back COMPARING DEMOCRATIC INNOVATIONS Matt Ryan, University of Southampton Tue 5 June 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Systematic comparisons of democratic institutions, devices, and processes provide a unique quality of knowledge that helps us learn how to improve governance in democracies. The research agenda inspired by the deliberative turn in democratic theory has moved in an increasingly empirical direction, with large scale data-collection an ever more prominent feature of research in the subfield of democratic innovations. Nevertheless, systematic comparisons of more than a handful of cases are still rare. Comparing a large number of democratic innovations presents conceptual challenges and sampling and publication biases have often reinforced a scholarly focus on ‘best practices’ at the expense of learning from failure and variation. In this presentation I report the results of systematic comparisons of more than a handful of cases of democratic innovation by systematically cumulating existing research. In particular I highlight different combinations of conditions that explain citizen control of decision-making worldwide. I show that even though comparing a large number of cases presents methodological and conceptual challenges, engagement with the task is a requirement if our explanatory theories are to be improved. About the speaker Dr Matt Ryan is Lecturer in Governance and Public Policy at the University of Southampton. His research focuses on democratic innovation and participation in politics, the policymaking process, and social science research methods. His most recent publications appear in European Journal of Political Research, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Local Government Studies, Journal of Public Deliberation and PS: Political Science and Politics. Previous Next

< Back A humble ethos for democracy Christopher Hobson, Waseda University Tue 1 March 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In the quarter of a century since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the confidence surrounding democracy has been replaced with growing concerns about whether it is now in crisis. What is needed is an approach to democracy that avoids both the excessive optimism of the 1990s and the more corrosive pessimism that has emerged in recent years. Responding to this situation, this paper considers the old idea of humility, which has moved from virtue to vice to now seeming irrelevance. This may seem like a strange alternative to explore at a time when democracy is facing a growing array of serious challenges, especially given that humility has often been associated with self-abasement or accepting a lower position than one is due. Certainly such passivity does not cohere well with democracy, but if humility is understood in terms of an awareness of one’s limits and an acknowledgement of what has yet to be achieved, it has the potential to offer a powerful way of approaching democratic government. This paper explores the different meanings the idea has taken, and considers what a humble ethos for democracy might mean. It is suggested that humility entails reflection on one’s own standing, but this is done in reference to others. In this sense, there is a social dimension to humility, which can have productive consequences for democracy. In developing this approach, the paper will also consider recent arguments by Aikin and Clanton (2010) and Kyle Scott (2014) that humility plays a valuable role in facilitating deliberation. If this is indeed the case, humility may be an idea that deserves greater attention by deliberative democrats. About the speaker Christopher Hobson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University (Japan). He has previously held positions at the United Nations University and Aberystwyth University, and has a Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from the Australian National University. His work lies at the intersection between democracy and international politics. He is the author of The Rise of Democracy: Revolution, War and Transformations in International Politics since 1776 (Edinburgh University Press, 2015), and has co-edited three books including The Conceptual Politics of Democracy Promotion (Routledge 2011). For more information, visit his website: http://christopherhobson.net or check his Twitter feed: @hobson_c Previous Next

< Back Janosch Pfeffer Associate About Janosch Pfeffer's work concerns Earth System Governance and the intersection of environmental governance and the systemic perspective in deliberative democracy. He is also affiliated to the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) in Potsdam.

< Back Deliberative democracy and federal constitutional design and building in Myanmar Baogang He, Deakin University / Dr Michael Breen, University of Melbourne Tue 30 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent deliberative democracy literature has addressed many issues on constitutionalism. In particular, John Dryzek’s seminal work on deliberative democracy in divided society and James Fishkin’s deliberative polling on constitutional matters offer a new fresh approach and thinking. This paper aims to engage and advance the current theorizing on deliberative democracy and constitutionalism through a case study of deliberative forums on federal constitutionalism in Myanmar. Myanmar is in an important phase of its democratic transition as it tackles the form of federalism most suited to its conditions and aspirations. Since the 1947 Panglong conference, demands by the ethnic nationalities for ‘genuine federalism’, which have been a primary factor behind conflict, have remained unmet and continue to foment unrest and mistrust. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, and associated peace-building, is present and being progressed at the national level, through Union Peace Dialogues, involving elite level representatives from the military, ethnic armed groups and political parties. However, these forums suffer from problems of democratic legitimacy, significant delay, and polarisation. As one supplement to this process, and in order to demonstrate the value of a deliberative, rather than majoritarian, approach to reform, the presenters organised four deliberative forums based on the deliberative polling methodology. Two deliberations involved mostly members of political parties, ethnic armed groups and civil society organisations, while the other two involved mostly laypersons selected by civil society organisation. Designing the deliberative forums in this way helps to address competing recommendations for deliberation in constitution-making and on identity-based issues – namely those that regard such deliberation as best occurring among laypeople, who are more likely to change to their minds but have limited understanding of technical issues, and those who suggest elite-based forums. We found that in each case participants did change their minds, sometimes against expectations, but to a different degree. Technical matters, like the division of powers, were more pertinent to the elite, while issues like whether or not there should be federalism saw more substantial changes among laypeople. Further, involving political parties and ethnic armed groups established a semi-detached link to the official constitutional change process, in this case the Union Peace Dialogues (21st Century Panglong), and the potential to contribute to the establishment of a more deliberative system. About the speakers Baogang He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia. Graduated with a PhD in Political Science from Australian National University in 1994, Professor He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratisation and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. Professor He has published 7 single-authored books and 63 international refereed journal articles. His publications are found in top journals including British Journal of Political Science, Journal of Peace Research, Political Theory, and Perspectives on Politics. In addition, he published 3 books, 15 book chapters and 63 journal papers in Chinese. Professor He has also held several honorary appointments and research fellowships at renowned universities including Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Columbia University, Leiden and Sussex University. Michael Breen is a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Prior to that Michael worked at Deakin University, after completing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Michael's research focuses on federalism in Asia, and the management of ethnic diversity. He is the author of 'The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Finding the Middle Ground' (2018, Routledge) and has participated in Nepal's constitution-making process that established it as a federal democratic republic. Michael's research also explores the role of deliberative democracy and the use of deliberative polling in constitution-making and conflict management. Prior to academia, Michael was a policy maker, negotiator and project manager in various government departments in Australia and international organisations including the United Nations Development Programme. His professional background is in Indigenous rights and native title, political inclusion and environmental conservation. Previous Next

< Back The potential of deliberative democracy in like-minded settings Kimmo Grönlund, Åbo Akademi University Tue 14 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract When groups consisting of like-minded participants discuss among themselves, their views tend to become more extreme. This phenomenon is known as group polarization. Cass Sunstein (2002, 2009) calls this discussion in like-minded groups ‘enclave deliberation’. Enclave deliberation has become increasingly common, especially in online communities, where it is easy to find like-minded contexts. In the long run, the tendency to discuss in enclaves may threaten democracy, since cross-cutting deliberation with different viewpoints and interests is needed in order to find common solutions for political conflicts. Finnish population-based experiments confirm that like-minded groups tend to become more extreme when they discuss freely. However, when like-minded groups discuss under specific deliberative norms, they do not become more extreme. This finding is relevant to both deliberative theory and policy-making. If the increased polarization tendencies in western democracies can be alleviated with certain rules (especially online), a less hostile, depolarized public sphere could be achieved. About the speaker Kimmo Grönlund is Professor of Political Science and Director of Research of the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University in Finland. He is Convenor (together with André Bächtiger) of the Standing Group on Democratic Innovations at the ECPR and Director of the Finnish National Election Study Previous Next

< Back New water for water dispute resolution: Tribal water disputes in Arizona and refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan Rhett Larson, Arizona State University Tue 10 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Water scarcity often leads to water disputes. New water supplies—such as bulk water imports, desalination, cloud seeding, or increased stream flows from improved forest management—can mitigate water scarcity and thus help avoid, resolve, or mitigate water disputes. However, new water supplies can also aggravate water disputes if not developed in concert with legal reforms. This Article evaluates the role of new water in two cases of water disputes in arid regions and proposes legal reforms to promote new water a means of water dispute resolution. The first case is the adjudication of water rights in the Gila River basin in Arizona, including the long-standing water dispute between the Hope Tribe and the Navajo Nation. The second case involved disputes over water resources in refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan. In each case, development of new water faces legal obstacles and environmental concerns that must be overcome if those augmented supplies are to help address ongoing water disputes. About the speaker Rhett Larson is a Morrison Fellow in Water Law and associate professor in the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. He is also a faculty fellow in the Center for Law and Global Affairs, and the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation. He is a senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Professor Larson’s research and teaching interests are in property law, administrative law, and environmental and natural resource law, in particular, domestic and international water law and policy. Professor Larson’s research focuses on the impact of technological innovation on water rights regimes, in particularly transboundary waters, and on the sustainability implications of a human right to water. He works on dispute resolution and improved processes in water rights adjudications in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin with the Kyl Center for Water Policy. Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, and works in the Middle East on water security issues. Professor Larson also practiced environmental and natural resource law with law firms in Arizona, focusing on water rights, water quality, and real estate transactions. Previous Next

< Back Sara Drury Associate About Sara Drury’s research and practice focus on the intersections of rhetoric and deliberative democracy, with particular attention to argumentation and political judgment. She is Associate Professor and Chair of Rhetoric at Wabash College and serves as Director of Wabash Democracy and Public Discourse.