top of page

Search Results

725 items found for ""

  • Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance

    Research Repository of Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Research Deepening citizen engagement We are developing innovative ways of connecting the voices of ordinary citizens to political decision-making through participatory and deliberative approaches to citizen engagement. View more Building democratic resilience We investigate the role of public deliberation in highly polarised and post-crisis contexts, working closely with governments, organisations, and communities to build democratic resilience. View more Advancing theory and methods We provide intellectual leadership in advancing theoretical debates and methodological innovations in deliberative democracy. View more Innovating global governance We are advocating for meaningful global citizen deliberation on urgent and emerging global issues – from climate change to genome editing. View more Democratising environmental governance We are rethinking how human institutions, practices, and principles can develop a productive relationship with the Earth system. View more Our Research News News 2023 APSA Lifetime Achievement Award Our Senior Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has published his new book 'The Politics of Becoming' Call for Workshop Papers: Future-proofing the public sphere, QUT Mar 2024 2023 APSA Lifetime Achievement Award 1/3 People Learn more about our staff members, PhD students, faculty affiliates and our adjunct professors. View More Our researchers Our Digital Content Digital Content We have a growing offering of videos and podcasts to celebrate the work of our colleagues around the world in areas that speak to our Centre’s research. New books on Democracy Our New Books on Democracy series features interviews with leading scholars about their published works. Read More The CDDGG 10th Anniversary Series In celebration of the Centre's 10th anniversary at the University of Canberra, we are organising a seminar series that is open to all, addressing 10 of the most pressing questions facing deliberate democracy today. Read More Seminar Series The Centre holds weekly seminars on important topics with leading scholars from Australia and around the world. Read More Our Working Paper Series Working Paper Series Our Working Papers make preliminary findings of research on deliberative democracy publicly available in advance of publication in academic journals and books. View More Collaborations ​ Industry Partners We work with government, international organisations, NGOs, and the creative industry to translate deliberative theory into practice. View More Academic Partners We uphold research excellence by collaborating with an international network of academic partners in diverse disciplines and countries. View More Community Partners We ground our work on democracy by engaging with community partners in Canberra and around Australia. View More Our Collaborations Our Archives Archives Seminars Projects Publications News Contact Us Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Ann Harding Conference Centre (Building 24) University Drive South, University of Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia ​ Email Address: delibdem@canberra.edu.au

  • The CDDGG 10th Anniversary Conversation Series | delibdem

    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 Can deliberative democracy take root in settler colonial states? 12 March 2024 ​ Dr Justin McCaul, Australian National University, Australia Dr Emily Beausoleil, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Register here This event is hybrid. Join on Zoom or at Bldg 24, University of Canberra. Justin McCaul is a descendent of the Mbarbarum Traditional Owners of far north Queensland. He is a Research Associate at the College of Law, ANU. Before pursuing an academic career, he worked for more than 20 years in Indigenous policy for several non-government organisations including Oxfam Australia. His recently completed PhD examined Indigenous rights, Australia’s native title system, and deliberative democracy. Emily Beausoleil is a Senior Lecturer of Politics at Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University and Editor-in-Chief of Democratic Theory . She is an Associate Investigator on the ARC grant ‘Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks’ held at U Canberra and Research Associate of He Whenua Taurikura-Centre for Research Excellence on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism. Her first book, Staging Democracy: The Political Work of Live Performance (De Gruyter) launched a new book series (Critical Thinking and Contemporary Politics) in 2023. 10 Big Questions This channel is coming soon! Recordings

  • Seminar Series | delibdem

    Seminar Series Join our seminar series on Tuesdays from 11:00 am until 12:00 pm. These seminars are hybrid, held both in Fishbowl at Building 24 and online. Before each session, we gather for the Centre’s weekly morning tea at 10:30 am in the Retro Cafe located at Building 23. Below, you can watch our recorded seminars, including those hosted and co-hosted by the Centre since April 2020. To access past seminars, please visit our archives . If you have any questions about the seminar series, please contact our Seminar Coordinator, Ferdinand Sanchez II at ferdinand.sanchez@canberra.edu.au . Play Video Play Video Between Imagination and Constraint, Alfred Moore, 5 December 2023 Play Video Play Video Democratising transnational deliberation from inside, Roundtable discussion, 6 December 2023 Play Video Play Video Embodying radical democracy, Moya Lloyd, 21 November 2023 Play Video Play Video Transnational citizens' assemblies, Canning Malkin and Franziska Maier, 21 November 2023 Play Video Play Video Intersectionality and Democracy, Afsoun Afsahi, 14 November 2023 Play Video Play Video The Politics of Becoming: Anonymity and Democracy in the Digital Age Play Video Play Video Politicization in the era of ‘hypervisibility’, Taina Meriluoto, 7 November 2023 Play Video Play Video Beyond the binary: abolishing the legal status of gender?, Anne Phillips, 31 October 2023 Play Video Play Video Participatory Governance Seminar: Roads to Minipublic Success Play Video Play Video Deliberative Democratic Constitutional Referendums, Hoi Kong, 3 October 2023 Play Video Play Video Unpacking power in democratic innovations, Anne Nygaard Jedzini, 26 September 2023 Play Video Play Video Participation as Assemblage, Sonia Bussu, 19 September 2023 Play Video Play Video Environmental governance and politics of dams, Udisha Saklani, 12 September 2023 Play Video Play Video ‘Alternative’ right-wing media, Karoline Andrea Ihlebæk & Tine Ustad Figenschou, 5 Sept 2023 Play Video Play Video Investing for social change: political participation & market lobbying, Erin O'Brien, 30 August 2023 Load More Recorded Seminars Participedia Seminars PAST SEMINARS Past Seminars

  • Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia

    < Back Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Selen A. Ercan, John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer Funded by the Australian Research Council Special Research Initiative (AU$ 202,156) Project Description This project aims to develop and apply the concept of deliberative integrity as a counterpart to more familiar ideas about electoral integrity in the evaluation of democratic processes. The project develops significant new knowledge about the ethical conduct of Australian citizen engagement processes through conceptual and methodological innovation to produce a Deliberative Integrity Monitoring Tool that will be applied to the expanding range of deliberative democratic innovations in Australia. More on this project: https://deliberativeintegrityproject.org

  • Li-Chia Lo

    < 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.

  • Citizen agency in democratic innovation: insights from citizen-led governance innovations (CLGIS)

    < Back Citizen agency in democratic innovation: insights from citizen-led governance innovations (CLGIS) Carolyn Hendriks & Albert Dzur Tue 17 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Many aspects of contemporary politics and its institutional practices frustrate citizens. But what kinds of democratic reforms do citizens wish to see, and how do they wish to achieve and sustain them? Most scholars and practitioners of democratic innovation assume that citizens would prefer to engage in politics via more deliberative and participatory forums. However, as critics have argued participatory forums can be piecemeal and tokenistic, and often disempower and co-opt citizens by serving the state and corporate interests (e.g. Lee, McQuarrie, and Walker 2015). For insights into how to make democratic reform more substantive and sustained, we examine citizen-led, action-oriented, and highly pragmatic forms of democratic innovation. We are particularly interested in the collective journeys that citizens themselves embark on to resolve — not just participate in — traditional public policy problems. In this paper we empirically examine various cases of Citizen-Led Governance Innovation (CLGI) where citizens are creating democratic pathways to their own policy and reform endeavours. We show how these citizen innovators are not waiting to be invited into government, or agitating from the sidelines. Instead they are taking proactive and pragmatic steps to address policy failures or dysfunctional institutions. In so doing, citizens self-organise and adopt simple, inclusive, and replicable procedures that foster citizen buy-in and ownership. Citizen agency in CLGIs differs from what is found in other forms of democratic innovation, and related civic practices, such as activism, community organising, and volunteer work and may help address concerns about substance and sustainability. We consider the implications of our findings for debates on democratic innovation and, more broadly, deliberative democracy. About the speakers Carolyn Hendriks is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Her work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, interpretive methods, network governance and environmental politics. Her current research projects are exploring the possibilities of democratic innovation within conventional and alternative modes of political participation. Carolyn is an appointed member of newDemocracy's Research Committee and sits on the editorial board of several international journals, including the European Journal of Political Research. Albert W. Dzur is a democratic theorist with an interest in citizen participation and power-sharing in education, criminal justice, and public administration. He is the author of Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places (Oxford, in press); Rebuilding Public Institutions Together: Professionals and Citizens in a Participatory Democracy (Cornell, 2017); Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury (Oxford, 2012); Democratic Professionalism: Citizen Participation and the Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice (Penn State, 2008);and a co-editor of Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration (Oxford, 2016). His interviews with democratic innovators appear in Boston Review, The Good Society, Restorative Justice: an International Journal, and National Civic Review. He is a professor in the political science and philosophy departments at Bowling Green State University. Previous Next

  • Albert Dzur

    < Back Albert Dzur Associate About Albert W. Dzur is a democratic theorist interested in citizen deliberation and power-sharing in criminal justice, education, and public administration. He is the co-editor of Democratic Theory and Mass Incarceration (Oxford, 2016).

  • Bridging the democratic divide? The European Citizens' Initiative, demoi and inclusion in the EU

    < Back Bridging the democratic divide? The European Citizens' Initiative, demoi and inclusion in the EU Lucy Hatton, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 12:00 – 1:00 pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The European Citizens’ Initiative has been put forward by the EU as part of the answer to its ongoing crisis of democratic legitimacy, but it is yet to be determined to what extent the ECI is able to live up to these expectations. Critical to an answer to this question will be achieving a certain level of inclusivity, which is closely linked to the question of the demos. By applying recent developments from the democratic theory literature, specifically those related to demoi and representation, this article addresses the extent to which the ECI has the potential to impact on the inclusivity of EU policy making. In responding to three questions of inclusivity (who is included, is any individual or group excluded, and are included individuals granted an equal voice?) with regard to the ECI rules and practical functioning, and by drawing on the case of the Right2Water campaign, it is possible to see that there is reason for both optimism and doubt. Importantly, the ECI may have consequences for inclusivity unanticipated by the EU institutions, not least as a means by which CSO representatives can bring multiple demoi into existence, and as a channel through which these demoi can act in pursuit of their interests? About the speaker Lucy Hatton is a final year PhD student at the University of Warwick, UK, and a visiting scholar at Griffith University, Brisbane. Her doctoral thesis asks what impact the European Citizens' Initiative can have on the democratic legitimacy of the EU and draws on questions of citizenship, epistemic democracy, participation and democratic innovation. Previous Next

  • Elite stalemate in a deeply divided polity: Could a citizens' assembly make legitimate decisions instead?

    < Back Elite stalemate in a deeply divided polity: Could a citizens' assembly make legitimate decisions instead? James Pow, Queen's University Belfast Tue 14 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As a deeply divided polity, it comes as no surprise that plenty of political issues in Northern Ireland provoke intense disagreement. However, in a consociational system of government political parties from opposing ethno-national blocs are required to share political power and reach compromise. What happens when power-sharing at the elite-level does not work? What happens if destabilising gridlock threatens the legitimacy of an already fragile political system? This study examines a range of conventional elite-led and citizen-led responses to such a political crisis. Specifically, it compares conventional crisis resolution mechanisms, such as an immediate election, against a more radical alternative: the establishment of a citizens’ assembly of randomly selected citizens. In a survey experiment, we present respondents with a personally unfavourable policy decision on the sensitive subject of Irish language policy, manipulating the venue of the decision. We are interested in the direct effect of decision venue on decision acceptance, as well as the potential moderating effects of ethno-national ideology. These results will be of direct relevance to institutional design in deeply divided societies, specifically on the question of whether or not citizen-led initiatives could be used to strengthen the legitimacy of fragile political systems. About the speaker Jamie is a PhD student based in the Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice at Queen’s University Belfast. Under the supervision of Professors John Garry and Rhiannon Turner, Jamie’s interdisciplinary research experimentally examines how a citizens’ assembly could potentially strengthen the quality of democracy in post-conflict Northern Ireland. Drawing on literature from both political science and political psychology, Jamie’s central research question addresses the extent to which, and the conditions under which, people would recognise a citizens’ assembly as a procedurally legitimate decision-making body. Prior to pursuing doctoral study at Queen’s, Jamie completed a Masters degree in Political Science at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Previous Next

  • Defending education: A democratic role for courts in education policy

    < Back Defending education: A democratic role for courts in education policy Alexandra Oprea, Australian National University Tue 16 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract What should be the role of courts when it comes to defending education rights in democratic communities? Drawing on decades of education litigation in the US concerning integration, school finance, and special education, this paper provides a democratic theory of court involvement in education policy. Courts have a key democratic role in defending minority rights, particularly under non-ideal circumstances where political power is unequally distributed. However, overreliance on courts in education policy can have important democratic costs. This paper discusses four such costs worth considering from a democratic perspective: (1) policy effectiveness costs, (2) standardization costs, (3) democratic education costs; and (4) special interest costs. In constructing a democratic theory of courts, the paper therefore argues for legal strategies that minimize the relevant costs while protecting minority rights. Such an approach favors bottom-up approaches that focus on specific harms to individuals and groups without aiming directly at controlling the legislative agenda. About the speaker Alexandra Oprea is a lecturer in the School of Politics and International Relations at The Australian National University (ANU). Her research interests include education policy, collective decision-making, institutional design, and the history of political thought. Her work has appeared in a number of journals and edited volumes, including Review of Politics, Polity, Philosophical Perspectives, and Politics, Philosophy & Economics. Previous Next

  • A polychrome approach to social movements and public deliberation

    < Back A polychrome approach to social movements and public deliberation Sergio Guillén, Australian National University Tue 17 October 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Within deliberative democrats, the perspective on social movements (SM) has shifted with the ongoing evolution of the field. This has included diverse conceptions such as drivers of discursive contestation, problematic partisans, or complex elements in the deliberative system. In each of those cases, deliberative democracy scholarship has adopted a specific lens that highlights a particular role of social movements in relation to other actors in the deliberative landscape. This emphasis on specific roles allows certain features of SM to be studied in greater depth, but it can also obscure some dimensions that may be relevant for understanding their overall engagement with public deliberation. In my own interpretative study of SM engagement with public deliberation in the highly polarised debate over GMOs in Costa Rica, I sought to develop a more situated grasp of how SM activists enact and construct meaning around their engagement with the diverse spaces of public deliberation. My empirical findings have revealed three distinct orientations within the movement, each of which reflects a converging stream of activist concerns and aspirations in the pursuit of the broader movement goals. While the dominant orientation of partisan resistance corresponds roughly with many of the elements addressed in the scholarship on protest in deliberative systems, the other two orientations trans-partisan inquiry and generative empowerment offer novel elements to the understanding of SM from a deliberative democracy perspective. In this seminar I will discuss the empirical findings of my study concerning the practises through which each orientation of the movement engages with the spaces for public deliberation, and the distinctive claims made through these practises about the content of public discussions, the standing of social actors, the standards of public reasoning, and the sites for public deliberation. I will then outline how these diverse perspectives align in the context of the movement’s collective pursuits and their effects on generating both networked strengths and internal tensions. I will conclude with a discussion of the contributions that a more situated and polychrome exploration of social movements can make to the theory and practice of public deliberation in polarised and diffuse settings. About the speaker Sergio Guillén, is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Crawford School of Public Policy of the Australian National University, and an associated Ph.D. student of the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in Canberra, Australia. His doctoral research studies the engagement of Central American social movements, such as environmental, indigenous and campesino organizations, with the formal and informal sites of public participation and contention in the deliberative system. Before initiating his doctoral studies, he held the position of Senior Specialist in Social Dialogue at the Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM) in Costa Rica. He has worked for 15 years as a certified mediator and dialogue facilitator in public interest conflict resolution in Latin America. Prior to this, he worked internationally on issues of energy poverty and small-scale clean energy development. He holds a degree in Engineering, from Carleton University, a Master of Arts in Environmental Security and Peace from the University for Peace, and a Graduate Certificate in Natural Resources and Organization Management from the University of Michigan. Previous Next

  • The constraints on public debate about mining in Minas Gerais, Brazil

    < Back The constraints on public debate about mining in Minas Gerais, Brazil Filipe Motta, Federal University of Minas Gerais Tue 26 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This research aims to understand the constraints on public debate on mining in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, working with a deliberative systems approach. It discusses how a deliberative system about mining has not been structured, although many environmental conflicts about the activity had arisen in that state in the last two decades. The work examines four structural constraints looking at the way mining debates have been handled in Minas Gerais during the expansion of mining activity, between 2005-2018. They are i) the institutional constraints in arenas for participation and in the Public Prosecutor's Office activities; ii) the economic constraints in the media and political campaigns fundings; iii) the constrains in the way civil society is structured and; iv) the constrains in the timeframe of the debate. After a presentation of these four points, the seminar will focus on how the timeframe debate is conducted and how it interferes in the deliberative system's understanding. It will observe the durational, subjective, cyclical, and rhythmic dimensions of time. About the speaker Filipe Motta is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. He has an interest in discussions about deliberative democracy, environmental issues, and political activism. He is currently a visiting PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and one of the book review editors of The Journal of Deliberative Democracy (formerly Journal of Public Deliberation). Previous Next

  • The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory

    < Back The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory John S. Dryzek 2017 , Political Theory 45 (5): 610-36. ​ Summary Read more Previous Next

  • Ana Tanasoca

    < Back Ana Tanasoca Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Ana Tanasoca's interests include global (economic) justice, epistemic democracy, immigration ethics and citizenship, and deliberative democracy and broadly in applied ethics and democratic theory.

  • Representation of future generations through international climate litigation: A new site for discursive representation

    < Back Representation of future generations through international climate litigation: A new site for discursive representation Peter Lawrence, University of Tasmania / Lukas Koehler, Munich School of philosophy Tue 30 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract While the recent Paris Agreement represents a step forward in terms of international action on climate change, grave doubts remain in terms of whether it will deliver the dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions called for by scientists. These doubts relate to both the power of vested interests but also the chronic inability of democratic governments to take into account long-term interests. Such short-term thinking could be redressed by “discursive representation” (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2008) of discourses which reflect the interests of future generations. The paper explores the potential for such discursive representation in relation to international climate litigation (including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights). Such litigation is potentially valuable as a vehicle for pressuring governments to take stronger action on climate change. But this approach gives rise to a series of difficult questions which our paper will address. How do we decide which discourses legitimately represent the interests of future generations in a context where such cases depend on NGOs articulating what they regard as future generations’ interests? Should courts inquire into the internal processes of such NGOs as a precondition for granting them standing? Can restrictive ‘standing provisions’ which limit who can bring claims before such tribunals be overcome? Is a judicial process inherently too limiting given the undemocratic nature of international courts with judges appointed by governments which are not necessarily democratic themselves? In spite of these challenges, the paper argues that the notion of discursive representation provides a convincing way of ensuring the democratic legitimacy of such litigation on the grounds that: ii) marginalised intergenerational justice discourses can be given greater prominence in decision-making processes and ii) judges can apply and develop concepts that may help to represent future generations through international legal concepts with intergenerational content (e.g. sustainable development, the non-discrimination and equal human rights principles). The paper is linked to ongoing work by the authors in relation to a project funded by the Germany-Australia DAAD research cooperation fund. About the speaker Peter Lawrence ( Peter.Lawrence@utas.edu.au ) is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Tasmania (UTAS) Law School, the author of Justice for Future Generations, Climate Change and International Law (2014) and Faculty Advisor of the University of Tasmania Law Review. Previously Peter worked for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including as First Secretary to the Australian Mission to the UN in Geneva. Lukas Koehler ( lukas.koehler@hfph.de ) is Director of the Centre for Environmental Ethics and Education of the Munich School of Philosophy, Germany. He is a joint author of Human Rights as a Normative Guideline for Climate Policy, in: Bos/Duwell (eds) Human Rights and Sustainability (2016 Routledge). Both Peter and Lukas are currently working together on a Germany-Australia (DAAD) research project on ‘Representation of future generations through international climate litigation’. Previous Next

  • Inclusion and state capacity in authoritarian regimes

    < Back Inclusion and state capacity in authoritarian regimes Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, University of Stuttgart Tue 4 October 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Authoritarian regimes have gained renewed scholarly attention in recent years. This is due not only to the persisting number of such regimes, but also to the variation in authoritarian performance. While some authoritarian regimes provide high standards of living for their citizens, others fail to deliver basic public goods. Performance, however, is considered to be a crucial factor conducive to regime persistence. Previous research predominantly assesses formal institutions and broad regime types to account for the variation in performance. However, the role of more fine-grained institutions for citizens’ welfare has been largely neglected. This presentation aims to address this gap by arguing that institutions enforcing both the inclusion of societal interests and state capacity are conducive to policy performance. While the inclusion of public interests is advanced by consultative decision-making, its impact on performance is contingent on favourable conditions for policy enforcement. In order to evaluate this proposition, I present preliminary results of a cross-sectional analysis which investigates the joint impact of consultation and bureaucratic strength on infant mortality rates as a key measure of social performance. The findings are supportive of the assumption: The interaction of consultation and bureaucratic strength is systematically linked to higher performance. When state capacity is high, consultative decision-making does matter for the welfare of citizens. About the speaker Ms Eda Keremoglu-Waibler is an associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds a MA in Political Science and is a PhD candidate under the supervision of Prof André Bächtiger at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart. Her PhD research examines the role of inclusionary and deliberative institutions in nondemocratic regimes. Taking a quantitative approach, she particularly focuses on their impact on policy, the provision of public goods and regime stability. In Stuttgart, she lectures on authoritarian regimes as well as (political) cultural studies and public opinion research. Previous Next

  • Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene

    < Back Beyond sustainability as usual: Democratising sustainable development for the Anthropocene Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 21 November 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The emergence of the Anthropocene – a new epoch in which humanity exerts a pervasive influence over the Earth system – calls for new conceptions of sustainability that are open to democratic contestation while being grounded in emerging scientific understanding of global environmental risks, including climate change and biodiversity loss. Yet discourses of sustainability are often co-opted by actors whose interests lie in upholding patterns of production and consumption that are neither environmentally nor socially sustainable. This paper (which forms part of a book project co-authored with John Dryzek on The Politics of the Anthropocene) sets out a new framework for understanding sustainability, then applies the framework to analyse the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015. Efforts to craft the SDGs involved a range of consultations whose scope was unprecedented in the UN’s history. We discuss the deliberative strengths and shortcomings of the consultation and negotiation process, and the extent to which the process and the goals themselves offer meaningful responses to global environmental risks. This paper is co-authored with John Dryzek. 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

  • Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives

    < Back Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Tue 15 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. Underlying this research agenda is the core idea that democratic deliberation is, and should be, dispersed throughout an interconnected system. Because no single institution can perfectly uphold deliberative ideals, we should take a holistic view and seek to understand how a variety of sites operate in conjunction with one another. In this article I probe how different types of representatives fit within a deliberative system. The core argument is that representatives can act democratically in very different ways depending upon their role within a wider system. I employ this argument to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of 'self-appointed representatives’. Drawing upon Dryzek's notion of deliberative capacity, I argue that self-appointed representatives should be assessed by whether they have a role in the empowered space within a system or rather act as part of the transmission belt from the public space. About the speaker Jonathan Kuyper is a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm University working on the Transaccess research project (headed by Professor Jonas Tallberg). He completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2012, during which time he was a visiting student at the European University Institute and Princeton University. His work has been published or is forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism, Journal of Public Deliberation, European Journal of International Relations, Ethics and Global Politics and other outlets. Previous Next

  • Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch

    < Back Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch ​ ​ 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)

  • Anonymity and democracy: Absence as presence in the public sphere

    < Back Anonymity and democracy: Absence as presence in the public sphere Hans Asenbaum, University of Westminster Tue 28 February 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract While anonymity is central to liberal democracies, it has so far not been conceptually grounded in democratic theory and is often simply equated to privacy. To overcome this omission, a complex understanding of anonymity in the context of communicative democracy is developed. Anonymity is investigated in the literature on different modes of political participation: voting, campaign funding, textual discussions, and masked protesting. Through the observation of anonymity in these various participatory modes, anonymity is defined as highly context dependent identity performance based on the negation of certain aspects of the public coherent persona. The core of anonymity is thus constituted by two contradictory elements: identity creation through identity negation. This core contradiction results in three sets of both democratic and anti-democratic freedoms afforded by anonymity: (1) inclusion and exclusion, (2) subversion and submission, (3) honesty and deception. Contrary to its common interpretation, anonymity does not connote privacy, which constitutes a space separates from the public sphere. The three sets of contradictory freedoms of anonymity are all freedoms of expression and thus inherently communicative. Anonymity is thus situated at the interface between privacy and publicity; it enables absence as presence in the public sphere. About the speaker Hans Asenbaum started his PhD and teaching as external lecturer at the University of Vienna. Since 2013 he is involved in online teaching at the University of Hagen (Germany). Today he pursues his PhD project about the role of social identities and the potential of anonymity for democratic innovations on the internet at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster with the Politics and International Relations Studentship. Previous Next

bottom of page