Search Results

< Back Representing the disadvantaged? Conceptions of representation in a citizens' jury in Switzerland Alexander Geisler, University of Geneva Tue 18 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Crackenback, NSW Abstract While referendums and initiatives are part and parcel of Swiss direct democracy, democratic innovations based on random selection remain underexplored. One such example are Citizens’ Juries assessing popular votes and informing fellow voters via a summary statement, as in the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR). Fishkin (2018, 2013) has suggested that citizens bring mostly their own interests to the table in larger types of such deliberative gatherings. Challenging this finding, evidence collected from a Swiss pilot CIR in the municipality of Sion involving twenty randomly selected voters’ points to more complex perceptions of whom panelists perceive to represent. The participants reported that they had also represented disadvantaged groups inside and outside their political jurisdiction when discussing an upcoming popular initiative on affordable housing. This suggests that conceptions of representation on part of the panelists in a minipublic and particularly in the CIR may be more complex than previously assumed. Crucially, panelists taking stances of other groups may affect existing shortcomings of inclusion and representation occurring in minipublics of small size. About the speaker Since November 2018, Alexander worked as a PhD candidate at the University of Geneva in the project “A non-populist theory of direct democracy”, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under supervision of Professor Nenad Stojanovic. The project involves conducting two CIR-like mini-public pilots in Switzerland. He earned his Master of Arts in Empirical Political and Social Research (2018) at the University of Stuttgart. After graduation, he worked at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart as a research and teaching assistant. During this period, he was involved in two projects: creating a database to track participatory processes in the municipalities of South-West Germany and managing an online network of universities that engage in research on civic participation. His research interests are in the fields of deliberative democracy, political behaviour, the theory and practice of democratic innovations, and social cognition. Previous Next

< Back Mohammad Abdul-Hwas PhD Candidate About Mohammad’s research focuses on refugee governance and deliberative democracy. His passion to study and research a refugees’ affairs is drawn from his family’s Palestinian heritage. Before moving to Australia, Mohammad completed his undergraduate degree in business at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. He then worked at Fairfax Media and completed a Postgraduate Diploma at Massey University. In 2016, he completed his Master of Management from University of Canberra. It was while pursuing his master’s degree that Mohammad dove into the world of leadership and governance. Connecting with Syrian refugees drove Mohammad to research deliberative democracy, with the ambition to improve the experience and agency for people caught in a refugee crisis. Dissertation Mohammad’s PhD thesis is titled “The governance of refugees from a deliberative system perspective: The case of Syrian refugee crisis”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) describes the Syrian refugee crisis as ‘the largest displacement crisis of our time’. Using a deliberative systems approach, the research demonstrates the various ways in which decisions that impact the lives of refugees are made. Deliberative system is a fitting approach to understand the relationship between vulnerable communities and decision-makers, particularly its normative emphasis on inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. Mohammad conducted eight weeks of extensive fieldwork in refugee camps and urban centres in Jordan to investigate all aspects that surround refugee’s governance and decision making. There are two key reasons for this research benefit. First, humanitarian actors hold power in managing the lives of refugees; It is worth investigating how they conduct politics, and whether their practices serve to promote decisions that are justifiable to those who will experience their impact. Second, refugee governance and deliberative democracy emerge from different traditions, these two fields are running on parallel tracks; They need to be connected to identify pathways by which refugees can gain voice and influence in shaping their future, and to investigate whether humanitarian actors can do better. PhD supervisors Nicole Curato (Primary Supervisor) Brendan McCaffrie (Secondary Supervisor) Teaching S EMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor, University of Canberra Unit Title: Investigating and Explaining Society (11236.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor, University of Canberra Unit Title: Introduction to Public Policy (11378.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor-University of Canberra Accelerated Pathways program H course: Politics and Democracy (APP) (11846). Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 1, 2023: Academic Tutor-University of Canberra Unit Title: Political and Social Theory (11243.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2022: Academic Marking-University of Canberra Unit Title: Introduction to International Relations (11238.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. Conference Presentations “The potential and limits of deliberative democracy in the governance of refugee crisis”. New Zealand Political Studies Association (NZPSA) Annual Conference, November 30, 2022. The University of Waikato, New Zealand (Virtual Conference). “Governance of refugee crisis from a deliberative approach: Focus on public and empowered spaces”. Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Annual Conference, September 27, 2022. Australian National University, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative assessment”. NEXT Generation Deliberation Celebration Symposium, June 10, 2021. KU Leuven University, Belgium (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governing the Syrian refugee crisis: Insights from the field”. Deliberative Democracy Seminar Series, October 6, 2020. University of Canberra, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative perspective”. Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Conference. September 18, 2020. Virtual Conference. “The role of deliberation in governance of the Syrian refugee crisis”. Deliberative Democracy Summer School. February 5, 2020. University of Canberra, Australia. Projects Mohammad is part of a global research team on the Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Among the thirty researchers from different parts of the globe, he actively participated in observing deliberative engagement processes during the plenary sessions at Global Assembly COP26. Administration Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book reception 2022. Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Harvest 2020.

Academic Partners We uphold research excellence by collaborating with an international network of academic partners in diverse disciplines and countries. Earth System Governance John Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering are involved in the Earth System Governance project, the world’s largest network of social scientists working on global environmental governance. John and Jonathan were authors on the project’s new ten-year Science and Implementation Plan. John completed his term as a longstanding member of the project’s Scientific Steering Committee, and Jonathan joined the new Committee. Jonathan continued to co-convene the project’s working group on ecological democracy and co-edited a special issue of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning based on the group’s work. European Consortium for Political Research’s Standing Group on Democratic Innovation The Centre maintains an active presence in the activities of the European Consortium for Political Research’s Standing Group on Democratic Innovations. Together with our associates André Bächtiger (University of Stuttgart), Kimmo Grönlund (Åbo Akademi), Sofie Marien (KU Leuven), and Jane Suiter (Dublin City University), our Associate Professor Nicole Curato serves as the co-chair of the Standing Group’s Steering Committee. The standing group coordinates activities related to the study of democratic innovations in Europe, with the aim of fostering an epistemic community of scholars working towards understanding how democratic innovations can improve our politics. Global Citizens’ Assembly Consortium The consortium to organise a deliberative global citizens’ assembly on genome editing continues to gather momentum. Our partners include Missions Publiques (France and Germany), Involve (UK), Genepool Productions (Melbourne), and the University of Tasmania Centre for Law and Genetics. Partners involved in developing national deliberative processes on the same issue include researchers at Welcome Genome Campus (UK), Keele University (UK), Deakin University, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil), Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, KU Leuven (Belgium), University of Cape Town (South Africa), Arizona State University (USA), University of British Columbia (Canada). Our Centre is also one of the founding partners of the Global Citizens’ Assembly in connection with the 26th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability (IDEA) at The Ohio State University Our Connecting to Parliament project is made possible by our new collaboration with IDEA. Through Professor Michael Neblo and his team of researchers, our Centre was able to design and implement the Australian version of Connecting to Congress which aims to create authentic and actionable engagement between representatives and their constituents International Ethics Research Group   John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering and Ana Tanasoca are members of the International Ethics Research Group convened by the University of New South Wales Canberra. The group meets regularly to discuss work-in-progress papers. Presentations by Centre members have included a paper by Jonathan on 'Ethical mapmaking: the epistemic and democratic value of normative theory in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments'. The National Science and Technology Institute for Digital Democracy The Centre collaborates with the Brazilian National Science and Technology Institute for Digital Democracy, which is multi-institutional and multidisciplinary network of research groups and laboratories from all over the world focusing on the use of digital tools to enhance democracy. We continue our joint research activities with through our associate Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça from the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Participedia Our Centre partners with the global research project, Participedia. Selen Ercan and Lucy Parry are members of the Participedia team. Lucy Parry has been providing systematic and practical information on democratic innovations across Australia. Participedia is a collaborative effort to identify, document, and learn from the hundreds of thousands of new channels of citizen involvement occurring in governments, communities, and organizations throughout the world. Participedia's crowdsourcing platform gives everyone the ability to share knowledge and information about these processes. The resulting catalogue provides the information necessary for scholars, practitioners, and members of the public to understand the development of citizen engagement and its contribution to democracy and governance. Participedia is made possible by a Partnership Grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The project was founded by principal investigator Professor Mark Warren of the University of British Columbia and co-investigator Professor Archon Fung of Harvard University’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Political Studies Association UK A strong connection to the PSA Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Specialist Group (PDD) has been established this year, as Hans Asenbaum, a long standing PDD co-convenor joined the Centre. With 350 members, PDD is a vibrant network of scholars of deliberative democracy. The connection to PDD allows the Centre to deepen its contacts and collaborative projects with leading scholars in the UK. The PDD convenor team has put all its effort into supporting and engaging the scholarly community in these challenging times. Among the highlights were a six-part summer webinar series that showcased the current work of PDD members and a picture contest for Early Career Researchers Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Funded by James Cook University (Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman) Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Funded by the Australian Catholic University (Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry). Protests and Political Engagement Funded by the Federal University of Minas Gerais Grant. (Selen A. Ercan, Ricardo F. Mendonca, Umut Ozguc). Connecting to Parliament A collaboration between Centre for Deliberative democracy and Global Governance and the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability.

< Back Activist inclusion in deliberative systems Anna Drake, University of Waterloo Tue 20 April 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Deliberative democrats speak positively of activists’ systems-wide impact. This attention to activists and, more broadly, to an expansion of deliberative democracy’s inclusive capacity, underpins much of the recent deliberative systems work, where the aim is to underscore the ways that deliberative and decision-making bodies benefit from deeper inclusion, such as paying attention to activists. These benefits include a deeper pool of knowledge, increased legitimacy, and a deepening of deliberative democracy’s democratic aspects. From this vantage point, Black Lives Matter Toronto’s sit-in during the 2016 Pride parade—and the subsequent dialogue on, and responses to, BLMTO’s demands— appears to be an excellent case to support arguments for activists’ positive contributions to, and to the inclusive potential of, deliberative systems. However, I challenge this perspective by focussing on a deeper, structural problem that challenges deliberative systems’ success stories. In the case of BLMTO and the unfolding systems-level dialogue, what started as a critique of anti-Black racism ended up as a watered-down discussion of inclusion: one that largely avoided the topic of systemic anti-Black racism and structural violence. The core problem, I argue, is due to deliberative systems bringing activism into established processes that rest on deeply-ingrained structural racism (and sexism, etc.). The inclusion framework that deliberative systems rely upon fails to address the racist balance of power. As a result, this prevents the systems-level deliberation necessary to facilitate a meaningful exchange between BLMTO activists and those who continue to benefit from strictures of white supremacy and privilege. Despite deliberative systems’ good intentions, an inclusion framework undermines core values of moral & political equality that underpin normative deliberative democratic theory. About the speaker Anna Drake is an Assistant Professor in Political Science at the University of Waterloo. She works in the area of contemporary political theory, with a focus on democratic theory and practice, intersectional feminist politics, and activism. She is the author of Activism, Inclusion, and the Challenges of Deliberative Democracy (UBC Press, 2021) and has published in a number of journals, including Contemporary Political Theory and Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism. Previous Next

< Back Connecting to Congress during Covid-19: Political representation and two-way crisis communication Michael Neblo, Ohio State University Tue 25 May 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract As the COVID-19 crisis rapidly escalated in the United States, Congress needed to pivot from its normal representational activities to: 1) find ways to disseminate reliable information regarding the crisis, 2) find ways to gather relevant information about the rapidly evolving needs of their constituents to inform responsive legislation, and 3) encourage compliance with public health measures. We were in the field running experiments with Deliberative Town Halls (DTHs) when the pandemic hit. So we quickly adapted the structure of the standard DTH model to facilitate the kinds of interactions called for by the crisis: whereas pre-COVID-19 DTHs focused on a single issue with a single member of Congress, the COVID-19 events often featured a bipartisan pair of members, participating alongside subject matter experts. This structure vividly communicated bi-partisan messages regarding public health compliance, sent credible signals about the information being provided to constituents of both parties, and reassured them that normal partisan jousting would not interfere with the crafting policy to manage the urgent needs of the crisis. They also allowed members to gather the information necessary to develop policies that would be responsive to needs as articulated by their constituents. They also allowed constituents to express their opinions and feelings on COVID-19 related policies, Congress’s handling of the pandemic, and the personal struggles they had faced as the effects of the pandemic unfolded. N.B. – 1) This presentation is based on joint work with Abigail Kielty and Amy Lee; 2) the analyses are preliminary and largely descriptive at this point; and 3) I will begin the presentation with a more general overview of the research strategy behind the larger connecting to Congress project. About the speaker Michael Neblo is Professor of Political Science and (by courtesy) Philosophy, Communication, and Public Affairs & Director of the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability (IDEA) at The Ohio State University. Neblo's research focuses on deliberative democracy and political psychology. His most recent book, Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy develops and tests a new model of politics connecting citizens and elected officials to improve representative government. He has twice been invited to testify before the U.S. Congress about these findings. His first book, Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice cuts across the deadlock between supporters of deliberative theory and their empirical critics by focusing on the core goals of the larger deliberative political system. His work has appeared or is forthcoming in a wide range of academic journals across several fields, Neblo holds a PhD in political science from the University of Chicago and a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences (MMSS) from Northwestern University. He is currently an Andrew Carnegie Fellow. Previous Next

< Back Lala Muradova Associate About Lala Muradova uses experimental research designs combined with observation of real-world deliberative practices to study the cognitive and affective processes underlying democratic deliberation and to understand how individuals participate in deliberative processes. In 2019, Lala received the European Consortium for Political Research’s Best Paper Prize in the Democratic Innovations stream.

< Back Andrew Knops Associate About Andrew Knops' interests lie broadly in political sociology, especially the theory and practice of democracy, although he also teaches research methods. He is a lecturer in Sociology at the University of Birmingham.

< 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

Democratising Environmental Governance We are rethinking how human institutions, practices, and principles can develop a productive relationship with the Earth system. Research Leads Jonathan Pickering Associate Professor Simon Niemeyer Professor Projects and grants Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Investigator(s): Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye Read More Enhancing livelihoods from improved forest management in Nepal (EnLiFT 2) Investigator(s): Hemant Ojha Read More Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice And A Changing Earth System Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, Ana Tanasoca Read More Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Read More Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Investigator(s): Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Read More Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Read More Governing Climate Resilient Futures: gender, justice and conflict resolution in resource management Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Hemant Ojha Read More Rethinking Climate Justice In An Age Of Adaptation: Capabilities, Local Variation, And Public Deliberation Investigator(s): David Schlosberg and Simon Niemeyer Read More Deliberative democracy and climate change: building the foundations of an adaptive system Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer Read More Key publications Democratizing Global Justice: Deliberating Global Goals Dryzek, J.S. and Tanasoca, A. 2021 , Cambridge University Press Read more The Politics of the Anthropocene John S. Dryzek, Jonathan Pickering 2019 , Oxford University Press Read more Impact Story Who’s Gonna Save Us? Citizens Assemble - Triple J podcast on climate assemblies Professor Nicole Curato of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance was part of a panel of experts interviewed on Triple J on 4 October 2022, discussing deliberative approaches to climate solutions. Deliberative approaches to decision-making on important topics that affect everyone are being considered as viable elements to the solution for worldwide problems. An example of this was in 2019, when 150 French citizens were asked to come up with their country’s climate policy and were told that their ideas would be adopted. Said Nicole, ‘There is a strong argument to say that Democracy plays a role in crafting legitimate climate solutions. Meaning, no one…no climate scientist, no economist, no ethicist, no activist…no one has the monopoly of good ideas, and correct answers on climate issues.’ Read more The evolution of environmental politics The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses has been listed in The Australian’s list of top ten scholarly books to have made the most impact this decade. The first edition was published in 1997, the second in 2005, and the third in 2013. Together, the three editions have sold about 35,000 copies worldwide. Read more

< 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

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Our Senior Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has published his new book 'The Politics of Becoming' A hearty congratulations to Dr Hans Asenbaum from the Centre for his new (open access) publication with Oxford University Press, The Politics of Becoming – Anonymity and Democracy in the Digital Age . The book focuses on practical solutions to the problems of discrimination and identity confinement in political participation. Throughout the book, Dr Asenbaum hopes to facilitate an interdisciplinary exchange between different academic disciplines and different strands of democratic theory. Dr Asenbaum has been intrigued by questions about participatory and radical democracy for a long time. In particular, the role of our identities and how when come together to do politics, we judge each other on our looks. With a desire to understand and question this, Dr Asenbaum developed a curiosity about the role of anonymity in democracy. He purposefully asks, ‘What happens if we can't tell each other's race, gender, sexuality, class, age etc.?’ He began exploring this question at the University of Westminster during his PhD, under the supervision of Professor Graham Smith . The result of this investigation is his new book: ‘The Politics of Becoming’, which provides an in-depth analysis and theorization of anonymity in democratic participation. When asked about the journey to this point, an elated Dr Asenbaum remarked “my thesis builds the foundation for this book, and it has been a 10-year process from initiation to publication. It has been quite a journey, and I could not be happier about the result and the wonderful people I met on the way and who are all part of this project.” Dr Asenbaum’s book strengthens our research in the areas of citizens engagement , identity politics and democratic theory .

< Back Carolyn Hendriks Associate and Former PhD Student About Carolyn Hendriks' 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, policy evaluation, network governance and environmental politics and is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University.

< Back Thais Choucair Associate About Thaís Choucair is a PhD student in the Graduate Program in Communication of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (PPGCOM UFMG). Thaís works in the fields of politics and communication, quantitative and qualitative methodologies, digital activism, deliberation, deliberative system and framing.

< Back Pragmatism, deliberative democracy and deliberative cultures John Min, College of Southern Nevada Tue 19 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation explores the possibility of developing deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy will be considered as a third way between the ‘enlightenment deliberative culture’ and the ‘post-modernist deliberative culture.’ Whereas the former privileges universality and rationality in politics, the latter eschews those values in favor of particularity and sentimentality. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture, inspired by Dewey’s philosophy, provides a critical, yet fluid model for transforming East Asian democracies from within. Its critical aspects arise out of the use of intelligent inquiry into problematic situations; but it is fluid enough to account for meliorating present conditions. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture regards fallibilism (acknowledging that we can be mistaken), experimentalism (experimenting with institutions and practices), and contestation (being critical of the way we criticize) as necessary constituents of a robust deliberative culture. The loci of their development and flourishing are in individuals, families, and communities. Habits of mind and character are the conditions of their development and flourishing. Examples from China and Singapore will be considered to illustrate the key concepts and ideas undergirding a pragmatic conception of deliberative cultures. This presentation contributes to an emerging literature in deliberative democracy in thinking through deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. About the speaker John B. Min ( john.min@csn.edu ) is a Philosophy Instructor at the College of Southern Nevada. He specializes in social-political philosophy and democratic theory. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy at, where he wrote his dissertation, “An Epistemological Defense of Deliberative Democracy,” under the direction of Dr. James Bohman. His papers have been published by Contemporary Pragmatism and in a Routledge edited volume, Thinking about the Enlightenment . Previous Next

< 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 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: MARGEM AT UFMG In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. About this event In this seminar, Ricardo Mendonça along with other MARGEM members will present the current research of the research group MARGEM. The Research Group on Democracy and Justice (MARGEM) carries out interdisciplinary investigations aimed at deepening democracy and at comprehending the social struggles that are intrinsic to it. The group is based at UFMG, Brazil, and works with topics at the intersection of democratic theories, political communication, contentious politics and theories of justice. MARGEM is strongly influenced by critical theory informed by pragmatism, employing relational perspectives to make sense of political phenomena. Current projects developed within the group address a wide range of topics including algorithms, social media, disinformation, uberization, protests, populism, visual narratives, gender, race and democratic innovations. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Julien VryDagh Associate About Julien Vrydagh researches the policy impact of mini-publics in Belgium. He conducts case studies to trace the policy influence of mini-publics, and compares Belgian mini-publics with a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis in order to understand the conditions under which they succeed or not in exerting an influence.

< Back The migrant voice in public policy deliberations: The health story in Australia and Canada Catherine Clutton, Australian National University Tue 7 April 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract If there is a criticism of deliberative democracy it is that those who are included in deliberations frequently represent the well-educated, articulate, generally male, dominant majority who can engage in rational debate. This effectively excludes citizens who are less articulate, who may prefer different styles of interaction, or who are otherwise subject to discrimination such as women and visible minorities. Many immigrants fit the profile of those who are generally excluded. My research project takes the policy maker’s perspective and focuses on the engagement of immigrants in the development of health-related public policy, comparing Australia and Canada at both the national and State/Territory/Provincial levels. Noting that both Australia and Canada have explicit national policies in favour of multiculturalism and citizen engagement, it is pertinent to review how public officials engage with citizens from increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In this context critical multiculturalism provides an opportunity to examine the institutional structures in place that may exclude immigrants from participating in government deliberations. Equally, the norms of deliberative democracy provide a framework to enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Together, the facilitating features of these frameworks should enable the inclusion of immigrant voices. Within these frameworks I ask whether and how paying greater attention to cultural competence can enhance public policy deliberations and thus policy outcomes. Today’s presentation will be illustrated with findings from my fieldwork to show how governments are addressing the objective of inclusion expressed in these frameworks. About the speaker Cathy Clutton is a PhD Candidate at the ANU Medical School, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment. Cathy has over thirty years’ experience of public administration with the Australian Government (1978-2012), almost all of which was in the federal health portfolio. The majority of this time was spent with the National Health and Medical Research Council. Her responsibilities have included developing and managing programs that provided support for community organisations, developing evidence-based clinical practice and public health guidelines and policy, and providing support for health and medical research in Australia, including the ethical conduct of research. A recurring theme in her work has been citizen engagement. Previous Next

< Back Democratic transformations in earth system governance Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 22 October 2019 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Confidence in the ability of democracies to safeguard environmental sustainability has been shaken by failures to address climate change and biodiversity loss, along with a rise in anti-environmental populism across a range of countries. There is substantial (albeit contested) evidence that democracies perform better on environmental issues than non-democratic countries. And a resurgence in environmental activism, particularly among young people, offers renewed hope that democratic practices can coexist with progress towards sustainability. Nevertheless, major questions remain: are democracies capable of governing the rapid, wide-ranging economic and social transformations needed to address mounting risks to the Earth’s life-support systems? And what policy options are available to achieve sustainability transformations in ways that are democratically legitimate? This talk, based on a co-authored article in progress, aims to synthesise existing knowledge on the democratic implications of transformations towards sustainability and to chart new directions for research in this area. By linking ideas of sustainability transformations and democratic transformations together, we show how each can illuminate the other. About the speaker Jonathan Pickering is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research focuses on democracy, reflexivity and justice in global environmental governance, and he is currently working on an Australian Research Council Laureate project on ‘Deliberative Worlds’ led by Professor John Dryzek. His research has been published in a range of journals including Climate Policy , Environmental Politics and Global Environmental Politics . He has co-authored with John Dryzek a book on The Politics of the Anthropocene (Oxford University Press, 2019) and with several colleagues a Cambridge Element on Deliberative Global Governance (2019). Previous Next

< Back When the talking stops: Deliberative disagreement and non-deliberative decision mechanisms Ian O'Flynn, Newcastle University Tue 5 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy entails a commitment to deciding political questions on their merits. In the ideal case, people engage in an exchange of reasons and arrive together at an agreed view or judgement on what is right or best. In practice, of course, an agreed view may be impossible to reach—among other things, there may not be enough time or information. Yet while deliberative democrats accept that compromise or voting may therefore be required to resolve the disagreement that deliberation leaves unresolved, the nature of that acceptance remains unclear. Is there something in the logic of deliberative democracy to commend it or does it signal something important about the limits of the model? To address this question, this paper uses the much-neglected distinction between conflicts of judgement and conflicts of preference to show why greater attention needs to be paid to the character of the decision to be made. This paper is co-authored with Maija Setälä. About the speaker Dr Ian O’Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at Newcastle University. His main research interest is in deliberative democracy, but he also works on topics such as compromise and political integration. He teaches modules in contemporary political theory and in the politics of deeply divided societies. He is the author of Deliberative Democracy and Divided Societies (2006) and his articles have appeared in journals such as British Journal of Political Science and Political Studies. He has held visiting positions at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Australian National University. Previous Next