Search Results

< Back Cultivating a deliberative stance Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 7 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract There has been much focus in deliberative democracy on procedures that may be more or less deliberative, which may also bear some relationship to the deliberativeness of an outcome or decision. More recently the idea of dispositional state has gained attention, initially through the idea of ‘deliberative stance’ proposed by Owen and Smith. The idea of a deliberative stance potentially fills important gaps in the theory of deliberation, where differences in stance confound the relationship between procedure and outcome. If it can be said that an individual as adopted a more deliberative stance during a deliberative encounter, then we might expect difference in outcome compared to another who has not, even though all other procedural observations may be the same — although it is also likely that stance and procedure are also related. The role of inducing a deliberative stance was tested as part of a mini public field experiment in 2016 in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. Two groups participated in a three-day process, one of which undertook pre-deliberative group exercises aimed at inducing deliberative norms, or a ‘deliberative stance’. The second group did not undertake any group exercises, but instead began the process with a briefing about the ideals of deliberation. Both groups then participated in the same process. The differences in outcome between the two groups were analysed in terms of conventional preference transformation, as well as the intersubjective relationship between values, beliefs — or ‘reasons’ — and policy choices (intersubjective consistency). The implications of the results for deliberative theory and practice are discussed. This paper is co-authored with Julia Jennstål, Uppsala University About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Previous Next

< Back Life in polis: Beyond hegemony and collective identity Henrik Bang, University of Canberra Tue 17 May 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract There is no abstract for this talk, but Henrik shared his paper presentation. Read here . About the speaker Henrik P. Bang is professor of Governance at IGPA. He studies innovations in practices of democracy and steering. From his recent works shall be mentioned: Foucault’s Political Challenge, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015. Previous Next

< 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 UPCOMING: FACILITATION OF DELIBERATION IN THE CLASSROOM: THE INTERPLAY OF TECHNIQUE AND DESIGN TO MAKE SPACE FOR DEMOCRACY ABSTRACT Widespread global interest and adoption of deliberative democracy approaches to reinvigorate citizenship and policy making in an era of democratic crisis/decline has been mirrored by increasing interest in deliberation in schools, both as an approach to pedagogy and student empowerment, and as a training ground for deliberative citizenship. In school deliberation, as in other settings, a key and sometimes neglected element of high-quality deliberation is facilitation. Facilitation can help to establish and maintain deliberative norms, assist participants to deliberate productively and enable collective goals. By participating in facilitated deliberation, students can develop awareness, skills and voice that empower them to engage with democracy, in the school and beyond. This article draws on our experience as scholar/practitioners running a Deliberation in Schools program in Australia to explore challenges and strategies for deliberative facilitation. The challenges we discuss are power, inequality, diversity of expression and knowledge, and disagreement and these are discussed in the general context of inclusiveness. We highlight two facets of deliberative facilitation – technique and design – which are important for dealing with these challenges and increasing inclusion in school deliberation and in democratic deliberation more generally. BIO Wendy Russel, Kei Nishiyama, and Pierrick Chalaye share an interest in deliberative education and have a range of expertise in this area: Wendy as a deliberation practitioner in schools, Kei as a deliberation practitioner and facilitator, and Pierrick as a former high school teacher. They worked together on the Deliberation in Schools project in the Australian Capital Territory, on which this seminar is based. Wendy is a research fellow in the School of Engineering, Australian National University, an associate of the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, ANU and an associate of the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. She is an engagement practitioner and Director of Double Arrow Consulting, a business specialising in deliberative engagement. Wendy identifies as a transdisciplinary pracademic and lacks respect for boundaries. Kei is an assistant professor of policy studies at Doshisha University, Japan. Kei has a PhD from the University of Canberra, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Kei studies children, education and democracy from a deliberative point of view. Pierrick is a research fellow in the School of Engineering, Australian National University. He has a PhD in comparative environmental politics/policy from the University of Canberra, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research interests are energy and environmental politics/policy, deliberative democratic theory and qualitative research methods. Previous Next

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

Former PhD student < Back Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student About Kei Nishiyama studies deliberative democracy with a specific focus on the role of children and young people. Kei worked at the University of Canberra and the Australian National University and will join the Doshisha University, Japan, from April 2020.

< 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 DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project but to unfold its full potential, it needs to face colonial traces within. About this event Deliberative democracy advances an emancipatory project of inclusion, equality, and freedom. Yet these ideals have been produced in a particular economic and cultural context. Emerging out of the humanist Enlightenment tradition and inspired by linguistic and critical theories, deliberative democracy is deeply rooted in Western academia. This also means that despite its emancipatory impetus, it emerged in a context marked by colonial thinking. In this presentation, Mendonça and Asenbaum argue that if deliberative democracy is to unfold its full democratic potential, it needs to face the colonial traces it may carry within it. The presentation proposes six moves towards decolonizing deliberative democracy. In order not to remain in the a purely negative, deconstructive impetus of decolonization, we also want to sketch a positive, reconstructive way forward. Hence, the first three moves we are proposing are deconstructive and aim at deepening critical reflection while the other three moves mark a concrete starting point for a decolonial reconstruction of deliberative democracy: (1) the acknowledgement of the violence often hidden by the narrative of modernity, (2) the recognition of the epistemic asymmetries within the knowledge production of deliberative democracy, (3) the reflection on the colonial drive observable in current approaches to democratic innovations, (4) centring on social injustices cutting across democracies, (5) looking to the Global South in an actual dialogue, (6) including marginalized groups and people outside academia into the theorizing process. Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça is an Associate Professor at the Political Science Department, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). He is the coordinator of MARGEM (Research Group on Democracy and Justice) and is the Director of International Cooperation of the Brazilian National Institute for Digital Democracy and of the Brazilian Political Science Association. He is also a CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) Researcher. Ricardo Mendonça works with democratic theory, critical theory, contentious politics, and political communication. He has recently published in Policy Studies, Constellations, Political Studies, Critical Policy Studies, Policy & Society, Democratic Theory, and several Brazilian journals. He is one of the editors of Deliberative Systems in Theory and Practice (with S. Elstub and S. Ercan, Routledge, 2018), Introdução à Teoria Democrática (with E. Cunha, Editora UFMG, 2018), Deliberação on-line no Brasil (with R. Sampaio and S. Barros, EDUFBA, 2016) and Democracia Digital: Publicidade, instituic?o?es e confronto poli?tico (with M. Pereira and F. Filgueiras, Editora UFMG, 2016). Hans Asenbaum is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He holds a PhD from the Centre for the Study of Democracy at the University of Westminster in London and is a co-convener of the Participatory and Deliberative Democracy specialist group of the Political Studies Association (PSA). His research interests include identity and inclusion in new participatory spaces, digital politics, and theories of radical democracy. Hans’ work has been published in the American Political Science Review, Political Studies, New Media & Society, and Politics & Gender. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . 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.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Call for Workshop Papers: Future-proofing the public sphere, QUT Mar 2024 Important update: Application deadline extended to 3 November! Join us for a research workshop at QUT in 21-22 March 2024, exploring the future of the public sphere, in Australia and beyond. Designed for Australian-based ECRs and HDRs, the workshop is co-hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (University of Canberra) and the Digital Media Research Centre (QUT) and funded by the Australian Political Studies Association (APSA). Abstract and short CV to be submitted by 27 October. For enquiries, please contact: Adele Webb ( Adele.Webb@canberra.edu.au ) Katharina Esau ( Katharina.Esau@qut.edu.au )

< Back When does deliberation occur, and how do you know you've found it? Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 26 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focusses on the question of how the process of deliberation takes place in mini public settings. In part it revisits the findings of Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) who found that most of the transformation takes place during the early phase of deliberation where information is acquired. The findings draw from a real-world deliberative event in Uppsala Sweden involving 60 participants considering options for addressing the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. As for Goodin and Niemeyer, transformation is measured in terms of position on underlying issues (attitudes/beliefs, values) at three stages (pre; mid, following information presentations; and post-deliberation), but in this case policy preferences were also surveyed permitting a wider range of analysis. The results are consistent with Goodin and Niemeyer, where the greatest transformation occurs during the early information phase of the event. However, another measure of transformation (intersubjective consistency) is most strongly affected during the later deliberation phase. The results raise the question in respect to what counts as deliberative transformation. They also suggest that deliberation from the individual perspective may involve a sequence whereby the initial opening of minds induces a higher level of receptiveness to information and transformation, which is followed by a subsequent process of reflection. To the extent that this model of internal deliberation is valid it potentially accounts for wildly conflicting results obtained from observing deliberation, as well as potential implications for understanding the possibility of both deliberation within and deliberation in mass settings. About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Simon completed his PhD at the Australian National University and since then has been the recipient of a number of Australian Research Council Awards, including his current Future Fellowship. As well as his Future Fellowship he is the lead investigator on an ARC project concerning the possibilities for achieving mass public deliberation; a co-investigator on another ARC project on deliberative democracy and achieving just outcomes when adapting to climate change (with David Schlosberg), and a co-investigator on a Swedish Research Council project (with Julia Jennstål) concerning the nature of the deliberative person. He is currently co-located between the University of Uppsala and the University of Canberra while he develops international links for the next phase of research in assessing deliberativeness of national political settings. Previous Next

< Back Deliberative Global Governance John S. Dryzek, Quinlan Bowman, Jonathan Kuyper, Jonathan Pickering, Jensen Sass, and Hayley Stevenson 2019 , Cambridge University Press Summary Global institutions are afflicted by severe democratic deficits, while many of the major problems facing the world remain intractable. Against this backdrop, we develop a deliberative approach that puts effective, inclusive, and transformative communication at the heart of global governance. Multilateral negotiations, international organizations and regimes, governance networks, and scientific assessments can be rendered more deliberative and democratic. More thoroughgoing transformations could involve citizens' assemblies, nested forums, transnational mini-publics, crowdsourcing, and a global dissent channel. The deliberative role of global civil society is vital. We show how different institutional and civil society elements can be linked to good effect in a global deliberative system. The capacity of deliberative institutions to revise their own structures and processes means that deliberative global governance is not just a framework but also a reconstructive learning process. A deliberative approach can advance democratic legitimacy and yield progress on global problems such as climate change, violent conflict and poverty. Read more Previous Next

< Back Madeleine Egan PhD Candidate About Madeleine is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Her research focusses on informal participation in constitution-making. Prior to beginning graduate studies, Madeleine worked in community engagement for local government and non-profit organisations, as well as in communications, community organising and campaigns for environmental and social justice. Dissertation Madeleine’s PhD research explores mass democracy in deliberative constitution-making. Recent constituent processes in Chile (2019 - ) and Iceland ( 2008 - ) reflect an international trend towards more participatory constitution-making. For deliberative democratic theory, these cases raise long-standing questions about the relationship between discursive law-making and mass democracy—realistically, how can all subjects be authors of the law? Madeleine’s research combines normative theory with empirical research, to investigate how deliberation in the public sphere shapes constitution-making in practice. Conference Presentations Social movements as catalysts for deliberative constitution-making, Political Studies Association (PSA) Annual Conference. March 29, 2020. Virtual Conference. Constitution-making and the role of informal participation in the public sphere, Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Annual Conference. November 30, 2023. Sydney. PhD supervisors John Dryzek (Primary Supervisor) Selen Ercan (Secondary Supervisor) Ron Levy (Advisor) Teaching Tutor, Political and Social Theory. 2020. Tutor, Co-Design and Deliberative Engagement. 2024. Administration Co-Editor, Working Paper Series, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Scholarships and Prizes Deliberative Democracy Scholarship, University of Canberra, 2020 Percival Serle Prize, University of Melbourne, 2017 Dwight Final Examination Prize, University of Melbourne, 2017

< Back Darielle Talarico Associate About Darielle Talarico's work focuses on deliberative democracy theory, public participation theory, and subjectivity. Her experience spans deliberative and participatory democracy in action in relation to issues involving First Nation land claims, protected areas, forestry, mining, and energy development in northern and Arctic regions of Canada.

< 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

< Back Simone Chambers Associate About Simone Chambers has written and published on such topics as deliberative democracy, public reason, the public sphere, secularism, rhetoric, civility and the work of Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls. She is a Professor of Political Science at the University of California at Irvine.

< Back Elise Clark Honours Student About Elise is an honours student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. As a Social Work graduate, her research focusses on how perspectives from Social Work can be applied to the paradigm of deliberative democracy. Prior to commencing her honours studies, Elise worked as a research assistant for Griffith University at the School of Government and International Relations and the Griffith Centre for Social Cultural Research. Elise has previously worked in community mental health and with young people at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Honours supervisors Prof Selen Ercan (Primary Supervisor) Dr Adele Webb (Secondary Supervisor)

< Back (Non)reciprocity across the system: The case of abortion in Brazil Tue 12 November 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm Speaker: Thais Choucair, Federal University of Minas Gerais Venue: The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reciprocity is often measured in small settings, but how it works when we think of broad discussions in the public sphere? I use the distinction of direct and discursive reciprocity made by Mendonça et al 2014 to investigate the discussion about abortion in Brazil. Although both types can be found in the discussions, they do not work together. The non-interaction of both types of reciprocity brings new insights in the field of listening and polarization studies. About the speaker Thais Choucair is a PhD Student in the Communication Department at The Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). She works as an Associated Researcher in the Media and Public Sphere Research Group (EME), coordinated by Professor Rousiley Maia. Ms Choucair is engaged in two specific research projects: (i) Deliberative System and Interconnect Media, developed in collaboration with a network of scholars from the field of Political Science, Sociology, Communication and History. In recent years, Ms. Choucair has been working to develop methodologies to approach connections in the deliberative system. In her master's thesis (2017-2018) she presents a method for identifying online pages of social actors involved in a specific issue (the case study was about the abortion case in Brazil). In this research Ms. Choucair applied a content-focused analysis, looking at both the arguments used in the discussion and a framing analysis - a work connected with what has been developed at the EME Research Group in the last decade. Ms Choucair has presented this research in the last IPSA World Congress (2018) and is currently working to publish it. (ii) Deliberative System and Social Conflicts under the coordination of Professor Rousiley Maia in collaboration with Prof. Jürg Steiner. Ms Thais Choucair is currently investigating in her PhD (2018-2022) if (and if so, how) reciprocity has been built on discussions where differences between groups are very marked. She is particularly looking at four discussions involving four different groups (black people, women, LGBT people and deaf people) in the context in which some of these groups have been heavily attacked by political forces against their rights in Brazil. Thais would be happy to engage in meetings, projects, publications, discussions and coffee conversations involving: populism, deliberative system, reciprocity, computer-mediated methodologies, struggles for recognition and social oppression. Previous Next

Former PhD student < Back Penelope Marshall Former PhD student About Penelope completed her dissertation entitled ‘Playing for Sheep Stations: A Discourse Analysis of Wild Dog Management and Control in New South Wales, Australia’ in 2013 at the Australian National University.

< Back Introducing non-human democracy Jean-Paul Gagnon, University of Canberra Tue 6 December 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract An examination of more than 1200 descriptions of democracy makes one thing abundantly clear—democracy is a human affair. Yet, there is a disturbance in this declaration and it comes from biology. For there is an immense body of scientific literature on how non-humans make decisions to solve collective action problems. And the language used in these studies is strikingly familiar: it is the language of democracy. If we use concepts that are inherent to the logic of democracy to make sense of non-human group behavior, does that not mean non-humans are practicing democracy too? Despite the popularity in other disciplines of inter-species thinking, it is ignored in democracy research. Why is that? Why can we not conceive of democracy as anything other than uniquely human? In answering these questions, this paper introduces non-human democracy and argues that its theory has three functions: non-humans (1) can inspire us to rethink aspects of democracy, (2) instruct us in specific practices of it, and (3) help us draw new analogies to better understand it. About the speaker Jean-Paul Gagnon is assistant professor of politics at the University of Canberra. His books include Evolutionary Basic Democracy (2013), Democratic Theorists in Conversation (2014), and Young People, Citizenship, and Political Participation: Combating Civic Deficit? (2017, with Mark Chou, Catherine Hartung, and Lesley J Pruitt). Previous Next