Search Results

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

< Back Nivek Thompson Associate About Nivek Thompson's research focuses on the impact of democratic innovations on the attitudes of political elites to the role of citizens in our democracy. She also runs the boutique consultancy, Deliberately Engaging, which recruits mini-publics to support deliberative processes and enhance democratic decision-making.

< 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 Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska native communities about genomics Erika Blacksher, University of Washington / Justin Reedy, University of Oklahoma Tue 4 August 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract With the rapid growth of genetic and genomic research and medical testing in recent years, more attention is being paid to their ethical and societal implications, including citizens’ concerns about potential risks and benefits of these technologies. Indigenous peoples represent a particularly important group where such advances are concerned, due to a long history of exploitation and marginalization by the U.S. federal government and the marked disparities they experience in health services and health outcomes relative to other populations. A consortium of researchers and practitioners in the US, in close partnership with indigenous community partners, has begun to study the concerns and views of American Indian and Alaska Native peoples on genomics through a series of deliberations in three communities in Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Alaska. This presentation will describe the design and implementation of these deliberative forums, as well as the results of the deliberations from a process perspective. In addition, it discusses some of the implications of this work for scholarship and practice in deliberation, both for efforts involving indigenous peoples and for forums focused on genetics and ethical, legal, and societal implications (ELSI). About the speaker Erika Blacksher is an associate professor and director of undergraduates studies in the Department of Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Washington in Seattle. Dr. Blacksher studies the ethical and policy implications of the social determinants of health with focus on ethical questions raised by health inequalities, debates over health responsibility, and the role of participatory and deliberative forms of engagement in advancing health equity. She often works in collaborative community-academic partnerships to design and conduct deliberations that convene minority and marginalized groups to identify their health priorities and policy preferences. Justin Reedy is an associate professor in the Department of Communication and research associate in the Center for Risk & Crisis Management at the University of Oklahoma. He studies political communication and deliberation, group and organizational communication, and the perception of risk. In particular, his research focuses on how groups of people make political and civic decisions in face-to-face and online settings, as well as how people and policy makers can come together to deliberate and make better decisions on public policy issues that involve significant societal and personal risk. Previous Next

< Back Assessing the reflexive capacity of international organisations: Can inclusivity translate into progressive policy change? Hayley Stevenson, University of Sheffield Tue 22 July 2014 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Recent research confirms a trend of inclusion in global governance: international organizations are ‘opening up’ to civil society. This trend may be cautiously welcomed by scholars and activists concerned with the ‘democratic deficit’ of global governance, as well as ‘epistemic democrats’ influenced by the Aristotelian principle that ‘many heads are better than one’. Yet, we still have a limited understanding of the potential for diverse participation to contribute to policy change in IOs. The nature and scope of ‘reflexive capacity’ at multiple levels of IO agency is largely unclear. Understanding the ways in which heterogeneous perspectives and diverse normative critiques are received, interpreted, and processed is essential to ensure that inclusion is not reduced to the shallow accommodation of civil society. This paper presents a study into the potential for transforming inclusivity into progressive institutional change. Focusing on emerging innovation in environmental policy, the project aims to (a) identify the different discourses that currently exist about the environment-economy nexus; (b) determine how IOs deal with discursive heterogeneity in the process of developing new sustainability strategies; and (c) determine how the means of presenting diverse ideas and delivering critique affects how it is received, interpreted, and processed by IOs. About the speaker Hayley Stevenson is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Sheffield (UK), and an ESRC Future Research Leader (2013-2016). Her principal research interests include: global environmental politics and climate change, constructivist theory of International Relations, global civil society, legitimacy in international relations, and deliberative global governance. She is the author of Institutionalizing Unsustainability: The Paradox of Global Climate Governance (University of California Press, 2013); and Democratizing Global Climate Governance (with John S. Dryzek, Cambridge University Press 2014). Previous Next

Simon Niemeyer, John Dryzek, Robert Goodin, Andrè Bächtiger, Maija Setålå, Julia Jennstål, Nicole Curato < Back Deliberative Democracy in the Public Sphere: Achieving Deliberative Outcomes in Mass Publics Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, John Dryzek, Robert Goodin, Andrè Bächtiger, Maija Setålå, Julia Jennstål, Nicole Curato Funded through Discovery Project (DP120103976) ($340,357), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Robert Goodin, Chief Investigator Andrè Bächtiger, Partner Investigator Maija Setålå, Partner Investigator Julia Jennstål, Partner Investigator Nicole Curato, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description This project investigates the mechanisms and settings that facilitate the same deliberative outcomes achieved in small group deliberation among the wider population.

< Back Wendy Russell Associate About Wendy Russell works the development of deliberative engagement methods for national policy. She is also a strong advocate of technology assessment (TA) and is working to build TA capacity for Australia.

< Back Dannica Fleuss Associate About Dannica Fleuss' research deals with conceptualizations of democratic legitimacy, philosophy of science and deliberative democracy. She is also a postdoctoral research fellow and lecturer in political theory at Helmut Schmidt University (Hamburg).

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

< Back The Political Economy of Devolution in Britain from the Postwar Era to Brexit Nick Vlahos 2020 , Palgrave Summary Bringing together ten leading researchers in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. In doing so, the book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times. Read more Previous Next

< Back DEMOCRACY, CRISIS, RESILIENCE - IN CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR JEFFREY ALEXANDER ABSTRACT This conversation will focus the prospects of democracy in the context of current crisis characterised by waves of populist backlash; extremist attacks; the Capitol building imperiled; ever-worsening economic inequality; the insidious erosion of privacy; the epistemic collapse of the public sphere; the rise of a new form of techno-authoritarianism, ready for export. These crises are compounded by the practical challenges of averting climate collapse and ending a pandemic skillfully adapting to our best attempts at control. At stake are not only the institutional structures of democratic governance but the cultural structures which lend meaning and collective motivation to democratic self-governance. In this conversation with one of the world’s leading sociological theorists, we explore the cultural dimensions of crisis and the sources and prospects for democratic resilience. BIO Jeffrey C. Alexander is the Lillian Chavenson Saden Professor of Sociology at Yale University and Founder and, with Philip Smith, Co-Director of the Center for Cultural Sociology. Jeffrey Alexander works in the areas of theory, culture, and democratic politics. A leading exponent of the “strong program” in cultural sociology, he has investigated the cultural codes and narratives that inform diverse areas of social life. His recent work has tackled question of crisis, radicalism, and solidarity in democratic politics in the United States and beyond. Previous Next

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

< Back Wendy Conway-Lamb PhD Candidate About Wendy is a researcher and practitioner with over fifteen years of experience working on climate change and international development. Her areas of expertise include climate change adaptation and resilience; global climate governance; international aid and development; deliberative democracy; climate justice; gender equality and inclusion. Wendy is currently completing a PhD at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra, exploring how those most affected by climate impacts at local levels can be more meaningfully included in global adaptation governance, with an empirical focus on Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. Wendy has worked for federal government, NGOs, think tanks, and the United Nations. Her skills encompass research and analysis; policy and technical advice; program design and evaluation; team leadership; and academic teaching, training and facilitation. She is currently on leave from her role as Climate and Development Specialist in DFAT’s Climate Integration Unit. Her career with DFAT has seen her designing and evaluating climate-related aid investments, providing technical advice on climate-related policy and programming, leading teams, and undertaking public diplomacy, both in Canberra and in the Indo-Pacific region. Geographically her focus has primarily been Southeast Asia, including over four years working on climate change and development in Vietnam. Connect on LinkedIn Tweets at @WendyConwayLamb Dissertation Wendy's PhD research explores how a more deliberative approach to the governance of climate change adaptation could empower those most affected by climate change, and least responsible for causing it, to be more meaningfully included in adaptation decision-making. Getting beyond ideas of participation or representation, the concept of a deliberative system allows us to describe and analyse how in practice, even in non-democratic contexts, adaptation is governed by the interaction of multiple formal and informal actors. Highlighting the inherently contested and political nature of adaptation, Wendy’s empirical research reveals a plurality of adaptation discourses invoked by an array of government and non-government actors involved in adaptation in Vietnam. In this complex discursive landscape, some understandings of adaptation take precedence over others, creating the risk of exclusion but also an opportunity for transmission of influence and deliberative inclusion. Supervisors John Dryzek (Primary Supervisor) Jonathan Pickering (Secondary Supervisor) Lisa Schipper (Supervisor) Publications Conway-Lamb, W. (2024). Pluralizing climate change adaptation: mapping discourses in Vietnam. Climate and Development , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2024.2361797 De Pryck, K; Chalaye, P; Conway-Lamb, W; Elstub, S; Sanchez, E; Sari, N (forthcoming) ‘The 2021 Global Climate Assembly: A new global deliberative space?’ in Escobar & Elstub (eds.) Climate Assemblies: New Civic Institutions for a Climate-Changed World , De Gruyter Curato, Chalaye, Conway-Lamb, De Pryck, Elstub, Morán, Oppold, Romero, Ross, Sanchez, Sari, Stasiak, Tilikete, Veloso, von Schneidemesser, and Werner (2023), Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis: Evaluation Report, University of Canberra https://researchsystem.canberra.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/82182314/Global_Assembly_Evaluation_Report.pdf Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2021), Climate Change , a non-fiction book for disadvantaged school children in the Asia-Pacific region, published by Library for All Digital Library for the World, libraryforall.org Conference Papers Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2024) ‘What does adaptation justice mean to people affected by climate impacts?’ Human Geographies of Climate Change Adaptation conference , Bergen, May 2024 Conway-Lamb, Wendy & Pickering, Jonathan (2022) ‘The case for democratizing global adaptation governance’, Earth System Governance conference , Toronto, Oct 2022 Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2018), ‘Beyond the vertical hierarchy paradigm: a deliberative systems approach to adaptation governance’, IPSA World Congress of Political Science , Brisbane, July 2018 Conway-Lamb, Wendy (2018), ‘Inclusive multi-level adaptation governance: a deliberative systems approach’, Adaptation Futures , Cape Town, June 2018 Research Projects Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Crisis (2021 - present), member of research and evaluation team Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System (2016 - 2020), Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship Project, PhD candidate Teaching International Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Domestic Climate Change Policy and Economics masters level course, Australian National University, 2022 Affiliations Research fellow, Earth System Governance network Research affiliate, Centre for Environmental Governance, University of Canberra Scholarships and Prizes PhD Scholarship, Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice, and a Changing Earth System, Australian Research Council https://www.linkedin.com/in/wendy-conway-lamb-5a573351/

< Back Political parties as participatory arenas Anika Gauja, University of Sydney Tue 9 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this presentation I engage with the often-made claim that shifting patterns of political participation threaten parties as viable organisations and as mechanisms of linkage between citizens and the state. I explore the possibilities for partisan democratic renewal and increased citizen engagement that arise with a shift to more individualised, or personalised types of political participation. Using data from a comparative study of party reform and an Australian-based study of contemporary party membership, I examine how political parties have accommodated new demands for participation within their organisational arrangements, focusing on the key party functions of candidate selection, policy development and campaign communication. Many of these participatory opportunities are being extended beyond party members to supporters, blurring the boundaries of party. I reflect on how these new structures and processes are reshaping the role of parties as mediators between citizens and the state, and the challenges involved in reconciling personalised politics with collective identity. Previous Next

Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci < Back Communication Across Difference In A Democracy: Australian Muslims And The Mainstream Investigator(s): Bora Kanra, John Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Alessandra Pecci Funded through a Discovery Project ($269,000), the Project Team includes: Bora Kanra, Chief Investigator John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Selen A. Ercan, Research Assistant Alessandra Pecci, Research Assistant Project Description Australian Muslims have been at the centre of media attention particularly since September the 11th. Even though they comprise no more than 1,5 per cent of the total population, the debate on the compatibility of Islamic and Western values has been very prominent. To date, this debate has focused little attention on the attitudes of Australian Muslims and how they perceive themselves in relation to Western values. This gap, often filled by negative stereotypes, has a wide range of implications in the area of contemporary governance and public policy. This research project studies the relationship between Islamic communities in Australia and the wider society in the context of ideas about cultural difference and democracy. The degree to which Australian Muslims develop a sense of belonging and social responsibility towards mainstream society is directly linked to the level of their inclusion as well as participation in Australia's multicultural scheme. This project aims to contribute to the possibilities to foster a more productive social and political relationship between Australian Muslims and the mainstream. The empirical substance consists of interviews with both Muslims and non-Muslims, with a view to mapping and analysing discourses about difference and democracy in Australia. The knowledge generated can then be deployed to identify exactly how communication across difference can be promoted in this kind of case. The research is informed by a theoretical perspective that highlights the role of social learning in deliberation in a diverse and democratic society. The project studies both ordinary citizens and opinion leaders in Islamic and non-Islamic communities. Project Outputs Kanra, Bora. (2016) Islam, democracy and dialogue in Turkey: deliberating in divided societies . Routledge. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Muslims and the Mainstream in Australia: Polarisation or Engagement? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 40(8), 1236-1253. Dryzek, J. S., & Kanra, B. (2014). Australian Muslims’ orientations to secular society: Empirical exploration of theoretical classifications. Journal of Sociology , 50(2), 182-198. Kanra, B. (2012). Binary deliberation: The role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation , 8(1), Kanra, B. and Ercan, S.A. (2012) Negotiating difference in a Muslim society: A longitudinal study of Islamic and secular discourses in the Turkish public sphere. Digest of Middle East Studies , 21(1): 69-88.

Former PhD student < Back Michael Rollens Former PhD student About Michael completed his dissertation entitled ‘Theory of Analytic Journalism’ in 2014 at the Australian National University. He was supervised by David West with the assistance of John Dryzek and Simon Niemeyer.

< Back Public Sphere Deliberation (PSD) Index: Analyzing public deliberation through aggregated data Esha Madhavan, University of Sydney Tue 18 April 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The Public Sphere Deliberation (PSD) Index analyses speech text through content analysis and delivers aggregated scores useful for evaluating discussions in forums formed for citizen deliberation. The PSD Index approaches public deliberation through the application of the public sphere concept. A framework of normative conditions or criteria of public sphere has been developed through reviewing the works of some notable public sphere deliberation theorists and this was used to arrive at the two main components of the model. Each of these components consists of 21 and 14 indicators. The final score for each forum is derived through weighted additive aggregation standardized to 100-points scale. PSDI‘s strength lies in the design of the comprehensive instrument for content analysis (the indicator questions), yielding a highly replicable design. A multilevel analysis model has also been designed in order to adequately elaborate and engage the outcome of the research methods with the underlying theory. The PSD Index has been applied to measure the democratic potential of public sphere deliberation of forums formed for citizen deliberation during an important law making event in India called the ‘The Lokpal (Ombudsman)Bill’ as part of the ‘India against corruption’ movement during 2011. PSD Index could be the tool to evaluate the processes of deliberative democracy in terms of (i) maintaining of democratic safeguards during deliberative projects, (ii) enhancing the efficiency of the deliberative process along with validating its transparency and legitimacy values and (iii) the extent to which a process of deliberative decision making has been inclusive and decentralized. About the speaker Esha Madhavan investigates the public sphere potential of Internet in the context of India’s democratic politics. As a visiting fellow at the Sydney Democracy Network, University of Sydney, she is conducting research that focuses on the growing significance of citizen deliberation with shifting attention towards self-governance and civic problem solving, scrutiny of arbitrary power beyond the scope of elections, and institutional innovations within monitory democracy. Previous Next

< Back MINI-PUBLICS AND THE LEGITIMACY DILEMMA: BALANCING THE TENSION BETWEEN DELIBERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN DELIBERATIVE THEORY ABSTRACT This paper explores the so-called legitimacy dilemmas as it arises in deliberative theory. The dilemma is that the higher the number of people participating in deliberation, the lower the quality of deliberation is likely to be, but the outcome might be more legitimate. The more restricted deliberation is, the higher its quality, but the outcome might lack legitimacy. Mini-publics have been proposed as one way out of this dilemma, however, there have been recent criticisms that mini-publics are not an adequate solution because they are not suitably representative of ordinary citizens; nor are they accountable to them. Drawing on analogous debates in the procedural justice literature on the difference between descriptive legitimacy and normative legitimacy, and the ways they converge, I offer an alternative way out of the legitimacy dilemma. I suggest that the perception by ordinary voters that mini-publics are legitimate is both a necessary and sufficient condition for normative legitimacy. BIO Sarah Sorial is a Professor of Law at the Macquarie Law School. Her research specialisation is primarily at the intersection of political philosophy and law. She is particularly interested in how philosophical concepts can be utilised to address various and persistent legal dilemmas, including dilemmas about the limits of speech, the importance of democratic deliberation, and the place of rights in liberal democracies. She has published widely on topics to do with free speech, deliberation, responsibility and punishment, in a range of journals including Law and Philosophy, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Journal of Social Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. Previous Next

< Back Designing permanent deliberative democracy: The Ostbelgien Modell in Belgium Min Reuchamps, Catholic University of Louvain Tue 18 June 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Around the world, deliberative democracy is on the rise and is being implemented in real politics. In Belgium, the G1000, a citizen-led experiment, set deliberative democracy on the political agenda. In this wake, all parliaments of the country have initiated deliberative mini-publics. More recently the Ostbelgien modell was fostered; that is the Parliament of the German-speaking community has enacted a permanent system of deliberative democracy that will start in September 2019: a randomly selected body of 24 citizens will work next to the existing elected parliament made of 25 MPs. These democratic innovations set the pace for a renewal of democratic dynamics in practice. About the speaker Min Reuchamps is Professor of Political Science at the Université catholique de Louvain. He graduated from the Université de Liège and from Boston University. His teaching and research interests are federalism and multi-level governance, democracy and its different dimensions, relations between language(s) and politics and in particular the role of metaphors, as well as participatory and deliberative methods. He has published a dozen books on these topics and his works have appeared in several international journals. He recently co-authored a book on the G1000 experiment ( https://www.crcpress.com/The-Legitimacy-of-Citizen-led-Deliberative-Democracy-The-G1000-in-Belgium/Caluwaerts-Reuchamps/p/book/9781138281943 ) and his forthcoming book is an edited volume on the variation of political metaphors. Previous Next