Search Results

< Back Deliberating in unequal societies: Liberal risks, performative possibilities Emily Beausoleil, Massey University Tue 31 October 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Pluralist democracies take as given that diversity is not only inevitable, but vital to a flourishing and just society. Yet communicating across difference remains one of the greatest demands democracy makes of us, particularly in conditions of inequality. How can marginalised communities speak without being oversimplified, distorted, or objectified by the presumptions and power of dominant groups? And how can what sounds like white noise not only resonate but hold dominant society to account, to challenge and transform that society to become more inclusive, more just, and more equal? This paper uses a case of legislative theatre in Vancouver, Canada to illustrate how theatrical approaches to deliberation offer distinct resources for addressing these challenges. In fact, it will argue that it is not in spite of its differences to conventional deliberative processes, but because of them that artistic performance can serve as sites of democratic engagement between marginalised and powerful groups in powerful ways. About the speaker Emily Beausoleil is a Senior Lecturer of Politics at Massey University and Associate Editor of Democratic Theory journal. As a political theorist, she explores the conditions, challenges, and creative possibilities for democratic engagement in diverse societies, with particular attention to the capacity for 'voice' and listening in conditions of inequality. Connecting affect, critical democratic, postcolonial, neuroscience, and performance scholarship, Beausoleil’s work explores how we might realise democratic ideals of receptivity and responsiveness to social difference in concrete terms. She holds a 2017-19 Marsden Fast-Start Fellowship, and has been published in Political Theory, Contemporary Political Theory, Constellations, Conflict Resolution Quarterly , and Ethics & Global Politics , as well as various books. Previous Next

< Back Ron Levy Associate About Ron Levy researches and writes on public law and political theory, especially constitutional law, the law of politics, and deliberative democracy and is a Senior Lecturer at the Australian National University.

< Back Hate speech, criminal incitement, and freedom of expression Jeffrey Howard, University College London Tue 9 August 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract One of the most powerful arguments against hate speech is that it is dangerous: it risks inspiring listeners to engage in violence and discrimination against the people the speech smears. Even so, many believe that hate speech should not be banned, since doing so would violate the right to freedom of expression. On this view, banning hate speech disrespect listeners’ autonomy, treating them like children who cannot be trusted to make up their own minds. It compromises democratic deliberation by restricting the marketplace of ideas. And it impinges upon the free development and exercise of citizens’ rational capacities. In this talk I will argue against this popular view, contending that bans on hate speech do not affront our commitment to freedom of speech. My argument begins with an observation: virtually no one thinks that direct incitement to criminal wrongdoing, such as exhorting someone to commit a murder, is protected by the right to freedom of speech. But why not? I argue that this asymmetric treatment of direct criminal incitement, on the one hand, and dangerous hate speech, on the other hand, cannot be sustained. I review a variety of differences between the two forms of dangerous expression, arguing that they are morally insignificant. Once we appreciate the moral concerns that rightly move us to ban criminal incitement—without believing that we violate free speech in doing so—we will see that dangerous hate speech may permissibly be banned, too. About the speaker Jeff Howard is Lecturer in Political Theory and Normative Methods in the School of Public Policy at University College London. Previous Next

< Back Cracking the whip: The deliberative costs of strict party discipline Udit Bhatia, University of Oxford Tue 26 September 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This paper explores how strict party discipline over legislators can harm a legislative assembly’s deliberative capacity. I begin by showing different ways in which control over legislators can be exercised, and why some warrant more attention than others. Next, I discuss three ways in which such control stifles the discursive autonomy of legislators. In the third section, I outline two ways in which deliberation in the context of legislatures can be understood: the classical and distributed approach. The fourth section argues that the stifling of discursive autonomy of legislators imposes costs on deliberation in parliament, whether this is viewed in the classical or the distributed sense. In the fifth section, I outline different approaches we might adopt to party discipline in order to minimise its deliberative costs. About the speaker Udit Bhatia is a doctoral candidate and lecturer (Lady Margaret Hall) at the University of Oxford. His research interests lie at the intersections of democratic theory, political representation and social epistemology. He is currently examining the exclusion of persons from democratic citizenship on the basis of epistemic inferiority. 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

< Back Li-Chia Lo Associate About Li-Chia Lo has adopted the interpretivist approach to investigate the cross-cultural transformation of political ideas and he is curious about how introducing new ideas can trigger political participation and promote political communication. His broader areas of interest include critical theory, democratic theory, China studies, and Taiwan studies.

< Back Eda Keremoglu-Waibler Associate About Eda Keremoglu-Waibler's PhD research looks at the role of inclusionary and deliberative institutions in nondemocratic regimes, examining their impact on policy, the provision of public goods and regime stability. She lectures on authoritarian regimes as well as (political) cultural studies and public opinion research in Stuttgart.

< Back Luisa Batalha Associate About Luisa Batalha's work examines themes related to social identity and deliberative democracy, in addition to research on multiculturalism and prejudice, and the psychology of climate change. Luisa works at the Department of Psychology at the ANU and has conducted quantitative analysis on the Australian Citizens' Parliament.

< 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 The consensus project and three levels of deliberation Emmanuel Ani, University of Ghana Tue 5 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The basic argument is that the consensus debate has not been very meaningful until now because deliberation as well as issues for deliberation have not been categorized into different levels to expose the varying challenges of reaching common agreement and the kinds of deliberative approaches entailed in each category. The research attempts this categorization. The objective is to further clarify the debate and outline a few implications for further research regarding the viability of making consensus a stopping rule for deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is currently a Senior lecturer at the University of Ghana, Legon. He obtained a National Diploma (ND) and a Higher National Diploma (HND) in Mass Communication with Distinction from the Institute of Journalism, Management and Continuing Education, Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) Consult, a BA in Philosophy from the University of Ibadan, a B. Phil in Philosophy from the Pontificia Università Urbaniana Roma (Urban Pontifical University, Rome), Italy, an MA and a PhD in Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. Awarded best graduating student at graduate and post-graduate levels, he is a member of the Nigerian Philosophical Association. He was editor of Fact Magazine and is co-founder of Teleads Career Services. Previous Next

< Back Deliberation in an age of (un)civil resistance William Smith, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Tue 15 September 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Richard Spencer, an influential ‘Alt-Right’ provocateur, was punched in the face while giving an interview on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration as United States president. The assailant was affiliated with ‘Antifa’, an activist network committed to combatting the rise of far-right movements through confrontational and often violent means. Antifa are emblematic of a wave of movements whose tactics and conduct cannot be subsumed under the traditional category of nonviolent civil disobedience. There has, concurrently, been a surge of interest among political philosophers on the idea of ‘uncivil disobedience’, with a range of theorists converging on the view that there is often no compelling rationale for limiting dissent to the nonviolent repertoire associated with civil disobedience. This paper takes these political and theoretical developments as a catalyst for reconsidering deliberative democratic approaches to activism and protest. It argues that the tendency to frame protest through the catch-all category of ‘non-deliberative’ behavior elides the important distinction between civil and uncivil disobedience, treating as analogous forms of conduct that are quite different in terms of their potential consequences and their ethical complexion. The paper focuses in particular on the difficult case of violence, exploring the normative scope for deliberative theorists to treat it as a potentially legitimate mode of uncivil resistance. About the speaker William Smith is Associate Professor in Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He works in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on civil disobedience, deliberative democracy and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (Routledge 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including Ethics & International Affairs, The Journal of Political Philosophy, and Political Studies. Previous Next

< Back Learning to value nature? International organizations and the promotion of ecosystem services Hayley Stevenson, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella Tue 11 December 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The idea of valuing nature has become a core element of contemporary sustainable development and green economy agendas. This has been enabled by the widespread acceptance of the ‘ecosystems services’ concept, which tries to capture the value of the environment for human wellbeing. As the ecosystem services concept is embedded in development planning and economic policy-making, it is important to understand the opportunities it creates for environmental conservation and social development, and its inherent tensions and limitations. This requires a degree of reflexivity in policy-making to ensure that policies are informed by the historical lessons of ecosystem services experiments, the diverse knowledge of contemporary stakeholders, and self-critical awareness of uncertainty and multiple ontological perspectives. An international research team led by Hayley Stevenson and James Meadowcroft is studying the emergence and political uptake of this concept at international and national levels. In this presentation Hayley will share some initial findings about how nature valuation has been integrated into the work of international environmental and development agencies, and the patterns of reflexivity we observe. These findings also cast doubt on the political future of the ecosystem services concept. About the speaker Hayley Stevenson is Associate Professor in International Relations at the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella (Argentina), and Reader in Politics at the University of Sheffield (UK). She is the author of Institutionalizing Unsustainability, Democratizing Global Climate Governance (with John S. Dryzek), and Global Environmental Politics: Problems, Policy, and Practice. She is currently leading an international project with James Meadowcroft, “Ecosystem Services: Valuing Nature for Sustainable Development and a Green Economy”. Previous Next

< Back 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 Summary Violent extremism threatens human life and safety. Often overlooked is how violent extremists endanger the public sphere, which is comprised of the practices, institutions and actors that sustain communication about matters of common concern. Violent extremists seek to undermine the public sphere by sowing division, distrust, and fear. How should the public sphere respond to the threats posed by the violent extremism? The report, Building Democratic Resilience offers a framework for examining and improving the public sphere responses to violent extremism. It develops the concept of ‘democratic resilience’ drawing on the theory of deliberative democracy, and empirical research on countering violent extremism (CVE) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. It explains how ‘democratic resilience’ differs from and supplements ‘community resilience’, which is the current resilience framework used by the NSW Government. The report offers key insights for academics, public servants, policy makers and the journalists working to develop strategies for tackling violent extremism Read more Previous Next

< Back John Dore Associate About John Dore is the Lead Water Specialist for Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), based in Bangkok, working primarily across East Asia and South Asia. John’s academic interests in deliberative water governance complement his day-to-day engagement in international water diplomacy.

Former PhD student < Back Bora Kanra Former PhD student About Bora was the lead investigator of the ARC Discovery Project ‘Communication Across Difference in a Democracy: Australian Muslims and the Mainstream.’ He completed his PhD at the ANU, under the supervision of John Dryzek, about deliberative democracy in divided societies, focusing particularly on the case of Turkey.

< 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 DEMOCRACY BEFORE LIBERALISM IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Josiah Ober, Stanford University Tue 6 November 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What did democracy mean before it was hybridized as "liberal democracy"? Is democracy without liberalism necessarily illiberal, an oppressive tyranny of the majority? Combining history with political theory, this talk aims to restore the basic meaning of democracy as collective and limited self-government by citizens. That, rather than majority tyranny, is what democracy meant in ancient Athens, long before the development of modern liberalism. Participatory self-government is the basis of political practice in “Demopolis,” a hypothetical modern state sketched as a thought experiment. Demopolis’ residents aim to establish a reasonably secure, moderately prosperous, and non-tyrannical community, where citizens govern as a collective, both directly and through representatives. They willingly assume the costs of self-government because doing so benefits them, both as a group and individually. Basic democracy, as exemplified in real Athens and imagined Demopolis, can provide a stable political foundation for a liberal society. It may also offer a possible way forward for religious societies seeking a realistic alternative to autocracy. About the speaker Josiah Ober, Mitsotakis Professor in the School of Humanities and Science at Stanford, works on historical institutionalism and political theory, focusing on the political thought and practice of the ancient Greek world and its contemporary relevance. He is the author of a number of books mostly published by Princeton University Press, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), Political Dissent in Democratic Athens (2008), Democracy and Knowledge (2008). He has also published about 75 articles and chapters, including recent articles in American Political Science Review, Philosophical Studies, Hesperia, Polis, and Transactions of the American Philological Association. 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 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

Former PhD student < Back Carolyn Hendriks 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.