Search Results

< Back The norm-diffusing potential of minipublic Lala Muradova, University of Leuven Tue 4 February 2020 12:10pm - 1:10pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative minipublics are argued to be good for circulating ideas to the wider public sphere. Yet, so far, such accounts have not looked at the potential for mini publics to contribute to democratic systems by diffusing deliberative norms to a wider society. In this paper I build on the norm diffusion theory and diffusion of innovations scholarship, and argue that deliberative minipublics can enhance broader public deliberation, by acting as a conduit for the transmission of crucial deliberative norms to the public at large. In this task, I liken the role of minipublics to that of international organizations (IO) which have been central in diffusing the norms related, inter alia, to human rights, gender equality, war ethics, across and within states. Next, I suggest mechanisms by which minipublics can exercise influence on norm formation in the public. I conclude by suggesting new avenues for future theoretical and empirical research on the norm-diffusing function of minipublics. About the speaker Lala Muradova is a PhD Candidate at the Democratic Innovations & Legitimacy Group, University of Leuven. Her primary research interests lie at the intersection of political psychology and deliberative democracy. In her PhD project, she uses experimental research designs combined with observation of real-world deliberative practices, to study the cognitive and affective processes underlying political reasoning in deliberative and non-deliberative settings. Prof. Sofie Marien is the advisor of this PhD project. In 2019, she was awarded the Best Paper of the Democratic Innovations Section at the 2019 General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). Previous Next

< Back The people's duty Shmulik Nili, Australian National University Tue 1 August 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What is the moral way to respond to the domestic and international aspects of pervasive corruption, when disrupting such corruption might pose serious threats to political and economic stability? What is the moral way to respond to other abuses of public office – and other abuses of public coffers - in the face of such threats? How, more generally, should we deal with disturbing social, economic, and political practices given fears about destabilizing effects of reform? This book offers new answers to such political problems, by constructing two new normative frameworks associated with the people, as the collective agent in whose name modern political power is exercised. I contend, first, that there is distinctive normative value to thinking about the people in a liberal democracy as an agent with integrity that can be threatened, paralleling the integrity of an individual person. Specifically, I argue in favor of seeing the core project of a liberal legal system – realizing equal rights - as an identity-grounding project of the sovereign people, and thus as essential to the people’s integrity. Second, I pursue an analogous move with regard to the people’s property. I present a philosophical account of public property revolving around the proprietary claims that are intertwined in the sovereign people’s moral power to create property rights through the legal system. After developing these integrity and property frameworks, I elaborate their distinctive implications for a range of concrete policy problems around the world. I argue that ideas regarding the people’s integrity and property illuminate corruption scandals that threaten to topple the entire political class (as is currently the case in Brazil). These ideas also cast the practices of executive immunity and presidential pardons as violations of the law’s egalitarian commitments (thus challenging, for instance, the French and American constitutions). Examining Israel’s unstable politics, I further show how attention to the people’s integrity and property can advance our thinking about deeply divided societies. Finally, delving into policy problems surrounding odious debt, I demonstrate how ideas concerning the people’s integrity and property can guide our thinking about the international aspects of entrenched corruption. About the speaker I am a post-doctoral research fellow at the Australian National University's Research School of the Social Sciences (School of Philosophy). Starting in September 2017, I will be an assistant professor of political science at Northwestern University. I received my PhD in political science from Yale University (2016). My main research focuses on the moral assessment of global politics. This focus is informed by social science, by the history of political thought, and by a methodological emphasis on the practical task of political philosophy. My secondary research interests include meeting points between analytical and continental philosophy, as well as conflict and identity in my native Israel. 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

< Back Deliberating in the Anthropocene: Signs and sources of reflexive governance Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 22 September 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Many commentators believe that the Earth has entered a new geological epoch—the Anthropocene—marked by humanity’s pervasive impact on global ecosystems. Resulting patterns of environmental degradation pose major challenges for the planet’s inhabitants as well as for political institutions worldwide. John Dryzek has recently argued that in the Anthropocene institutions need to cultivate “ecosystemic reflexivity”, which involves “listening more effectively to an active Earth system, capacity to reconsider core values such as justice in this light, and ability to seek, receive and respond to early warnings about potential ecological state shifts” (Dryzek 2014). But what would ecosystemic reflexivity look like in practice and how could it could be cultivated? In this paper (co-authored with John Dryzek) we outline a preliminary typology of signs or indicators of ecosystemic reflexivity, and of factors that may enable or constrain reflexivity. Even if institutions may become reflexive through non-deliberative means, we argue—drawing on existing literature on deliberative systems and complex adaptive systems—that deliberative innovations hold considerable potential to promote reflexivity. In order to assess the strength of this argument in practice, we outline a planned case study on reflexivity in international institutions that fund development and environmental protection in low-income countries. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

Centre for Deliberative Democracy < Back Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Investigator(s): Centre for Deliberative Democracy Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal 17 - 19 November 2025 | University of Canberra The Democracy Reimagined: Advancing Democratic Resilience and Renewal Conference is hosted by the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Australia and New Zealand at the University of Canberra, in collaboration with the Australian National University and the Australian Resilient Democracy Research and Data Network. As democracies across the globe contend with significant threats, including deepening polarisation, rising extremism, and the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, the urgency of strengthening democratic resilience has never been greater. This conference brings together an international community of scholars and practitioners to deepen and expand the conversation around democratic resilience. Through engaging theoretical, empirical, and practice-oriented perspectives, we aim to address critical challenges such as declining trust in democratic institutions, the resurgence of far-right and anti-democratic actors, polarisation, violent extremism, and the role of political institutions, democratic innovations, civil society, and grassroots movements in creating a more resilient democracy. We look forward to robust discussion on the assessment and implementation of democratic renewal across diverse contexts. The conference provides an opportunity to share practical strategies, forge new connections, and collectively contribute to renewed democratic scholarship and practice. Please see the attached program for further details: Democracy Reimagined Conference Program .pdf Download PDF • 9.73MB Any queries should be directed to Dr Emily Foley ( emily.foley@canberra.edu.au ).

Former PhD student < Back Nardine Alnemr Former PhD student About Nardine Alnemr researches algorithms in deliberative democracy. Her research interest also includes internet governance and digital rights. She currently works with Professor Nicole Curato on citizen deliberation in the Global South.

< Back Decision makers with a deliberative stance? The hidden world of public deliberation between ministers and their publics Carolyn Hendriks, Australian National University Tue 7 June 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In this seminar I will discuss a work-in-progress paper that I am currently co-authoring with Associate Professor Jennifer Lees Marshment, University of Auckland. Much of the democratic burden in deliberative democracy rests on effective communication taking place between potentially affected publics and those empowered to make decisions. Yet remarkably little is known about the way contemporary decision makers receive and make collective sense of multiple forms of public input. In our paper we prise open this ‘black box’ by discussing ground breaking empirical findings on how senior political decision makers themselves understand the relationship between public input and their work. An analysis over 50 interviews with former ministers and state secretaries in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand finds that political leaders based at the federal or national level view public input as an integral component of their work. Decision makers place a high premium on personal interactions with the public, such as conversations with individual citizens, or one-one-one exchanges with affected groups. In these informal interactions, decision makers connect with everyday people, hear ‘real world’ stories and learn how issues affect people’s lives. This represents a hidden world of public deliberation taking place between decision makers and their publics that has hitherto been hidden from debates in deliberative democracy. The paper considers what these findings imply for public deliberation, particularly the place of leaders and executive government in contemporary deliberative systems. Please find here the paper. About the speaker Carolyn M. Hendriks is an Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Her work examines democratic aspects of contemporary governance, particularly with respect to participation, deliberation, inclusion and representation. She has taught and published widely on democratic innovation, public deliberation, network governance and environmental politics. Carolyn is an appointed member of newDemocracy's Research Committee and sits on the editorial board of several international journals, including the European Journal of Political Research. Previous Next

< Back DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS:JOHN GASTIL IN CONVERSATION WITH NARDINE ALNEMR This is the final seminar in our Media, Digital Communication, and Deliberative Democracy series. About this event Digital platforms provide new potentials and challenges to deliberative democracy. In his recent works, Professor John Gastil argues that we need to advance the potential of online deliberation by seeking commitment from political actors and increasing their responsiveness to citizens. Join us in this conversation to explore questions about using digital platforms in deliberative democracy, changes in deliberative thinking about the potential of online deliberation, and some of the persistent challenges such as inclusion. John Gastil (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil’s research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, and American juries. His most recent books are Hope for Democracy (Oxford, 2020) with Katherine R. Knobloch, Legislature by Lot (Verso, 2019) with Erik Olin Wright, and two novels published in 2020, including the near-future sci-fi Gray Matters about the interplay of Alzheimer's, American politics, and artificial intelligence. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . 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 Hope for democracy John Gastil, Pennsylvania State University / Katherine R. Knobloch, Colorado State University Tue 2 June 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Concerned citizens across the globe fear that democracy is failing them, but civic reformers are crafting new tools that bring back into politics the wider public and its capacity for reason. This book spotlights one such innovation—the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR). Each review gathers a random sample of twenty voters to study a statewide ballot measure. These citizen panelists interrogate advocates, opponents, and experts and distill what they learn into a one-page analysis for the official Voters’ Pamphlet. The Oregon government permanently established the CIR in 2011, and reformers have tested it in locations across the United States and Europe. This book introduces the citizen activists responsible for the development of the CIR, as well as key participants at the inaugural CIR whose experiences changed their lives. Along with these stories, this book provides evidence of the CIR’s impact on voters, who not only make better decisions as a result of reading the citizen analysis but also change the way they understand their role in government. The CIR fits into a larger set of deliberative reforms occurring around the world and into a long history of democratic experiments that stretch back through the American revolution to ancient Athens. The book weaves together historical vignettes, contemporary research, and personal narratives to show how citizens, civic reformers, and politicians can work together to revitalize modern democracy. About the speaker John Gastil is a professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is a senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil's research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, especially how small groups of people make decisions on public issues. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens' Parliament, jury deliberation, and cultural cognition. In July of this year, UK imprint Cosmic Egg will publish Gastil's first novel. Gray Matters is a near-future sci-fi tale about the limits of AI and the prospects for--what else?--deliberation. And it prominently features an Aussie transplant, who's slang was enhanced by none other than the irreverent Dr. Lyn Carson. Katie Knobloch is Assistant Professor and Associate Director of the Center for Public Deliberation in the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State University. Her research focuses on creating a more informed and engaged citizenry and explores the impact of deliberative participation on individuals and communities. She earned her PhD in communication from the University of Washington, and she has received National Science Foundation funding to study the expansion of the Citizens’ Initiative Review beyond Oregon. Her work has appeared in The Journal of Applied Communication Research, American Politics Research, Public Administration, and The International Journal of Communication. With John Gastil, she is the author of Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back into Politics (Oxford, 2020). Previous Next

< Back The Ethics of Multiple Citizenship Ana Tanasoca 2018 , Cambridge University Press Summary Citizenship is no longer an exclusive relationship. Many people today are citizens of multiple countries, whether by birth, naturalization, or even through monetary means, with schemes fast-tracking citizenship applications from foreigners making large investments in the state. Moral problems surround each of those ways of acquiring a second citizenship, while retaining one's original citizenship. Multiple citizenship can also have morally problematic consequences for the coherence of collective decisions, for the constitution of the demos, and for global inequality. The phenomenon of multiple citizenship and its ramifications remains understudied, despite its magnitude and political importance. In this innovative book, Ana Tanasoca explores these issues and shows how they could be avoided by unbundling the rights that currently come with citizenship and allocating them separately. It will appeal to scholars and students of normative political theory, citizenship, global justice, and migration in political science, law, and sociology. Read more Previous Next

< Back Democracy inside: Participatory innovation in unlikely places Albert W. Dzur, Bowling Green State University Tue 1 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract This talk will present a brief overview of research on democratic professionals across the United States who have created power-sharing arrangements in organizations, institutions, and workplaces that are typically hierarchical and non-participatory. Democratic professionals emphasize talk and deliberation but, crucially, they also foster physical proximity between formerly separated individuals, encourage co-ownership of problems previously seen as beyond lay people’s ability or realm of responsibility, and seek out opportunities for collaborative work. Unconventional activists, they are not promoting change via formal political institutions; instead, they are renovating and reconstructing their domains practice-by-practice and are making new kinds of education, justice, and government as a result. Drawing on a friendly critique of major trends in contemporary democratic theory, this talk will focus on the implications of this research for thinking about democratic change, citizen agency, and institutions as fields of action. About the Speaker Albert W. Dzur is Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Punishment, Participatory Democracy, and the Jury (Oxford, 2012), Democratic Professionalism: Citizen Participation and the Reconstruction of Professional Ethics, Identity, and Practice (Penn State, 2008), and articles on democratic theory and citizen participation in journals such as Constellations, Criminal Law and Philosophy, Law and Society Review, Political Theory, and Punishment and Society. Working with the Kettering Foundation on his current book project, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, he has interviewed democratic innovators in education, criminal justice, and city government about how they open their institutions to deliberation and participation and sustain such norms and practices amid counter-democratic pressures. Project interviews regularly appear in his “Trench Democracy” series for the Boston Review and “Conversations on Participatory Democracy” for the Good Society journal. Previous Next

< Back Should democracies permit citizens to select refugees for admission and resettlement? Patti Tamara Lenard, University of Ottawa Tue 7 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl Room, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract One way that states discharge their duties to refugees is by admitting them for resettlement. Of the millions of refugees in places of refuge, only one million are specially designated by the UNHCR for resettlement in third countries. These individuals, identified by the UNCHR as either especially vulnerable, or particularly unlikely to find any alternative permanent solution, are prioritized for admission to third countries for resettlement. Of these, only a small number are actually selected by host countries for resettlement, however; last year, just over 100 000 found permanent homes in third countries. In this article, I take all of this context seriously, to consider the ethics of one particular way of selecting refugees for resettlement, that is, by giving citizens the driver’s seat in selecting refugees for admission to resettlement. I ask, in this article, whether it is morally acceptable to permit citizens of democracies to select specific refugees for resettlement, under the condition that they are willing to support – financially and emotionally – those whom they select. I argue, ultimately, that there are moral goods that derive from permitting citizens to select refugees for admission, but that they do not outweigh the importance of offering scarce resettlement spots to those who are most in need. Therefore, any democratic refugee admission scheme that permits citizens to select refugees must constrain those who can be named for admission to those who are most in need. I conclude with some proposals for how this can be achieved. About the speaker Patti Tamara Lenard is Associate Professor of Ethics in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa. She is the author of Trust, Democracy and Multicultural Challenges (Penn State, 2012). Her work has been published in a range of journals, including Political Studies, Ethics and International Affairs, Review of Politics, and Ethics and Global Politics. Her current research focuses on the moral questions raised by migration across borders in an era of terrorism, especially as it pertains to refugees and irregularly present migrants, trust and social cohesion, and democratic theory more generally. Her most recent work, focused on the moral dilemmas posed by denationalization for terror-related crimes, is newly published in the American Political Science Review (2018). Previous Next

< 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 ecologies: Viewing deliberative systems as complex systems Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 12 June 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The ‘systemic turn’ in deliberative democratic theory has yielded valuable insights on how individual sites of deliberation – from parliamentary debates to citizens’ juries and community meetings – interact as parts of a broader deliberative system. This body of work invokes selected ideas from transdisciplinary research on systems, such as the notion that a system as a whole may have characteristics that cannot be reduced to those of its parts. However, there is much more in the broader repertoire of systems/complexity theory that could shed light on how deliberative systems operate and how they could be improved. In this paper I identify several features of complex systems that are relevant for understanding deliberative systems, including feedback loops and non-linear dynamics. I then show how two nascent concepts in research on deliberative systems – ‘deliberative ecologies’ (Mansbridge et al 2012) and ‘deliberative networks’ (Knops 2016) – could be elaborated through a complex systems lens. About the speaker Jonathan joined the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in 2015. He is a Postdoctoral Fellow working with Professor John Dryzek on his Australian Research Council Laureate Fellowship project, ‘Deliberative Worlds: Democracy, Justice and a Changing Earth System’. He completed his PhD in philosophy at the Australian National University, based in the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory and graduating in 2014. His thesis explored opportunities for reaching a fair agreement between developing and developed countries in global climate change negotiations. Before joining the University of Canberra he taught climate and environmental policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU, and has been a Visiting Fellow at the Development Policy Centre at ANU since 2014. Jonathan’s research interests include the ethical and political dimensions of global climate change policy, global environmental governance, development policy and ethics, and global justice. He has a Masters' degree in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), and undergraduate degrees in arts and law from the University of Sydney. Previously he worked as a policy and program manager with the Australian Government's international development assistance program (AusAID, 2003-09). Previous Next

< Back Emily Foley Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Emily Foley researches social democratic and centre-left parties, focusing on party politics, political organisation, and participation in Australia. Her work also explores immigration policy-making and labour rights, with an interest in the intersection of democratic governance and social justice. Emily is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She is currently working on the Australian Research Council-funded Discovery Project Democratic Resilience: The Public Sphere and Extremist Attacks (2021–25). She is also a co-convener of the Australian Political Studies Association Political Organisation and Participation (POP) caucus.

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

< Back DELIBERATION IN TRANSITIONS: A PRACTITIONER'S REFLECTIONS FROM NEPAL AND AFGHANISTAN George Varughese, Niti Foundation Tue 5 March 2019 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In the last two decades Nepal and Afghanistan have undergone significant governance transitions, drafting and implementing ambitious new constitutions in the wake of civil conflict. In this talk, George Varughese will reflect on 25 years of personal involvement as a development practitioner in these countries, with an emphasis on recent Nepal experiences. While in both contexts, deliberative spaces were created to facilitate transitions in governance regimes, the subsequent constitutional and legal/regulatory scaffolding for state restructuring reflect minimal deliberation and public engagement. The formal and informal elite interests that captured these spaces continue to constrain the countries’ constitutional and democratic development in order to maintain impunity and extract rent. In this light, the talk will highlight challenges in supporting the publicness of policy making in Nepal, focusing on the need for the practical choices in transforming the country’s political and legal institutions, which is necessary for durable deliberative discourse to inhere in public life. About the speaker George Varughese is Senior Advisor for Niti Foundation and convenes its Strategic Advisory Group that makes broadly available analysis, guidance, and recommendations for implementing federalism in Nepal. George has 24 years of experience in international development and academia, with expertise in thought leadership/facilitation in governance with a political economy & conflict specialization and skills in strategic analysis & advice, fundraising, program design & delivery, and policy development & navigation. Most recently, George represented The Asia Foundation in Nepal (2009-2018) and Afghanistan (2005-2009), managing programs on transitional political processes and constitutional development; capacity-building initiatives in the center of government; subnational governance; conflict-transformation and peace building; women’s advancement & security; and public education and discourse on democratic political processes and rule of law. He has also provided technical assistance in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Timor Leste. George is interested and involved in the institutional design of partnerships between local communities, private sector, and government officials, particularly on post-conflict development management, peacebuilding, local governance, and civic engagement. Most recently, George delivered the 2017 Howard Baker Distinguished Lecture in International Security and Development at the University of Tennessee and published “Development aid architecture and the conditions for peacebuilding and human rights in conflict-affected areas: Does the framework fit the purpose?” in Journal of Human Rights Practice (Special Issue on Human Rights and Peacebuilding, 2017, pp. 1-12). He was 2015-16 Excellence Chair and Professor in Global and Area Studies at the University of Wyoming, 2010 Senior Visiting Fellow of The Australian National University's Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, and 2008 Senior International Fellow of the City University of New York's Graduate Center for Philanthropy and Civil Society. He holds a Joint Ph.D. in Political Science & Public Administration from Indiana University, Bloomington. Previous Next

< Back EXPLORING THE BARRIERS AND ENABLERS OF INTERCULTURAL ENGAGEMENT IN AUSTRALIA: THE CASE OF INDIAN DIASPORA IN CANBERRA Australian multiculturalism, while a successful project and policy framework since the 1970s, does not emphasise intercultural engagement in its practice and thus fails to promote interaction at a micro, community level. Advancing intercultural engagement is a key for the future of multiculturalism in Australia. Only by making multiculturalism more interactive, Australia can respond to the emerging ‘super-diversity’ in this country. This research will seek to understand the enablers and barriers of intercultural engagement through an in-depth study of the Indian diaspora in Canberra as a case study. While Indian diaspora is only one ethnic community among many others, it is a suitable case for exploring the questions this research seeks to respond to. The project will offer new insights on how different actors perceive and practice intercultural engagement focusing on three different yet interconnected levels of analysis within the public domain- the public, civic actors, and government agencies. It will involve interviews with key actors, focus groups with the members of Indian diaspora and document analysis of policy documents with respect to multiculturalism and intercultural engagement. The project is funded by the industry partnership between University of Canberra/Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Canberra Multicultural Services (CMS). Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Previous Next

Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, John S. Dryzek, and Peter Balint < Back Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Extremism Investigator(s): Selen A. Ercan, Jordan McSwiney, John S. Dryzek, and Peter Balint Project Description How should the public sphere institutions and actors respond to the threats posed by the violent extremism? Drawing on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, this project seeks to develop a framework for assessing and improving the public sphere responses to violent extremism in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. It seeks to explain how ‘democratic resilience’ differs from and supplements ‘community resilience’, which is the current resilience framework used by the NSW Government. The project will provide practical recommendations for public servants, policy makers and the journalists working to develop strategies for tackling violent extremism. While the primary focus of the project is NSW Government CVE practice, the project takes a broader approach and engages with both national and international practice in tackling violent extremism. The project is funded by the NSW Government, Premier and Cabinet, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Program 2022. Project Outputs Ercan, S. A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. S. (2022). Building Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism . Technical Report for Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW, Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Program. Public Engagement Ercan, S.A, McSwiney, J., and Balint, P. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience. Preliminary Findings and Recommendations , NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 23 March (virtual). Ercan, S.A. (2022) Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Practice, NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 19 May (virtual). Ercan, S.A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience , NSW Government Stakeholders, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Connected Communities, 8 June (virtual). Balint, P., McSwiney, J. and Ercan, S.A. (2022) Learning Democratic Resilience , Resilient Democracy for Resilient Communities, Charles Sturt University, Sydney, 23 August. Ercan, S.A., McSwiney, J., Balint, P. (2022) Contemporary Threats to the Public Sphere , Panel at the Australian Political Studies Association General Conference, Australian National University, Canberra, 26-28 September. McSwiney, J., Ercan, S.A. and Balint, P. (2022) Report Launch and Panel Discussion: Building Democratic Resilience , Freilich Project for the Study of Bigotry , Australian National University, Canberra, 13 October. Recording available here . McSwiney, J. (2022) Future Flux , Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Canberra, 17 October. McSwiney, J. (2022) Democratic Resilience: Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism , Threat Briefing Webinar #14 , Charles Sturt University, 27 October (virtual). McSwiney, J., Ercan, S.A, Balint, P., and Dryzek, J. (2022) Building Democratic Resilience: How the Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism . AVERT Research Symposium , Deakin University, Melbourne, 21-22 November. Ercan, S.A. and McSwiney, J. (2023) Building Democratic Resilience, Connected Communities—Strengthening Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience , NSW Government, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Sydney, 16 March (virtual).