Search Results

John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato < Back Creating And Analysing A Citizens' Parliament: Exploring The Public's Deliberative Capacity Investigator(s): John Dryzek, Lyn Carson, Simon Niemeyer, Janette Hartz-Karp, Ian Marsh, Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Luisa Batalha, Nicole Curato Funded through Linkage Project (LP0882714) ($291,575), the Project Team includes: John Dryzek, Chief Investigator Lyn Carson, Chief Investigator Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Janette Hartz-Karp, Chief Investigator Ian Marsh, Chief Investigator Luca Belgiorno-Nettis, Partner Investigator Luisa Batalha, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Nicole Curato, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Webpage http://www.citizensparliament.org.au/ Project Description The pioneering Australian Citizens’ Parliament was held in February 2009 in Old Parliament House, Canberra. The participants were 150 ordinary Australians, selected by stratified random sampling, one from each federal electoral district. They deliberated the question ‘How can Australia’s political system be strengthened to serve us better?’ The project generated a mountain of quantitative and qualitative data which is now being analysed. You can find out more by viewing the informational video of the process.

Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman < Back Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Investigator(s): Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Funded through James Cook University, the Project Team includes: Claudia Benham Simon Niemeyer Hannah Barrowman Project Description Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman are collaborating with Claudia Benham (James Cook University) in a project trialling deliberative engagement on the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The three-day Citizens’ Jury examines issues of reef management and regional economic development in the context of climate change.

< Back Power in high-stake deliberative settings: Analytical insights from linguistics Simona Zimmermann, University of Stuttgart Tue 28 November 2017 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract What role does power have in real-world mini-publics with real-life consequences? This question has hardly been studied. Yet, experiences from high-stake settings of deliberation that have consequences for participants’ everyday lives - for example in respect to their reputation and relations in the local polity - are highly relevant for integrating deliberative mini-publics in everyday-political life. Based on this reflection, the presented research project seeks to understand the meaning and role of power in the relational network among participants in citizen assemblies of a local small-scale participatory budget institution in Berlin’s district Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). These assemblies discuss and decide over the distribution of a fixed budget among neighbourhood projects which is a competence rarely ceded to citizens by German authorities. For analysis, assemblies are videotaped and studied ethnomethodologically based on a relational approach. The presentation will focus on the contributions linguistics can make to the analysis of power relations in deliberative settings. About the speaker Simona Zimmermann is a PhD candidate in political sciences at the University of Stuttgart (Prof. André Bächtiger). She holds a Master degree in Empirical Social and Political Analysis of the University of Stuttgart and a Diploma and Master from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques (SciencesPo) Bordeaux. Her research interests include deliberative forms of citizen participation and politics in urban planning. She aims at working inter- and transdisciplinary in order to develop solutions for societal challenges. In her PhD project Simona analyses relations of power in deliberative mini publics under a network perspective by qualitative methods of inquiry. Case study is a local participatory budget in Berlin Treptow-Köpenick (Germany). Before obtaining a scholarship from the national talent program (Friedrich-Ebert Foundation), Simona worked in an interdisciplinary research group on sustainable urban mobility (Institute of Urban Design, University of Stuttgart). Here, she occasionally teaches concepts and methods of the social sciences to students in urban planning and architecture. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back UC Postdoctoral Fellow wins 2022 Rising Star Award from leading European political science association We are thrilled that our Centre's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has received the ECPR Rising Star Award for his achievements as an early career researcher. This award is presented annually, through the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). ECPR, of which the University of Canberra is a member institution, is the leading European academic association with a mission to advance political science, Recipients of the award are given the opportunity to develop their networks and skills in the field of politics and international relations. “For me, the award shows that critical voices are important, are heard and are appreciated in our society – I've always tried to make a case for inclusion and for sensitivity to our identities,” Dr Asenbaum said. Read more

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Digital Media and the Public Sphere Seminars this May This May, Eminent scholars Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek will be featured in three seminars: Axel Bruns | The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation 2 May John Dryzek | Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times 9 May Both scholars - Panel Discussion | Future-Proofing the Public Sphere 16 May Seminars take place from 11:00am to 12:30pm 1. The Filter in Our (?) Heads: Digital Media and Polarisation – Professor Axel Bruns Climate change, Brexit, Trump, COVID, Ukraine: there is hardly a major topic in contemporary public debate online that does not attract heated discussion, entrenched partisanship, widespread misinformation, and conspiracy theorists. Rational, evidence-based contributions often fail to cut through while affective polarisation is prevalent and difficult to overcome. Professor Bruns argues that the simplistic view of these developments is that digital and social media has disrupted the traditional ‘public sphere’, enveloped us all in ‘echo chambers’ and ‘filter bubbles’ that contain our narrow ideologies, ushering in the post-truth age. But he points out that these explanations have been debunked as not acknowledging the full complexity of the present moment in public communication. Professor Axel Bruns is an ARC Laureate Fellow (2021-2026) and Professor at the Digital Media Research Centre at QUT. Chaired by Dr Katarina Esau Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 2. Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times – Professor John Dryzek Most people forget that, in spite of the advance of democracy in the 1990s and 2000s, most states and empires throughout history have been inhospitable to democracy. What’s new about our bad times for democracy is that they have seen new forms of public and political communication in what Professor Dryzek refers to as a diabolical soundscape . However, given the chance, citizens and ‘publics’ can avoid manipulation and polarization, reach well-reasoned positions, and join public conversations in deliberative systems that also involve the media, leaders, and activists. Deliberative democracy is a communication-centric approach and offers a chance to rethink democracy. What’s more, this can begin with the deliberative practices that all societies already possess. Professor John Dryzek was an ARC Laureate Fellow (2014-2020) and Professor at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Chaired by Dr Adele Webb Building 24 at the University of Canberra (in the research centres' meeting room) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429 3. Future-Proofing the Public Sphere - Professor Axel Bruns and Professor John Dryzek The two previous seminars will culminate in an panel event on Tuesday 16 May in room 23B05 at the University of Canberra (and on Zoom). The two scholars, who hold vastly different perspectives on the challenges the public sphere faces in the age of digital communications , will then discuss their unique perspectives, and address questions from the audience. Chaired by Professor Selen A. Ercan Building 23, Room B05 at the University of Canberra (above Retro Cafe) Zoom link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7220752429

< 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 Inclusion and state capacity in authoritarian regimes Eda Keremoglu-Waibler, University of Stuttgart Tue 4 October 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Authoritarian regimes have gained renewed scholarly attention in recent years. This is due not only to the persisting number of such regimes, but also to the variation in authoritarian performance. While some authoritarian regimes provide high standards of living for their citizens, others fail to deliver basic public goods. Performance, however, is considered to be a crucial factor conducive to regime persistence. Previous research predominantly assesses formal institutions and broad regime types to account for the variation in performance. However, the role of more fine-grained institutions for citizens’ welfare has been largely neglected. This presentation aims to address this gap by arguing that institutions enforcing both the inclusion of societal interests and state capacity are conducive to policy performance. While the inclusion of public interests is advanced by consultative decision-making, its impact on performance is contingent on favourable conditions for policy enforcement. In order to evaluate this proposition, I present preliminary results of a cross-sectional analysis which investigates the joint impact of consultation and bureaucratic strength on infant mortality rates as a key measure of social performance. The findings are supportive of the assumption: The interaction of consultation and bureaucratic strength is systematically linked to higher performance. When state capacity is high, consultative decision-making does matter for the welfare of citizens. About the speaker Ms Eda Keremoglu-Waibler is an associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. She holds a MA in Political Science and is a PhD candidate under the supervision of Prof André Bächtiger at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart. Her PhD research examines the role of inclusionary and deliberative institutions in nondemocratic regimes. Taking a quantitative approach, she particularly focuses on their impact on policy, the provision of public goods and regime stability. In Stuttgart, she lectures on authoritarian regimes as well as (political) cultural studies and public opinion research. Previous Next

< Back Exploring injustice and the common good in local-scale biosafety deliberations in Costa Rica Sergio Guillen, Australian National University Tue 5 August 2014 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract I present the rationale and methodology for a study of two elements involved in local-level public deliberation about genetically modified crops in Costa Rica. The first of these elements concerns injustice frames, an aspect of issue framing that entails a sense of outrage towards particular institutions or individuals on whom significant blame is laid for the grievances that spark collective action (Gamson, 1992; Johnston & Noakes, 2005). The second element relates to common-good orientation, which constitutes a central normative ideal of deliberative democracy, through which participants search for “a point of commonality to serve as the foundation for legitimate norms” (Chambers, 1996, p. 103). Both of these aspects continue to fuel important debates in the theoretical and empirical study of deliberative democracy. With regard to injustice frames, these are regarded, from a social movement perspective, as essential for driving collective action, which in turn nurtures discursive contestation in the public sphere, something highly valued by critical deliberative democrats (Dryzek, 2000; Rostboll, 2008). However, from a perspective of ideal deliberation, frames are related to aspects of symbolic manipulation that can distort the public will (Niemeyer, 2011) and hinder the type of reciprocal and reflexive exchange desirable in deliberation, by inducing a dismissal or committed opposition to the perspectives of others (Calvert & Warren, forthcoming). As for common good orientation, there has been a strong debate regarding its implications for the role and admissibility of self-interest in deliberation (Mansbridge, et al., 2010; Steiner, 2012). Moreover, a tension exists between both elements, since a greater prevalence of injustice frames can generate greater reluctance to explore a shared understanding of the public good with those blamed for the injustice. I argue that an interpretative approach can help understand how a widespread grassroots movement opposing the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Costa Rica has incorporated injustice frames into its approach to claim spaces in local environmental governance, and how the use of these frames has affected the orientation towards generalizable interests in public deliberations in community organizing settings and in municipal hearings. I present the strengths and limitations of the approach and connect it to a broader research project to explore the effects on deliberative quality of grassroots environmental collective action in Costa Rica. About the speaker Sergio Guillen is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, and a visiting Ph.D. student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Between 2008 and 2013 he worked as Senior Specialist in Social Dialogue at the Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM) and as trans-boundary water governance consultant for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Costa Rica and Central America. He holds a B.Eng. in Mechanical Engineering from Carleton University (Canada), a Graduate Certificate in Natural Resources and Organization Management from the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (United States), and an M.A. in Environmental Security and Peace from the UN-affiliated University for Peace (Costa Rica) Previous Next

< Back Jonathan Kuyper Associate and Former PhD Student About Jonathan Kuyper is a political theorist and international relations scholar working mainly with democratic theory, with a special focus on deliberative democracy. He is interested in how democratic theory can be employed to understand changes in domestic politics brought about by globalization, as well as offers ways to respond to these changes.

< Back Bridging the democratic divide? The European Citizens' Initiative, demoi and inclusion in the EU Lucy Hatton, University of Warwick Tue 12 May 2015 12:00 – 1:00 pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract The European Citizens’ Initiative has been put forward by the EU as part of the answer to its ongoing crisis of democratic legitimacy, but it is yet to be determined to what extent the ECI is able to live up to these expectations. Critical to an answer to this question will be achieving a certain level of inclusivity, which is closely linked to the question of the demos. By applying recent developments from the democratic theory literature, specifically those related to demoi and representation, this article addresses the extent to which the ECI has the potential to impact on the inclusivity of EU policy making. In responding to three questions of inclusivity (who is included, is any individual or group excluded, and are included individuals granted an equal voice?) with regard to the ECI rules and practical functioning, and by drawing on the case of the Right2Water campaign, it is possible to see that there is reason for both optimism and doubt. Importantly, the ECI may have consequences for inclusivity unanticipated by the EU institutions, not least as a means by which CSO representatives can bring multiple demoi into existence, and as a channel through which these demoi can act in pursuit of their interests? About the speaker Lucy Hatton is a final year PhD student at the University of Warwick, UK, and a visiting scholar at Griffith University, Brisbane. Her doctoral thesis asks what impact the European Citizens' Initiative can have on the democratic legitimacy of the EU and draws on questions of citizenship, epistemic democracy, participation and democratic innovation. Previous Next

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Building Democratic Resilience - Report Launch On 13 October, we launched the report Building Democratic Resilience - Public Sphere Responses to Violent Extremism, commissioned by the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet. The launch took place at the ANU, hosted by the F reilich Project for the Study of Bigotry . Panelists included Dr Jordan McSwiney, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance (CDDGG) at the University of Canberra, Dr Emily Corner, Senior Lecturer of Criminology at the Centre for Social Research and Methods at the Australian National University, and Pia van de Zandt, Director of the Connected Communities team in Department of Premier and Cabinet, NSW. Pictured: Selen A. Ercan (CDDGG), Peter Balint (UNSW), Pia van de Zandt (NSW Government) and Jordan McSwiney (CDDGG)

< Back Peter Bridgewater Adjunct About Peter Bridgewater is an expert in environmental science and management. His expertise spans conservation and biodiversity, natural resource management , ecology, wildlife and habitat management, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander environmental knowledge. His expertise in public and environmental policy has been sought in internationally.

John S. Dryzek < Back Genome Editing: Formulating an Australian Community Response Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek

< Back Lucy J. Parry Senior Research Associate About Lucy J. Parry is a Research Associate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. She is currently the project manager of Monitoring Deliberative Integrity in Australia and a collaborator on the Australian citizens’ jury on genome editing . Prior to her current role she was a Research Associate with Participedia and has documented hundreds of cases and methods of democratic innovation around the world on their crowd-sourced, open access database. Her research interests include deliberative systems, deliberative mini-publics and democratic innovations, and animal ethics. Uniting these areas is a commitment to bring deliberative theory and practice together, along with her methodological expertise in Q Methodology. She has authored a number of publications and presented her research at international conferences in Australia, Austria and the U.K. Her current research explores the impacts and integrity of deliberative mini-publics. Key Publications Jean-Paul Gagnon, Paul Emiljanowicz, Lucy J. Parry, Bomikazi Zeka, Nick Vlahos, Angela Tan-Kantor, Alex Prior, Adrian Bua, and John Hawkins (2022) TaxTrack’: Introducing a Democratic Innovation for Taxation. Australasian Parliamentary Review. Parry, L.J., Asenbaum, H. & Ercan, S.E. (2021). Democracy in flux: a systemic view on the impact of COVID-19. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 15(2): 197-205. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2020-0269 Parry, L.J. & Ercan, S.A. (2020). Using Participedia to study the impacts of mini-publics. Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance Working Paper 2020/02 . Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Parry, L.J., Alver, J. & Thompson, N. (2019). Democratic Innovation in Australasia. In Elstub, S. & Escobar, O. (2019). Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433862 Parry, L.J. (2019). Discourses on foxhunting in the public sphere: a Q methodological study. British Politics. 14, 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-018-0089-5 Parry, L.J. (2017). Don’t put all your speech-acts in one basket: situating animal activism in the deliberative system. Environmental Values, 26(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14976900137340 Full list of publications available in GoogleScholar . Teaching Tutor, Language Center, Webster Vienna Private University. 2017-2021. Tutor, Public Policy and Administration, Faculty of Business, Government and Law, University of Canberra. 2017. Graduate Teaching Assistant, History of Western Political Thought, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield. 2014-2016. Administration Co-editor of the Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 2023-present. Editor of the Deliberative Democracy Digest, 2023-present. Co-editor, BroadAgenda, 50/50 by 2030 Foundation, 2017. Public Engagement Parry, L.J., Asenbaum, H., and Ercan, S. A. (2021) Recipes for democratic participation during the pandemic: from anti-lockdown protest to a participatory system. Agora . 15 March. Parry, L.J. (2017) #MeToo and Me: the transformative power in numbers, BroadAgenda , 20 October. Curato, N. and Parry, L.J. (2017) Deliberative Democracy must rise to the threat of populist rhetoric. The Conversation . 7 June.

< Back George Varughese Associate About George Varughese has expertise in international development and academia, thought leadership and facilitation in governance, specialising in political economy & conflict. His is known for his skills in strategic analysis & advice, fundraising, program design & delivery, and policy development & navigation.

< 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

< Back What exactly is voting to consensual deliberation? Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, University of Ghana Tue 27 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract There have been two parallel views regarding the role of voting in deliberation. The first is that deliberation before the fabrication of balloting was completely devoid of voting. The second is that voting is, not just part of deliberation, but is standard to deliberation. I argue in this article that neither of these views is correct. Implicit voting has always existed across time and space but only as a last resort in the event of a failure of natural unanimity. What is relatively modern is the establishment of what I call explicit voting, namely, balloting, outside deliberation and often without deliberation. I also distinguish between natural and artificial unanimities, and clarify that artificial unanimities are products of implicit voting. I demonstrate these clarifications with some examples of deliberation. I deploy these clarifications to rid a certain debate of confusion regarding the precise role of voting in consensual deliberation. About the speaker Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani is a Senior Lecturer and has taught Critical Thinking for several years at the University of Ghana, Accra. He holds 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 Political Philosophy from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria. He is the University of Ghana external assessor for affiliate institutions on Logic and Critical Thinking. He was the Chair of Long Essay, Library and Graduate Studies, Department of Philosophy and Classics, University of Ghana. He briefly visited the Centre for Deliberative Democracy, Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra (November-December 2017), and is one of the Associate Editors at the Journal of Deliberative Democracy. He has published in many high impact journals including Philosophical Papers, Journal of Political Philosophy, Philosophia, South African Journal of Philosophy, African Studies Quarterly, and Canadian Philosophical Review. He is a contributor to the Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, and the winner of the 2018 University of Ghana Humanities Provost Publication Award (Mid-Career Category). Previous Next

Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson < Back Social Adaptation to Climate Change in the Australian Public Sphere: A comparison of individual and group deliberative responses to scenarios of future climate change Investigator(s): Simon Niemeyer, Will Steffen, Brendan Mackey, Janette Lindesay and Kersty Hobson Funded by Discovery Project (DP0879092) ($378,500), the Project Team includes: Simon Niemeyer, Chief Investigator Will Steffen, Chief Investigator Brendan Mackey, Chief Investigator Janette Lindesay, Chief Investigator Kersty Hobson, Chief Investigator Project Description This project develops an understanding of Australia’s response to climate change and ways to improve adaptation from a governance perspective. An interdisciplinary team will construct and use original climate change scenarios to assess public responses through interviews, survey methods, contrasting individual responses with results of deliberative forums and follow up interviews. Significant developments in methods and concepts and understanding of adaptation will have an international audience.It will produce a series of regionally specific scenarios, statement of likely responses and role of institutional design and policy in improving adaptation.

Latest News - Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance < Back Deliberative Democracy and Refugees: Ensuring they have a voice Our PhD student Mohammad Abdul-Hwas shares his passion to study and research refugee crisis with UC's UnCover . Mohammad's parents’ and grandparents’ lived experiences of the ongoing Palestinian refugee crisis, that has lasted the past 70 years, has created a deep empathy for refugees. Connecting with Syrian refugees in Jordan who have similar lived experience drove Mohammad to research deliberative democracy, with the ambition to improve the experience and agency for people caught in a refugee crisis. Following multiple visits to Jordan – where his extended family is from – between 2012 and 2018, Mohammad’s interest and studies would pivot toward an underlying passion for refugee governance. His visits took place shortly after the Syrian conflict escalated from the Arab Spring protests in 2011 – an event that displaced millions, many of whom have ended up in neighbouring countries. He reached out to universities around Australia, looking to secure his PhD candidature in the space, including UC, and started reaching out to possible supervisors for his project. He succeeded in finding a supervisor ─ Dr Nicole Curato, Professor of Political Sociology within the University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance . “Connecting her areas of expertise – deliberative democracy and paying attention to vulnerable people in disaster contexts – gave me a foundation to approach my PhD project about the Syrian refugee crisis,” Mohammad says.

< 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