Search Results

< Back Katherine Curchin Associate and Former PhD Student About Katherine is an applied political philosopher with research interests in normative political philosophy, social policy and Indigenous policy in Australia. Katherine completed her PhD in Political Science under the supervision of Prof John Dryzek in 2010. Her doctoral thesis drew upon deliberative democratic theory to explore the ethics of criticising other cultures.

< Back WAIT, WHAT? DECOLONIZING DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy. About this event Deliberative democracy – as a set of norms, practices, and procedures for collective governance -- is an extension of liberalism and liberal democracy. More to the point, deliberative democracy is fundamentally rooted in intertwined logics of possessive individualism, positivism and universal truths, and settler colonialism. If theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy are serious about decolonizing the field, this normative inheritance must be confronted. Deliberative democracy cannot be decolonized without a sustained and thoughtful interrogation of its ontological, epistemological, and ethical roots that continue to feed it. “Wait, what?” is a call to take a moment and to seriously consider what we mean by decolonizing deliberative democracy and whether this is even possible. Taking this moment is critical in ensuring that efforts to decolonize deliberative democracy do not in fact reinforce colonialism. Genevieve Fuji Johnson is a Yonsei settler of Japanese and Irish ancestry. Although proud of her family’s history of resilience, she is reckoning with their four generations of Indigenous dispossession. It is thus with gratitude and respect that she divides her time between the traditional and unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations and those of the Tla-o-qui-aht Nation. Dr. Johnson is a professor of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Rethinking Climate Justice In An Age Of Adaptation: Capabilities, Local Variation, And Public Deliberation Investigator(s): David Schlosberg and Simon Niemeyer Funding through Discovery Project (DP120104797) ($250,000), the Project Team includes David Schlosberg (Chief Investigator) and Simon Niemeyer (Chief Investigator) Project Description This project aims to produce recommendations, designed by citizens and stakeholders, for climate adaptation policies in three regions of Australia. These recommendations will be based on a definition of climate justice that incorporates basic needs and resources to be protected, as identified by impacted communities.

< Back MAPPING DEMOCRATIC INNOVATIONS IN PARTICIPEDIA ABSTRACT This presentation proposes a new analytical approach to classifying democratic innovations based on prototypical radial categorization. The proposed categorization strategy is empirically evaluated on real-world democratic innovations drawn from Participedia, the largest crowdsourcing platform in democratic innovation. Participedia database is analyzed through multiple factor analysis (MFA) and hierarchical clustering on principal components (HCPC). The analysis highlights four clusters that are a subset of two main groups that coincide with the normative categorization of participatory and deliberative democracy. BIO Francesco Veri is a Swiss National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Previous Next

< Back Alex Lo Former PhD Student About Alex completed his dissertation at the Australian National University in association with CSIRO, and supervised by Clive Spash and John Dryzek.

< 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 Ron Brent Adjunct About Ron Brent is a retired public servant who previously worked as Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman, Commonwealth Ombudsman, was the first Australian Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, and the initial Chair of the Australian Research Integrity Committee.

< Back Democracy Play Workshop with Mathias Poulsen ​ ​

< 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 Distinguished Professor John Dryzek has been elected to The British Academy ​ ​ Congratulations to our own Distinguished Professor John Dryzek, who has been elected to the British Academy, an honour given to scholars who have attained distinction in the social sciences and humanities. John has considerable international standing as a scholar in the areas of political science, democratic theory and practice at all levels from the local to the global, political philosophy, environmental politics and climate governance. John is already a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia. Election to the British Academy underlines John’s influence and impact beyond Australia.

< 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 CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Participedia is a global network working on public participation and democratic innovations. About this event Participedia is a global network of researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers working on public participation and democratic innovations. The network communicates knowledge of democratic innovations to defend, expand and deepen civic inclusion and democratic governance. It comprises 63 researchers from 22 universities and 21 organizations across 16 countries. Participedia.net has documented over 3,000 cases, methods and organizations on public participation and democratic innovation in 137 countries. Bonny Ibhawoh (M.A. Ibadan; Ph.D Dalhousie) teaches Global Human Rights History and African History in the Department of History and the Centre for Peace Studies. He also teaches in the McMaster Arts & Science Program and the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. He is the Director of the McMaster Centre for Human Rights and Restorative Justice. He is the Project Director of Participedia and the Confronting Atrocity Project. He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and North America. Previously, he was professor at Brock University, Canada; professor in the Department of Political Science at University of North Carolina at Asheville; Human Rights Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs, New York; Research Fellow at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen and Associate Member of the Centre for African Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He was Visiting Professor of Human Rights at The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas at Austin. He has also taught at Ambrose Alli University, Covenant University, and the University of Lagos. Dr Ibhawoh currently chairs the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. His research interests are global human rights, peace/conflict studies, legal and imperial history. His articles on these themes have appeared in historical and interdisciplinary journals – Human Rights Quarterly, Journal of Human Rights Practice, The Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, the Journal of Global History, and Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (Journal of the American Psychological Association). He is the author of Human Rights in Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Imperial Justice (Oxford University Press, 2013) and Imperialism and Human Rights (SUNY Press, 2007) [named Choice Outstanding Academic Title]. Dr. Ibhawoh is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a recipient of the McMaster Student Union Teaching Award and the Nelson Mandela Distinguished Africanist Award. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades. About this event Digital platforms have become the main mediators of public debate: it is where citizens, social movements, activists, journalists, experts and political representatives discuss topics of common interest. The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades, but the empirical evidence is complex and ambiguous: while some research shows, for example, how specific characteristics of digital platforms lead to fragmentation of the public, other research shows that the use of platforms actually helps people to have contact and dialogue with diverse opinions. This is an important topic in Brazil today because in the last decade we began (returned?) to face a specific type of polarisation: one in which divergent groups face an absence of common ground and they see each other as deep-seated enemies. Two events mark this process: the huge protests of June 2013 (where protesters were located in different parts of the political spectrum), and the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 (where we saw the prominence of conservative groups, which were away from the public scene since the Military Dictatorship). Bolsonaro explicitly opposes dialogue between different positions, saying, for example, that "minorities must bow to the majority". In this presentation, I show how abortion, racial quotas and homosexual marriage were discussed by citizens on Facebook from 2012 to 2019. These are typically controversial topics, and they play a leading role in disputes between progressives and conservatives in Brazilian political conflicts over the last decade. Tariq Choucair is a PhD candidate in the Communication Graduation Program at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Tariq studies reciprocity and polarisation in online debates on controversial issues. He has been a member of the Media and Public Sphere Research Group for 9 years, working with the group on research projects such as “Deliberative System and Social Conflicts” and “The potential of deliberation in divided societies”. Tariq's work is published in Political Studies, Political Research Exchange and E-COMPOS. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

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

Adjunct Professors Vicky Darling Adjunct View Profile Ron Brent Adjunct View Profile Peter Bridgewater Adjunct View Profile Hendrik Wagenaar Adjunct Professor View Profile

< Back The role of evidence, evidence-providers and the evidence-giving format in citizens' juries Jen Roberts, University of Strathclyde Tue 28 March 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Three citizens’ juries were run in different locations across Scotland in 2013/14, each with varying proximity to built and planned wind farms. One of the aims of this multi-disciplinary research project explored how deliberative processes, such as citizens’ juries, could be used to engage citizens and inform policy on public issues. One of the key lessons for designing, organizing and facilitating citizens’ juries that arose from the project concerned the provision of information. This includes issues surrounding witness selection, the format of evidence provision, the evidence itself, and how the witnesses were supported through the project. Although the juries were successful overall, it was felt that the jurors might have benefited from more support to make sense of the issues at hand and relevance to their task. To enhance the valuable outcomes from this unique project it is important to establish if, and how, these issues could be avoided or managed for future deliberative processes. Here, we revisit the process and consider how it could be improved so that contested evidence might be put forward in a way that is most useful (supportive, informative) to participants and most fair to the witnesses presenting the evidence. To inform our work, we draw on the experiences from other citizens’ juries that have been conducted on environmental or energy topics together with the learnings from the citizens’ juries on wind farms in Scotland project. We also interview the witnesses involved in the wind farms project to draw on their perspectives. These data are synthesised to examine the role of witnesses in presenting expert information, the processes of doing so, and how different roles or formats affect the experience of the witness and the audience. This enables us to recommend processes or approaches that will encourage a fair environment. About the speaker Jennifer Roberts is a pioneering young researcher linking energy systems with social and environmental risk. She uses her technical background in geoscience to address questions on the social and environmental impacts of energy developments, including CCS, unconventional gas, and onshore wind. Her work aims inform how a low-carbon energy system can be optimised and implemented in a way that is acceptable for the environment and society. On the strength of her genuinely interdisciplinary research she was awarded the Scottish Energy Researcher of the Year 2015 - Energy Infrastructure and Society category. Jen’s work is closely linked with Scotland’s Centre of Expertise on Climate Change (ClimateXChange), which works to provide independent advice, research and analysis on climate change & policy in Scotland, and she regularly contributes to policy briefs, public events, and training workshops. Jen was the Research Co-ordinator for a ClimateXChange research project that conducted citizens’ juries in three locations in Scotland on the topic of onshore wind farm development, to trial the deliberative method and also to find out the publics’ views on the issue. The research highlighted some of the complexities of involving experts in deliberative processes, which is a theme she continues to follow in her research. Previous Next

< 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 Olivia Mendoza PhD Candidate About Olivia Mendoza works on topics at the intersection of feminist philosophy and democratic theory, with focus on the role of emotions in facilitating the aims of deliberative democracy. She is a PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Dissertation Olivia's PhD dissertation analyzes Filipino emotional repertoire and their role in online political discussions and debates. In focusing on the political emotions of hate, resentment and anger, her research looks into the conditions for meaningful political participation in the Philippines and how these are complicated by exclusions, marginalization, illegitimate decision-making, or harms in the affective level. PhD Supervisors Hans Asenbaum (primary supervisor) Adele Webb (secondary supervisor) John Dryzek (secondary supervisor) Scholarship and Prizes Deliberative Democracy PhD Scholarship (2023-2027), Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra. One UP Faculty Grant Award in Philosophy (Ethics) for Outstanding Teaching and Public Service in the University of the Philippines Baguio, College of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Baguio (2022-2024). Mateo Tupaz Grant (2019-2022), University of the Philippines Baguio. Research Project: Reviewing Emotion Theories in light of Filipino Emotions. Key Publications Olivia S. Mendoza. Forthcoming. “Emotions and Filipino Resilience” In Llanera, Tracy (ed). Resilience: The Brown Babe’s Burden. Routledge Book Series on the Post- CoViD World: Academics, Politics and Society. Liz Jackson, Nuraan Davids, Winston C. Thompson, Jessica Lussier, Nicholas C. Burbules, Kal Alston, Stephen Chatelier, Krissah Marga B. Taganas, Olivia S. Mendoza, Jason Lin Cong, Addyson Frattura & Anonymous and P. Taylor Webb. 2022. "Feeling like a philosopher of education: A collective response to Jackson’s ‘The smiling philosopher’." Educational Philosophy and Theory , DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2022.2063719. Conference Presentations Olivia S. Mendoza, “Anger, Affective Injustice, and Filipino Resilience." Resilience: The Brown Babes Burden and the Global Pandemic. Workshop organized by Women Doing Philosophy. 2022. Teaching Development Ethics (SDS 271, Master’s Course in Social and Development Studies), 2022 History of the Social Sciences (Soc Sci 100), 2021-2022 Ethics (Philo 171, for Philosophy Students), 2019-2022 Ethics and Moral Reasoning (Ethics 1, General Education Course), 2019-2022 Ancient Philosophy (Philosophy110) and Medieval Philosophy (Philosophy 111), 2014-2022. Public Service Speaker for Philosophy, Politics and Society Lecture Series, “Martha Nussbaum on What Women are Actually Able to Do and To Be," in celebration of the 2023 Women’s Month. Organized by the College of Social Sciences and the UP Baguio Kasarian. 2023. Speaker at the Philosophy Open House, “Kant on Emotion," in celebration of World Philosophy Day, with the theme “The Forthcoming Human." Organized by the Philosophy Discipline and the Philosophy Circle of UP Baguio. 2022. Speaker for Beyond the Ghetto (BTG) Lightning Talks, “My Feminist Classroom: Innovations and Reflections." Organized by the BTG Group of the Women Doing Philosophy for Philosophy Teachers and Scholars. 2021. Guest Speaker for Continuing Professional Development, “Why Be Moral? Ethics for Public Accountants in Contemporary Philippines." Seminar-Workshop organized by Philippine Institute for Certified Public Accountants, Inc. 2021.

< Back Connecting to Parliament: Creating authentic engagement between citizens and their elected representatives Investigator(s): Adele Webb, Nardine Alnemr, Selen Ercan, John Dryzek, Michael Neblo, Hans Asenbaum The world is rapidly changing. Parliaments have a vital role to play in not only recognising new challenges but enabling citizens to connect with and participate in policy-making processes that will impact their lives now and into the future. In amongst the gloomy picture for democracy worldwide, where citizen disengagement is pervasive and palpable, there are glimmers of hope. Instances of parliaments and legislatures finding new ways to augment traditional institutions of representation – exploring innovations in democracy to meaningfully engage with citizens between elections. Project Description Connecting to Parliament (C2P) is one of the CDDGG’s flagship initiatives, which aims to involve more Australians in the processes of parliament, by making democracy more deliberative. The project involves a series of deliberative engagements, including online deliberative town halls, which link a representative sample of constituents with their elected official in productive town hall conversations about the issues that are subject to parliamentary debate in Australia. Through these deliberative processes, parliamentarians gain the opportunity to deepen their understanding of their constituency’s diverse voices, considerations and concerns. Participants make connections with formal decision-makers and have the opportunity for their voice to be heard outside of elections. At the same time, the project provides the opportunity to expand our knowledge about the potential benefits and uses of deliberative democracy. The project builds on the insights gained from the successful Connecting to Congress project led by Professor Michael Neblo and his team at the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability, Ohio State University. Connecting to Parliament replicates this work by designing and analyzing a series of deliberative forums with citizens and elected representatives. Through administering a range of Deliberative Town Halls (in-person, hybrid, and online) C2C aims to identify the modes of deliberative engagement that produce the greatest gains in engagement and increase positive aspects of civic behavior among diverse populations of citizens. Town Hall on Mitochondrial Donation In September 2020, Connecting to Parliament held two Deliberative Town Halls with Member of Parliament Andrew Leigh. These events focused on Mitochondrial Donation, a medical procedure – illegal at the time – that was set to undergo a conscience vote in Parliament. As a “conscience vote,” a relatively rare (occurring roughly once per term) type of vote where MP’s do not have to vote along party lines, Leigh MP was free to vote entirely at his discretion. Greeted with this unique opportunity, Andrew Leigh MP partnered with the Connecting to Parliament project to engage in a deliberative democracy exercise with his electorate. In two town hall meetings, one online and one face-to-face, a series of constituents from Leigh’s electorate of Fenner were randomly selected to weigh the issues surrounding mitochondrial donation. Prior to these events, Member of Parliament Leigh agreed that his vote would be guided by the conclusions of these Deliberative Town Halls. Overwhelmingly, participants in both town halls believed that Mitochondrial Donation should be made legal in Australia. In a statement on the Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform Bill in late 2021, Leigh MP said that: “the overwhelming sentiment among those who attended the forum was to support mitochondrial donation, and I will be voting in favour of this bill.” The majority of the House of Representatives, including Leigh MP, voted in favor of the Bill on December 1, 2021. The Bill passed in the Senate on March 30, 2022; mitochondrial donation became legal in Australia starting October 2, 2022. More information on the Bill may be found here at the Parliament of Australia website . Town Hall on Young People and Australian Politics In August 2021, Connecting to Parliament held a Deliberative Town Hall with Member of Parliament Alicia Payne on the issue of increasing youth participation in politics. The focus of young people was chosen as there is an increasing generational gap between those in power and the nation’s youth; today, the average age of an Australian MP is 52. As the decisions these lawmakers make will have lasting effects for decades, including young people more in the political process will give them greater agency over those who make the decisions that will affect their futures. Partner With Us Connecting to Parliament is a collaborative process that seeks to establish innovative and substantive conversations between constituents and public officials on important policy issues. By working with our team, elected officials will: Co-design the goals for deliberative town halls Participate in 60–90-minute non-partisan, unscripted, third-party facilitated conversations with constituents Learn about informed public interests while opening new channels of communication to a broadly representative sample of the local population Work with academic institutions focused on the public good, which means that our processes are designed to be cost-effective Garner qualitative and quantitative information from participants on their experiences attending townhalls as well as their opinions about specific policy issues. For more information, contact Adele Webb at connecting2parliament@canberra.edu.au

< 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