Search Results

< Back Public support for citizens' assemblies selected through sortition: Survey and experimental evidence from 15 countries Jean-Benoit Pilet (Universite libre de Bruxelles) and Damien Bol (King's College London) Tue 16 March 2021 8:00pm-9:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract As representative democracies are increasingly criticized, a new institution is becoming popular in academic circles and real-life politics: asking a group of citizens selected by lot to deliberate and formulate policy recommendations on some contentious issues. Although there is much research on the functioning of such citizens’ assemblies, there are only few about how the population perceives them. We explore the sources of citizens’ attitudes towards this institution using a unique representative survey from 15 European countries. We find that those who are less educated, as well as those with a low sense of political competence and an anti-elite sentiment, are more supportive of it. Support thus comes from the ‘enraged’, rather than the ‘engaged’. Further, we use a survey experiment to show that support for citizens’ assemblies increases when respondents know that their fellow citizens share the same opinion than them on some issues. About the speakers Jean-Benoit Pilet is professor of political science at Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB, Belgium). He is coordinating the project POLITICIZE. Non-elected politics. Cure or Curse for Representative Democracy? (ERC Consolidator Grant). Within this project, he has worked on public support for deliberative and direct democracy, as well as on technocratic attitudes. He has recently published two articles (with Camille Bedock) on public support for sortition in France and in Belgium: Enraged, engaged, or both? A study of the determinants of support for consultative vs. binding mini-publics (Representation, 2020) and Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens (Government & Opposition, 2020). Damien Bol is an Associate Professor and Director of the Quantitative Political Economy Research Group in King’s College London. His research lies at the intersection of comparative politics, political behavior, and political economy with a focus on elections. He tries to understand people's experience of representative democracy across countries and political systems. 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 Negotiating sisterhood in the Pacific region: Feminist alliances across diversity Jane Alver, University of Canberra Tue 1 December 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract This seminar presentation covers my recently completed PhD research conducted at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, in which I sought to understand how civil society actors in the Pacific can build diverse feminist alliances and a shared voice. I undertook an in-depth exploration of two recent initiatives aimed at forming Pacific feminist regional alliances; The Pacific Feminist Forum and the We Rise Coalition. Drawing on interviews, a focus group, and participant observation, I will present various insights of the research on a ‘negotiated sisterhood’ and explain how it is enacted in the Pacific. This concept helps to capture the dynamic and diverse nature of the feminism and feminist activities in the region and is relevant to scholars in social movement studies, alliance building and gender studies About the speaker Jane Alver is PhD Candidate at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy. Her research focuses on Pacific feminist civil society. Previous Next

< Back Strongmen of Asia: Democratic bosses and how to understand them Investigator(s): Nicole Curato Funded by the Norwegian Research Council (AU$1.8M via University of Oslo). Project Description This research project investigates a set of strongmen – including presently ruling, fledgling, or former strongmen – in order to compare and understand a political style increasingly dominant in South and Southeast Asia and which we preliminarily call ‘bossism’. These strongmen are explored through fieldwork, online ethnography and media analysis of original language sources. This project is funded by the Norwegian Research Council and administered by the University of Oslo. Nicole Curato is examining the case of the Philippines. Preliminary findings of her research are documented in Strongmen , Inc , published in Australian Foreign Affairs .

< Back Our Senior Research Fellow, Dr Hans Asenbaum, has published his new book 'The Politics of Becoming' ​ ​ A hearty congratulations to Dr Hans Asenbaum from the Centre for his new (open access) publication with Oxford University Press, The Politics of Becoming – Anonymity and Democracy in the Digital Age . The book focuses on practical solutions to the problems of discrimination and identity confinement in political participation. Throughout the book, Dr Asenbaum hopes to facilitate an interdisciplinary exchange between different academic disciplines and different strands of democratic theory. Dr Asenbaum has been intrigued by questions about participatory and radical democracy for a long time. In particular, the role of our identities and how when come together to do politics, we judge each other on our looks. With a desire to understand and question this, Dr Asenbaum developed a curiosity about the role of anonymity in democracy. He purposefully asks, ‘What happens if we can't tell each other's race, gender, sexuality, class, age etc.?’ He began exploring this question at the University of Westminster during his PhD, under the supervision of Professor Graham Smith . The result of this investigation is his new book: ‘The Politics of Becoming’, which provides an in-depth analysis and theorization of anonymity in democratic participation. When asked about the journey to this point, an elated Dr Asenbaum remarked “my thesis builds the foundation for this book, and it has been a 10-year process from initiation to publication. It has been quite a journey, and I could not be happier about the result and the wonderful people I met on the way and who are all part of this project.” Dr Asenbaum’s book strengthens our research in the areas of citizens engagement , identity politics and democratic theory .

< Back Deliberative Global Governance Investigator(s): John S. Dryzek, Hayley Stevenson, Beibei Tang Funded through Federation Fellowship (FF0883522) ($1,638,730), the Project Team includes: · John S. Dryzek, Chief Investigator · Hayley Stevenson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow · Beibei Tang, Postdoctoral Research Fellow Project Description The project investigates democratisation of the international system, with special reference to climate change issues; as well as the democratisation of authoritarian systems, with special reference to China. Research results find application in the worldwide movement to put deliberative democracy into practice, be it in global politics, in newly democratic societies, or in the institutions of established democracies. The Federation Fellowship has three sub-projects: (1) Deliberative Democratization in China. In China, traditional democratization paths involving constitutionalism and party competition are obstructed or problematic. China has however allowed substantial deliberative innovation at the local level, in part to help cope with the social and environmental dislocation attending rapid economic growth. The broader intent is to develop a generalizable approach to democratization, emphasizing deliberative capacity. (2) The Deliberative Global Governance of Climate Change. In taking deliberative democracy to the global level, no topic is more important than climate change. The idea is to map the key components of the global deliberative system for the governance of climate change, and assess how effectively they are working in deliberative terms. To the extent this proves to be a deliberative system in disrepair, we need to develop ideas for realistic reform of the system. The international system currently suffers from a severe democratic deficit, but any strengthening of democracy at international and global levels will almost certainly look very different from familiar models found in liberal democratic states. (3) A Deliberative Global Citizens’ Assembly. Building on the successful Australian Citizens’ Parliament held in 2009, the idea is to explore the prospects for a global assembly composed of more or less randomly selected participants. This can be contrasted with existing proposals for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which rely upon problematic combinations of state-nominated participants and a tortuous path to global elections.

< Back Beyond residual realisms: Four paths for remaking participation with science and democracy Matthew Kearnes, University of New South Wales Tue 12 December 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract In light of the contestation of the purposes and objectives of contemporary techno-political decision-making, and the emergence of a more questioning and ambivalent response to assertions of authoritative expertise, attempts to generate socially resilient political settlements across an array of policy domains have increasingly called upon the logics of ‘democratic participation’. In this context, contemporary scientific and environmental policy is increasingly characterised by institutional commitments to fostering public engagement and participation with science, together with greater transparency in the deployment of scientific expertise in decision-making. However, despite notable successes, such developments have often struggled to enhance public trust and build more socially responsive and responsible science and technology. In this paper, we argue a central reason for this is that mainstream approaches to public engagement harbour ‘residual realist’ assumptions about participation and the public. Recent studies in ‘science and technology studies’ (STS) offer an alternative way of seeing participation as co-produced, relational and emergent. In this paper, we build on these approaches by setting out a framework comprising of four interrelating paths and associated criteria for remaking public participation with science and democracy in more experimental, reflexive, anticipatory, and responsible ways. This comprises moves to: forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framing, emergence, uncertainties, and effects; ecologise participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements; catalyse practices of anticipatory reflection to bring about responsible democratic innovations; and reconstitute participation as constitutive of (not separate from) systems of science and democracy. We close by offering some reflections on the ways in which these approaches might be taken up in both analytically and normatively inspired work and scholarship. About the speaker Matthew Kearnes is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and member of the of Environmental Humanities Group at the School of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales. Before arriving at UNSW he held post-doctoral positions at the Department of Geography at the Open University and the Centre for the Study of Environmental Change/Department of Sociology at Lancaster University. Most recently he held a Research Councils UK Fellowship at the Institute of Hazard, Risk and Resilience/Department of Geography, Durham University. Matthew's research is situated between the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS), human geography and contemporary social theory. His current work is focused on the social and political dimensions of technological and environmental change, including ongoing work on the development of negative emission strategies and soil carbon sequestration. He has published widely on the ways in which the development of novel and emerging technologies is entangled with profound social, ethical and normative questions. Matthew serves on the editorial board Science, Technology and Society (Sage) and on the advisory panel for Science as Culture (Taylor & Francis). For more information about Matthew’s research please visit https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/dr-matthew-benjamin-kearnes and at @mbkearnes Previous Next

PROGRAMME HIGHLIGHTS PAPERS For decades, scholars and commentators have lamented the fragilities of the space(s) where citizens can engage, coordinate, and shape political meaning – a crucial foundation for a stable democracy. Yet what does a concept, dating back to Habermas’s ‘bourgeois public sphere’ of the eighteenth century, mean in contemporary vernacular? Given the transformations in communication networks brought about by technological change, have we come to terms with the new criteria for a ‘public voice’? Do normative ideals about a thriving political public sphere need updating? Do analytic concepts (framing, gatekeeping, agenda setting) still work or do they need to be reconsidered or completely refurbished? And what can be offered by citizen-led processes of democratic renewal? This APSA-funded workshop is co-hosted by two Research Centres conducting theoretical and empirical research on the public sphere(s) – the University of Canberra’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, and QUT’s Digital Media Research Centre. Bringing together postgraduate students and early career researchers with leading scholars in the field, the workshop addresses challenges and threats facing the contemporary public sphere(s) in Australia and beyond. It aims to activate a dynamic interdisciplinary network of scholars working in to explore ways in which the public sphere(s) might be ‘future-proofed’ to integrate and harness the affordances of digital technologies while still facilitating normatively desirable outcomes for vibrant democracies. The workshop format is designed to offer participants the opportunity to receive detailed feedback from leading experts on works in progress, with the aim of assisting participants to convert their draft papers into a publication. We are delighted to welcome scholars working on the broad concept of the public sphere from a variety of methodological perspectives and offering theoretical and empirical insights. Adele Webb (UC) & Katharina Esau (QUT) Workshop Co-Convenors Programme ProgAnchor Programme highlights Prog highlights Paper presenters have 8 minutes to present a synopsis of their papers. Please make sure that you stick to this timing. PowerPoint slides are welcome, but not required, and we recommend no more than 5 slides. Designed as an alternative to conference-style paper presentations, presentation of paper synopses should be structured around answering three broad questions: What is the core argument of the paper? What data is being used to support the argument? What are the implications of the research for the field? More in-depth discussion and feedback of each paper is available through the mentoring sessions. Each participant has been assigned two mentors who will read and prepare comments on the paper before the workshop. Over the course of the workshop there is time allocated for these one-on-one-discussions of the papers, which could include feedback on the substantive content, as well as tips on how to get the paper ready for publication, and which journals to consider for submission. We understand the papers are works-in-progress, so feedback will be friendly, encouraging, and constructive. The panel discussions are organised under specific themes and will start with short opening remarks by each of the panel speakers, followed by an open and collective discussion with all workshop participants. The processing and reflection session on day 2 is designed to break participants into small groups, in which participants are encouraged to collectively reflect on mentor feedback, share personal reflections on workshop discussions, and together write down three words/phrases that speak to future research agenda(s). There will be a chance to discuss these with the larger group in the final session. Venue: All activities will take place at the Kelvin Grove campus of QUT in Brisbane (Level 5, E-Block, located at the back of the Library). Registration: If possible, please arrive between 9:30-9:45am on 21 March. ​ Papers Papers Brooke Ann Coco The Superset Paradigm: Data DAOs and the Democratization of Digital Publics. Download Claire Fitzpatrick #ShoutYourAbortion and being heard: The affordances of hashtags for Counterpublics in uncertain and antagonistic digital atmospheres. Download Francesco Vittonetto Transnational populist publics in Europe and the United States. Download Friedel Marquardt Sharing First Nations stories online: the narrative-engaging capabilities of social media for marginalised groups. Download Nguyen Khac Giang The Power and Limits of Digitalized Authoritarian Deliberation: Insights from Vietnam. Download Kate O'Connor Farfan Democratic trajectories and the assessment of polarisation in the public sphere. Download Kate Scott Deradicalising Misogyny: Countering Red Pill Violence and Extremism in the Manosphere. Download Laura Davy & Molly Saunders The future of inclusive democratic participation: conditions for radical listening within the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Download Lynrose Genon Digital Peacebuilding: Examining young women leaders' use of social media to build peace in the Philippines. Download Molly Murphy Non-dialoic counterspeech and democratic participation. Download Patrick Chang Future proofing the public sphere: How social movement organisations (SMOs) could establish and maintain more inclusive engagement in Australian climate action. Download Tyler Wilson Deliberative Virtue and Social Media: Nurturing deliberation through a novel conceptualisation of social media as state-sponsored independent media. Download Zim Nwokora The Adaptive Capacity of Democracies: Theory and Institutional Mechanisms. Download

< Back Baogang He Associate About Baogang He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratization and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia.

< Back Deliberative democracy in the face of democratic crisis: Contributions, dilemmas and the ways forward Investigator(s): Ricardo F. Mendonça, Camilo Aggio, Viktor Chagas, Selen Ercan, Viviane Freitas, Filipe Motta, Rayza Sarmento, Francisco Tavares Funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development ($15,800 via University of Minas Gerais) Project Description The project seeks to specify the challenges contemporary democracies face and advance the ways deliberative perspective can help address these challenges. Selen Ercan teams up once again with our associate Ricardo F. Mendonça to investigate the context of democratic crisis from a perspective of deliberative democracy.

< 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 New water for water dispute resolution: Tribal water disputes in Arizona and refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan Rhett Larson, Arizona State University Tue 10 July 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Water scarcity often leads to water disputes. New water supplies—such as bulk water imports, desalination, cloud seeding, or increased stream flows from improved forest management—can mitigate water scarcity and thus help avoid, resolve, or mitigate water disputes. However, new water supplies can also aggravate water disputes if not developed in concert with legal reforms. This Article evaluates the role of new water in two cases of water disputes in arid regions and proposes legal reforms to promote new water a means of water dispute resolution. The first case is the adjudication of water rights in the Gila River basin in Arizona, including the long-standing water dispute between the Hope Tribe and the Navajo Nation. The second case involved disputes over water resources in refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan. In each case, development of new water faces legal obstacles and environmental concerns that must be overcome if those augmented supplies are to help address ongoing water disputes. About the speaker Rhett Larson is a Morrison Fellow in Water Law and associate professor in the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. He is also a faculty fellow in the Center for Law and Global Affairs, and the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation. He is a senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Professor Larson’s research and teaching interests are in property law, administrative law, and environmental and natural resource law, in particular, domestic and international water law and policy. Professor Larson’s research focuses on the impact of technological innovation on water rights regimes, in particularly transboundary waters, and on the sustainability implications of a human right to water. He works on dispute resolution and improved processes in water rights adjudications in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin with the Kyl Center for Water Policy. Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, and works in the Middle East on water security issues. Professor Larson also practiced environmental and natural resource law with law firms in Arizona, focusing on water rights, water quality, and real estate transactions. Previous Next

< Back The constraints on public debate about mining in Minas Gerais, Brazil Filipe Motta, Federal University of Minas Gerais Tue 26 May 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract This research aims to understand the constraints on public debate on mining in Minas Gerais State, Brazil, working with a deliberative systems approach. It discusses how a deliberative system about mining has not been structured, although many environmental conflicts about the activity had arisen in that state in the last two decades. The work examines four structural constraints looking at the way mining debates have been handled in Minas Gerais during the expansion of mining activity, between 2005-2018. They are i) the institutional constraints in arenas for participation and in the Public Prosecutor's Office activities; ii) the economic constraints in the media and political campaigns fundings; iii) the constrains in the way civil society is structured and; iv) the constrains in the timeframe of the debate. After a presentation of these four points, the seminar will focus on how the timeframe debate is conducted and how it interferes in the deliberative system's understanding. It will observe the durational, subjective, cyclical, and rhythmic dimensions of time. About the speaker Filipe Motta is a PhD candidate in Political Science at Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. He has an interest in discussions about deliberative democracy, environmental issues, and political activism. He is currently a visiting PhD student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and one of the book review editors of The Journal of Deliberative Democracy (formerly Journal of Public Deliberation). Previous Next

< Back Fast thinking: Implications for democratic politics Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton Tue 20 October 2015 11:00am - 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract A major programme of research on cognition has been built around the idea that human beings are frequently intuitive thinkers and that human intuition is imperfect. The modern marketing of politics and the time-poor position of many citizens suggests that ‘fast’, intuitive, thinking in many contemporary democracies is ubiquitous. This article explores the consequences that such fast thinking might have for the democratic practice of contemporary politics. Using focus groups with a range of demographic profiles, fast thinking about how politics works is stimulated and followed by a more reflective and collectively deliberative form of slow thinking among the same participants. A strong trajectory emerges consistently in all groups in that in fast thinking mode participants are noticeably more negative and dismissive about the workings of politics than when in slow thinking mode. A fast thinking focus among citizens may be good enough to underwrite mainstream political exchange, but at the cost of supporting a general negativity about politics and the way it works. Yet breaking the cycle of fast thinking – as advocated by deliberation theorists – might not be straightforward because of the grip of fast thinking. The fast/slow thinking distinction, if carefully used, offers valuable new insight into political science. This paper is co-authored with Colin Hay and Matthew Barr. Please see here the paper as well. About the speaker Gerry Stoker is Professor of Politics and Governance at the University of Southampton, UK and also Centenary Professor at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. He was previously professor at both Manchester and Strathclyde. Gerry’s main research interests are in governance, democratic politics, local and regional governance, urban politics, public participation and public service reform. He was the founding chair of the New Local Government Network that was the think-tank of the year in 2004 and his most recent book, Why Politics Matters, won the 2006 political book of the year award from the Political Studies Association of the UK. Gerry has provided advice to various parts of UK government and is also an expert advisor to the Council of Europe on local government and participation issues. More broadly he has, over the past five years, received invitations to speak at conferences on governance issues aimed at practitioners and policymakers as well as academics from the USA, Japan, China, Italy, Korea Norway, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Denmark and Australia. In particular, he was a keynote speaker at the United Nation’s 6th Reinventing Government Global Forum, Korea in 2005. In 2004, he won the Political Studies Association Award for ‘making a difference’ in recognition of the impact of his work on governance issues. Previous Next

< Back Kei Nishiyama Former PhD student About Kei Nishiyama studies deliberative democracy with a specific focus on the role of children and young people. Kei worked at the University of Canberra and the Australian National University and will join the Doshisha University, Japan, from April 2020.

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

< Back The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy Edited by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren 2018 , Oxford University Press ​ Summary Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers. Read more Previous Next

< Back Andreas Schaeffer Associate About Andreas Schaeffer's research interests rest at the intersection between political communication and decision-making. He has investigated the role of deliberation in parliamentary decision-making and is now focusing on strategies political parties use for communication in an age of increasing communicative abundance.

< Back The institutionalization of deliberative democracy in European multi-level states: A comparative analysis of the experience of South Tyrol Elisabeth Alber, Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol Tue 9 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The institutionalization of deliberative democracy is progressively experimented as a means to ameliorate decision-making processes at various levels of government, in Europe and worldwide. To what extent the recourse to ordinary citizens as co-creators properly meets the requirements of normative deliberative theory or, in the end, simply serves as an instrumental purpose, heavily depends on the context in which so-called democratic innovations take place. Empirical research shows that the increasing lack of trust in traditional channels of representative decision-making and the structural limits of direct democracy translate in what has been defined with the metaphor of the dam effect: the water tries to flow in alternative ways, and additional channels in decision-making processes have to be used so as not to waste too much water. Scholars of political and legal science, at different pace and with different foci, are increasingly paying attention to the proliferation of practices of deliberative democracy and looking for the development of sound criteria on how to define, classify and explain this phenomenon. Common to all attempts is the fact that practices of deliberative democracy go beyond the majoritarian rule of interest aggregation by voting and, in order to improve the quality of democracy itself, they propose tools that are centered on public reasoning among individuals (and groups). The institutionalization of such tools is increasingly discussed in academia, and among practitioners: both call – even though for different reasons – for an ever more articulated attention to the procedural design of deliberative processes and its impacts on both the organization of a deliberative process itself and the role of persons/groups, not only in the preparation and implementation phase of a deliberative process itself, but also when it comes to evaluating it (a phase which mostly is neglected). Moreover, when it comes to deliberative democracy in ethnically plural (divided) societies, the institutionalization of a deliberative democracy process faces additional challenges. Even though from a normative basis it can be argued that negotiations between groups (typical for consociational democracy arrangements) should be replaced by deliberation aiming at rendering any divided society more sustainable in the long run, in practice, the institutionalization of deliberative democracy does highlight (and eventually also increase) tensions, rather than reducing them. Therefore, particular attention has to be paid on the procedural aspects of processes of deliberative democracy. In this presentation, I firstly outline general principles of institutionalized deliberative democracy at subnational level in European federal and regional States. I present some examples and highlight how deliberative democracy processes came into being. Secondly, I briefly present an excursus on the geographical Alpine region and introduce South Tyrol and Trentino, two autonomous provinces that together form one out of five autonomous regions in Italy. Their autonomy arrangements developed over seven decades. While Trentino is predominantly Italian-speaking, South Tyrol is home to three language groups (German-, Italian- and Ladin-speakers, with German-speakers being the majority). The broad spectrum of complex regulations enshrined in South Tyrol’s autonomy statute (1972) establishes a model of consociational democracy that is characterized by cultural autonomy of the groups, a system of veto rights to defend each group’s vital interests, language parity between the groups, and ethnic proportionality ranging from the field of public employment to education and finances. Thirdly, my presentation aims at comparatively analyzing the two large-scaled deliberative processes that were undertaken from 2016-2018 in South Tyrol and Trentino. Ordinary citizens, organized civil society, stakeholders and politicians were asked to elaborate proposals for the amendment of the autonomous statute of the region Trentino-South Tyrol (which contains a few provisions applying to the regional level and two large distinct parts containing provisions applying to Trentino and South Tyrol). Both in its scope (revision of the basic law) and method (inclusiveness in territorial, intergenerational and socio-linguistic terms) the deliberative processes in Trentino and in South Tyrol are certainly a novum to the respective autonomous province, and in Italy as well as Europe. Especially in South Tyrol, the institutionalization of such a process challenged core principles of its autonomy. Using data from both processes, I examine key aspects of the institutionalization of each process by both referring to principles of normative deliberative theory and emerging literature on constitutional deliberative democracy/participatory constitution-making (a classification valid also for the two processes in Trentino and South Tyrol, because their basic law is of constitutional rank). About the speaker Elisabeth Alber is Senior Researcher, Leader of the Research Hub “Institutional Innovation and Participatory Democracy” and Academic Lead of the Eurac Federal Scholar in Residence Program at the Institute for Comparative Federalism at Eurac Research in South Tyrol, Italy (www.eurac.edu/sfere). She holds a PhD in Comparative Politics from the University of Innsbruck (Austria) and a degree in International Sciences and Diplomacy (Focus on Comparative Public Law) from the University of Turin (Italy). Her research interests are deliberative democracy and participatory constitution-making, comparative federalism and regionalism, decentralization and democratization processes (South-East Asia, especially Myanmar), ethno-linguistic minorities, territorial and personal autonomies. Her working languages are English, German and Italian. Elisabeth can be contacted at elisabeth.alber@eurac.edu and by phone at +39 0471 055 211 (office) or +39 339 32 98 604 (mobile). Her most recent publications in English are: (co-editor with F. Palermo) Federalism As Decision-Making: Changes in Structures, Procedures and Policies, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2015; (single authored peer-reviewed article) „South Tyrol’s Negotiated Autonomy“, in: Treatises and Documents - Journal for Ethnic Studies, 78, 2017, 41-58; (co-authored peer-reviewed article), “Autonomy Convention and Consulta: Deliberative Democracy in Subnational Minority Contexts“, in: ECMI et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of Minority Issues, Volume 16, Brill Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2018, 194-225. Previous Next

< Back Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Tue 15 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. Underlying this research agenda is the core idea that democratic deliberation is, and should be, dispersed throughout an interconnected system. Because no single institution can perfectly uphold deliberative ideals, we should take a holistic view and seek to understand how a variety of sites operate in conjunction with one another. In this article I probe how different types of representatives fit within a deliberative system. The core argument is that representatives can act democratically in very different ways depending upon their role within a wider system. I employ this argument to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of 'self-appointed representatives’. Drawing upon Dryzek's notion of deliberative capacity, I argue that self-appointed representatives should be assessed by whether they have a role in the empowered space within a system or rather act as part of the transmission belt from the public space. About the speaker Jonathan Kuyper is a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm University working on the Transaccess research project (headed by Professor Jonas Tallberg). He completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2012, during which time he was a visiting student at the European University Institute and Princeton University. His work has been published or is forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism, Journal of Public Deliberation, European Journal of International Relations, Ethics and Global Politics and other outlets. Previous Next