Search Results

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

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

< Back Pragmatism, deliberative democracy and deliberative cultures John Min, College of Southern Nevada Tue 19 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation explores the possibility of developing deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. John Dewey’s pragmatist philosophy will be considered as a third way between the ‘enlightenment deliberative culture’ and the ‘post-modernist deliberative culture.’ Whereas the former privileges universality and rationality in politics, the latter eschews those values in favor of particularity and sentimentality. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture, inspired by Dewey’s philosophy, provides a critical, yet fluid model for transforming East Asian democracies from within. Its critical aspects arise out of the use of intelligent inquiry into problematic situations; but it is fluid enough to account for meliorating present conditions. A pragmatic conception of deliberative culture regards fallibilism (acknowledging that we can be mistaken), experimentalism (experimenting with institutions and practices), and contestation (being critical of the way we criticize) as necessary constituents of a robust deliberative culture. The loci of their development and flourishing are in individuals, families, and communities. Habits of mind and character are the conditions of their development and flourishing. Examples from China and Singapore will be considered to illustrate the key concepts and ideas undergirding a pragmatic conception of deliberative cultures. This presentation contributes to an emerging literature in deliberative democracy in thinking through deliberative cultures in East Asian societies. About the speaker John B. Min ( john.min@csn.edu ) is a Philosophy Instructor at the College of Southern Nevada. He specializes in social-political philosophy and democratic theory. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy at, where he wrote his dissertation, “An Epistemological Defense of Deliberative Democracy,” under the direction of Dr. James Bohman. His papers have been published by Contemporary Pragmatism and in a Routledge edited volume, Thinking about the Enlightenment . Previous Next

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

< Back Deliberative democracy and federal constitutional design and building in Myanmar Baogang He, Deakin University / Dr Michael Breen, University of Melbourne Tue 30 October 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract The recent deliberative democracy literature has addressed many issues on constitutionalism. In particular, John Dryzek’s seminal work on deliberative democracy in divided society and James Fishkin’s deliberative polling on constitutional matters offer a new fresh approach and thinking. This paper aims to engage and advance the current theorizing on deliberative democracy and constitutionalism through a case study of deliberative forums on federal constitutionalism in Myanmar. Myanmar is in an important phase of its democratic transition as it tackles the form of federalism most suited to its conditions and aspirations. Since the 1947 Panglong conference, demands by the ethnic nationalities for ‘genuine federalism’, which have been a primary factor behind conflict, have remained unmet and continue to foment unrest and mistrust. The opportunity for substantive federal reform, and associated peace-building, is present and being progressed at the national level, through Union Peace Dialogues, involving elite level representatives from the military, ethnic armed groups and political parties. However, these forums suffer from problems of democratic legitimacy, significant delay, and polarisation. As one supplement to this process, and in order to demonstrate the value of a deliberative, rather than majoritarian, approach to reform, the presenters organised four deliberative forums based on the deliberative polling methodology. Two deliberations involved mostly members of political parties, ethnic armed groups and civil society organisations, while the other two involved mostly laypersons selected by civil society organisation. Designing the deliberative forums in this way helps to address competing recommendations for deliberation in constitution-making and on identity-based issues – namely those that regard such deliberation as best occurring among laypeople, who are more likely to change to their minds but have limited understanding of technical issues, and those who suggest elite-based forums. We found that in each case participants did change their minds, sometimes against expectations, but to a different degree. Technical matters, like the division of powers, were more pertinent to the elite, while issues like whether or not there should be federalism saw more substantial changes among laypeople. Further, involving political parties and ethnic armed groups established a semi-detached link to the official constitutional change process, in this case the Union Peace Dialogues (21st Century Panglong), and the potential to contribute to the establishment of a more deliberative system. About the speakers Baogang He is Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in International Relations since 2005, at Deakin University, Australia. Graduated with a PhD in Political Science from Australian National University in 1994, Professor He has become widely known for his work in Chinese democratisation and politics, in particular the deliberative politics in China. Professor He has published 7 single-authored books and 63 international refereed journal articles. His publications are found in top journals including British Journal of Political Science, Journal of Peace Research, Political Theory, and Perspectives on Politics. In addition, he published 3 books, 15 book chapters and 63 journal papers in Chinese. Professor He has also held several honorary appointments and research fellowships at renowned universities including Stanford University, University of Cambridge, Columbia University, Leiden and Sussex University. Michael Breen is a McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Prior to that Michael worked at Deakin University, after completing his PhD at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Michael's research focuses on federalism in Asia, and the management of ethnic diversity. He is the author of 'The Road to Federalism in Nepal, Myanmar and Sri Lanka: Finding the Middle Ground' (2018, Routledge) and has participated in Nepal's constitution-making process that established it as a federal democratic republic. Michael's research also explores the role of deliberative democracy and the use of deliberative polling in constitution-making and conflict management. Prior to academia, Michael was a policy maker, negotiator and project manager in various government departments in Australia and international organisations including the United Nations Development Programme. His professional background is in Indigenous rights and native title, political inclusion and environmental conservation. Previous Next

< Back A polychrome approach to social movements and public deliberation Sergio Guillén, Australian National University Tue 17 October 2017 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Within deliberative democrats, the perspective on social movements (SM) has shifted with the ongoing evolution of the field. This has included diverse conceptions such as drivers of discursive contestation, problematic partisans, or complex elements in the deliberative system. In each of those cases, deliberative democracy scholarship has adopted a specific lens that highlights a particular role of social movements in relation to other actors in the deliberative landscape. This emphasis on specific roles allows certain features of SM to be studied in greater depth, but it can also obscure some dimensions that may be relevant for understanding their overall engagement with public deliberation. In my own interpretative study of SM engagement with public deliberation in the highly polarised debate over GMOs in Costa Rica, I sought to develop a more situated grasp of how SM activists enact and construct meaning around their engagement with the diverse spaces of public deliberation. My empirical findings have revealed three distinct orientations within the movement, each of which reflects a converging stream of activist concerns and aspirations in the pursuit of the broader movement goals. While the dominant orientation of partisan resistance corresponds roughly with many of the elements addressed in the scholarship on protest in deliberative systems, the other two orientations trans-partisan inquiry and generative empowerment offer novel elements to the understanding of SM from a deliberative democracy perspective. In this seminar I will discuss the empirical findings of my study concerning the practises through which each orientation of the movement engages with the spaces for public deliberation, and the distinctive claims made through these practises about the content of public discussions, the standing of social actors, the standards of public reasoning, and the sites for public deliberation. I will then outline how these diverse perspectives align in the context of the movement’s collective pursuits and their effects on generating both networked strengths and internal tensions. I will conclude with a discussion of the contributions that a more situated and polychrome exploration of social movements can make to the theory and practice of public deliberation in polarised and diffuse settings. About the speaker Sergio Guillén, is a Ph.D. Candidate at the Crawford School of Public Policy of the Australian National University, and an associated Ph.D. student of the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance in Canberra, Australia. His doctoral research studies the engagement of Central American social movements, such as environmental, indigenous and campesino organizations, with the formal and informal sites of public participation and contention in the deliberative system. Before initiating his doctoral studies, he held the position of Senior Specialist in Social Dialogue at the Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM) in Costa Rica. He has worked for 15 years as a certified mediator and dialogue facilitator in public interest conflict resolution in Latin America. Prior to this, he worked internationally on issues of energy poverty and small-scale clean energy development. He holds a degree in Engineering, from Carleton University, a Master of Arts in Environmental Security and Peace from the University for Peace, and a Graduate Certificate in Natural Resources and Organization Management from the University of Michigan. Previous Next

< Back Who will Bury the Dead? Community Responses in Duterte’s Bloody War on Drugs Investigator(s): Nicole Curato, Jayeel Cornelio and Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez Funded by ANU-DFAT Philippines Project Small Research Grant ($14,000), the Project Team includes: Nicole Curato, Chief Investigator Jayeel S. Cornelio, Co-Investigator Filomin Candaliza-Gutierrez, Co-Investigator Bianca Ysabell Franco, Research Associate Erron Media, Research Associate Project Description This project aims to conduct an exploratory study that examines community responses to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. It is envisioned to be the first phase of a longer-term collaborative project which chronicles the social and political legacies of the drug war on the community level. While international media and human rights groups have called attention to the alarming body counts in the first six months of Duterte’s administration, it is equally important to take a systematic look at the communities that have directly borne the costs of war. The team aims to conduct preliminary data gathering to map formal and informal networks that are created, disrupted or negotiated because of the war, as well as the possibilities and obstructions for grassroots participation to formulate inclusive and humane approaches in solving the problem of illegal drugs. The approach is ethnographic and action-oriented. A team of sociologists will closely observe two communities in Manila that have witnessed a spate of killings and identify spaces for reform. This project aims to generate preliminary insight into how the war has forged or broken social networks within communities, and how it affects formal and informal structures of governance. These insights are crucial to better understand not only the costs of the drug war, but also identify emerging spaces for critical citizenship and collective problem-solving. Academic Publications Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron (Forthcoming) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines,’ Journal of Politics , Religion, and Ideology. Curato, N. and Ong, J.C. (2018) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines,’ in Ethical Responsiveness and the Politics of Difference , T. Dreher and A. Mondal (eds.) New York: Palgrave. Curato, Nicole (2017) The Duterte Reader: Critical Essays in Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency . Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Speaking Engagements Medina, Erron (2019) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Contemporary Identities in Southeast Asia: A public forum on youth, violence, and transnationalism, Ateneo de Manila University. February 15. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Central Mindanao University. January 18. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2019) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society Socio Caravan, Bukidnon State University. January 17. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the Shadows of Duterte’s Drug War.’ Philippine Sociological Society (PSS) Conference, Siquijor State College. October 5-6. Cornelio, Jayeel and Erron Medina (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte’s War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Third International Conference of the Ateneo Center for Asian Studies. August 24. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Philippines under Duterte.’ Invited speaker, Sydney Southeast Asia Centre, University of Sydney. May 18. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘Christianity and Duterte's War on Drugs in the Philippines.’ Invited lecture, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong. April 24. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Who laughs at a rape joke? Crass politics and ethical responsiveness in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Southeast Asia’s democratic recession: Understanding causes and consequences, Griffith Asia, Griffith University. December 11-12. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2018) ‘Penal Populism in the Philippines: The Rise of Violence in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ Invited lecture, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kyoto, Japan. November 8. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘How do populists govern? Lessons from Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Yale MacMillan Centre, Yale University. October 16. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza. (2017) ‘The Rise of Penal Populism and Violence under the Duterte Regime: Research as Response.’ International Sociological Association PhD Laboratory, the University of Adam Mickiewicz, Poznan, Poland. September 21. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘From Demagogues to Deplorables? Populist publics in Rodrigo Duterte’s Philippines.’ Invited speaker, Philippine Studies-Berlin, Humboldt University. June 26. Blogs and Op-eds Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women against women in Duterte’s drug war’ in BroadAgenda . December 11. Cornelio, Jayeel and Medina, Erron. ‘Duterte’s enduring popularity is not just a political choice—it is also religious’ in New Mandala . September 3. Franco, Bianca Ysabelle (2018) ‘Women in the shadows of Duterte’s drug war’ in Rappler.com . June 30. Cornelio, Jayeel (2018) ‘The New Normal’ in Rappler.com . January 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘The deeper dynamics of Duterte’s drug war’ in EastAsiaForum.org . September 8. Gutierrez, Filomin Candaliza (2017) ‘Duterte and Penal Populism: The Hypermasculinity of Crime Control in the Philippines’ in Discover Society.org . August 2. Cornelio, Jayeel (2017) ‘Collateral Damage’ in Rappler.com . August 22. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Women in Duterte’s War on Drugs.’ BroadAgenda . March 1. Media Interviews Curato, Nicole (2019) Interview with David Astle. ABC Radio Melbourne and Victoria. January 31. Curato, Nicole (2018) Duterte’s Despotism. Podcast with Aufhebunga Bunga . November 7. Curato, Nicole (2018) #BabaeAko: Is President Duterte's behaviour sexist, or "taken out of context" in The Stream , Al Jazeera. June 6. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Criticism of Rodrigo Duterte’s “war on drugs” grows after the death of a teenage boy.’ Interview at Radio National . August 23. Curato, Nicole (2017) ‘Duterte refuses to step back from controversial war on drugs.’ Interview at ABC The World . July 24. Curato, Nicole. (2017) ‘Die moisten Toten lebten in Armut.’ Featured interview in Republik.ch . February 27. Curato, Nicole (2017) Interview with BBC’s Up All Night with Rod Sharpe . January 2.

< Back HOW DO SETTLER-COLONIAL INEQUALITIES SHAPE POLITICAL BEHAVIOUR AND COMMUNICATION IN ANGLO-DEMOCRACIES? About this event Social structure becomes internalized as cognitive dispositions that shape social action (Bourdieu 2000). In settler-colonial societies, how do White settlers’ cognitive dispositions—specifically, White settlers’ racial attitudes—shape political behaviour and communication? Can we design interventions so that political discourse (talking through disagreement) improves White settlers’ outgroup attitudes? In this talk, Professor Edana Beauvais gives an overview of her research on the political consequences of White settlers’ racial attitudes. She also discusses the results of an experiment that varied communication style (rational-legal speech versus personal storytelling) to see if personal storytelling could improve White settlers’ attitudes toward Indigenous peoples. Edana Beauvais is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University. She is the Chair of the Participedia Democracy and Digital Communication Cluster and the President of the American Political Science Association’s Democratic Innovations Group. Before joining SFU, she held a Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship at Duke University, a Visiting Democracy Fellowship at the Ash Center, Harvard University, and a SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship, McGill University. She is interested in the way inequalities shape communication and action, producing unequal political influence between different social group members. Seminar series convenors: Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal. Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedies to Deliberative Action Nicole Curato 2019 , Oxford University Press Winner of the Virginia Miralao Best Book Prize from the Philippine Social Science Council Summary Democracy in a Time of Misery: From Spectacular Tragedy to Deliberative Action investigates how democratic politics can unfold in creative and unexpected of ways even at the most trying of times. Drawing on three years of fieldwork in disaster-affected communities in Tacloban City, Philippines, this book presents ethnographic portraits of how typhoon survivors actively perform their suffering to secure political gains. These ethnographic descriptions come together in a theoretical project that makes a case for a multimodal view of deliberative action. It underscores the embodied, visual, performative and subtle ways in which affective political claims are constructed and received. It concludes by arguing that while emotions play a role in amplifying marginalized political claims, it also creates hierarchies of misery that renders some forms of suffering more deserving of compassion than others. Read more Previous Next

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

< Back Mohammad Abdul-Hwas PhD Candidate About Mohammad’s research focuses on refugee governance and deliberative democracy. His passion to study and research a refugees’ affairs is drawn from his family’s Palestinian heritage. Before moving to Australia, Mohammad completed his undergraduate degree in business at Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand. He then worked at Fairfax Media and completed a Postgraduate Diploma at Massey University. In 2016, he completed his Master of Management from University of Canberra. It was while pursuing his master’s degree that Mohammad dove into the world of leadership and governance. Connecting with Syrian refugees drove Mohammad to research deliberative democracy, with the ambition to improve the experience and agency for people caught in a refugee crisis. Dissertation Mohammad’s PhD thesis is titled “The governance of refugees from a deliberative system perspective: The case of Syrian refugee crisis”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) describes the Syrian refugee crisis as ‘the largest displacement crisis of our time’. Using a deliberative systems approach, the research demonstrates the various ways in which decisions that impact the lives of refugees are made. Deliberative system is a fitting approach to understand the relationship between vulnerable communities and decision-makers, particularly its normative emphasis on inclusiveness, authenticity, and consequentiality. Mohammad conducted eight weeks of extensive fieldwork in refugee camps and urban centres in Jordan to investigate all aspects that surround refugee’s governance and decision making. There are two key reasons for this research benefit. First, humanitarian actors hold power in managing the lives of refugees; It is worth investigating how they conduct politics, and whether their practices serve to promote decisions that are justifiable to those who will experience their impact. Second, refugee governance and deliberative democracy emerge from different traditions, these two fields are running on parallel tracks; They need to be connected to identify pathways by which refugees can gain voice and influence in shaping their future, and to investigate whether humanitarian actors can do better. PhD supervisors Nicole Curato (Primary Supervisor) Brendan McCaffrie (Secondary Supervisor) Teaching S EMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor, University of Canberra Unit Title: Investigating and Explaining Society (11236.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor, University of Canberra Unit Title: Introduction to Public Policy (11378.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2023: Academic Tutor-University of Canberra Accelerated Pathways program H course: Politics and Democracy (APP) (11846). Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 1, 2023: Academic Tutor-University of Canberra Unit Title: Political and Social Theory (11243.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. SEMESTER 2, 2022: Academic Marking-University of Canberra Unit Title: Introduction to International Relations (11238.1) Organisation: Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society. Faculty of Business, Government & Law. University of Canberra, Australia. Conference Presentations “The potential and limits of deliberative democracy in the governance of refugee crisis”. New Zealand Political Studies Association (NZPSA) Annual Conference, November 30, 2022. The University of Waikato, New Zealand (Virtual Conference). “Governance of refugee crisis from a deliberative approach: Focus on public and empowered spaces”. Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Annual Conference, September 27, 2022. Australian National University, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative assessment”. NEXT Generation Deliberation Celebration Symposium, June 10, 2021. KU Leuven University, Belgium (Virtual Conference). “The role of deliberation in governing the Syrian refugee crisis: Insights from the field”. Deliberative Democracy Seminar Series, October 6, 2020. University of Canberra, Australia. “Governing the Syrian refugee crisis: A deliberative perspective”. Australian Political Studies Association (APSA) Conference. September 18, 2020. Virtual Conference. “The role of deliberation in governance of the Syrian refugee crisis”. Deliberative Democracy Summer School. February 5, 2020. University of Canberra, Australia. Projects Mohammad is part of a global research team on the Global Assembly on the Climate and Ecological Emergency. Among the thirty researchers from different parts of the globe, he actively participated in observing deliberative engagement processes during the plenary sessions at Global Assembly COP26. Administration Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book reception 2022. Co-organizer, Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance’s Book Harvest 2020.

< Back Creative publics: Deliberation in Canada and the story of MASS LBP Peter MacLeod, Principal, MASS LBP Wed 9 May 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Since its founding in 2007, MASS LBP has led some of Canada's most original and ambitious efforts to engage citizens in tackling tough policy choices. From privacy legislation to community planning to health policy, MASS has conducted more than 35 major reference panels, citizens’ assemblies and commissions involving more than 1500 Canadians, and reaching more than 300,000 households. Today, MASS is an internationally recognised leader in the design and delivery of deliberative processes for government. About the speaker Peter MacLeod is the founder and principal of MASS LBP, and one of Canada's leading experts in public engagement and deliberative democracy. He is a former researcher at Britain's Demos think tank, and a long-time friend to Denmark's Kaospilots, a school for business design and social innovation. He writes and speaks frequently about the citizen's experience of the state, the importance of public imagination, and the future of responsible government. He currently serves on the board of Tides Canada, a national environmental charity, and chairs Toronto's Wellesley Institute, a leading think tank dedicated to improving health equity and the social determinants of health. He also lectures in the politics and governance department at Ryerson University. Previous Next

< Back Democratic transformations in earth system governance Jonathan Pickering, University of Canberra Tue 22 October 2019 The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Confidence in the ability of democracies to safeguard environmental sustainability has been shaken by failures to address climate change and biodiversity loss, along with a rise in anti-environmental populism across a range of countries. There is substantial (albeit contested) evidence that democracies perform better on environmental issues than non-democratic countries. And a resurgence in environmental activism, particularly among young people, offers renewed hope that democratic practices can coexist with progress towards sustainability. Nevertheless, major questions remain: are democracies capable of governing the rapid, wide-ranging economic and social transformations needed to address mounting risks to the Earth’s life-support systems? And what policy options are available to achieve sustainability transformations in ways that are democratically legitimate? This talk, based on a co-authored article in progress, aims to synthesise existing knowledge on the democratic implications of transformations towards sustainability and to chart new directions for research in this area. By linking ideas of sustainability transformations and democratic transformations together, we show how each can illuminate the other. About the speaker Jonathan Pickering is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. His research focuses on democracy, reflexivity and justice in global environmental governance, and he is currently working on an Australian Research Council Laureate project on ‘Deliberative Worlds’ led by Professor John Dryzek. His research has been published in a range of journals including Climate Policy , Environmental Politics and Global Environmental Politics . He has co-authored with John Dryzek a book on The Politics of the Anthropocene (Oxford University Press, 2019) and with several colleagues a Cambridge Element on Deliberative Global Governance (2019). Previous Next

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

< Back When anger turns hip-hop: The deliberative capacity of teenagers' festive protests in Japan Kei Nishiyama, University of Canberra Tue 6 February 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract As one of several new forms of nonviolent activism, “festive” protests, or “protestival,” have received considerable attention from scholars and activists alike. By employing fun-centric and performance-based actions (e.g. singing hip-hop, writing songs, dancing, drawing street arts, or marching in a parade with colourful and humorous costumes), festive protestors form and sustain their movements, challenge dominant discourses, and drive social change in a unique manner. Importantly, festive protests can provide politically marginalized people, in this case teenagers, with a variety of opportunities to become involved in social change as they utilize teenager-friendly means of action. In this presentation, I will examine the democratic capacity of teenagers’ festive protests. In particular, I will seek to answer the question, what are the democratic purposes, contributions and meanings of teenagers’ festive protests? I will evaluate the democratic contribution of teenagers’ festive protests using the deliberative systems framework. This framework helps us to consider how the teenagers’ various communicative actions in social movements contribute to induce authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation across society thereby evaluating the democratic contribution of teenagers’ festive protests. This presentation will focus on the case of teenagers’ festive protests in Japan in the 2010s. I will contrast the case of the 2010s with protests in the 1960s. Both sets of protests are recognised as historically significant periods of teenagers’ protesting in Japan, motivated by the same issue (anti-war). However, the two sets of protests utilised radically different means (violent and festive), thereby leading to different consequences. The preliminary analysis of (a) repertoires of contention, (b) the type and content of speech actions, and (c) the political and social responses shall reveal the communicative and inclusive functions that teenagers’ festive protests potentially have in deliberative systems. About the speaker Kei Nishiyama is a Ph.D. student at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy & Global Governance.. His Ph.D. resarch - under the supervision of Prof John Dryzek and Dr Selen Ercan - investigates the way in which children can act as agents (rather than merely future citizens) of deliberative democracy. By employing the deliberative system appraoch as a theoretical framewrok, Kei considers pathways in which children's various deliberative actions (including deliberation in public space, participating in activist groups, deliberating in schools, deliberating with families or friends) can be incorporated in a wider deliberative system. Previosuly Kei studied philosophy of education at Rikkyo University (Japan) and gained a Bachelor (Arts in Education) and a Master Degree (Pedagogy). Kei is also a dialogue practitoner (6 years experience) of one deliberative practice in schools and society, called "philosophy for children." Kei is currently a part-time lecturer at the Department of Behavioral Science of Motivation, Correspondence College, Tokyo Future University, Japan. He lectures on politics of schooling, namely multiculturalism and identity problems in the context of school education. 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 Co-producing deliberative space: Reflections from city level water forum initiatives in India and Nepal Hemant R Ojha, University of Canberra Tue 17 November 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel . Abstract There is now an increasing level of endorsement of the deliberative approach to governance, bolstered by evidence of benefits in legitimacy, inclusion, social learning, and even the quality of governance outcomes. In the Global South, however, entrenched power asymmetries and political cultures that tend to ignore, if not actively suppress, the practice of deliberation in political decision making continue to challenge efforts to improve deliberation in governance. In this paper, I reflect on some recent and ongoing action research initiatives supporting urban water forums in four cities in India and Nepal. Locally engaged research team partnered with academic research groups from Europe and Australia to design and test urban water forums as an experiment to expand deliberative space on issues related to water management, access, and resilience to climate change. The forums were co-organised by local research groups and city level governments, inviting representatives of all major social groups that have an interest in or are concerned with the problems of water in the city. Over a period of five years, these experiments show that locally engaged research practice can stimulate open dialogues, self-reflections (especially among the powerful groups), system-wide collective thinking, and an appreciation of the longer-term environmental risks in city level planning and decision making. However, seeing through the lens of co-production, these gains in deliberation that emerged in the context of transnational research partnership are less likely to effect new modes of co-production in governance, without larger, deeper and system-wide processes of change and transformation. This experience suggests that small-scale innovations in deliberation can meet co-production limit but can still show directionality and confidence in larger and deeper changes in the system. About the speaker Hermant R Ojha is Adjunct Associate Professor at the Center for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance and Senior Policy Advisor at the Institute for Study and Development Worldwide (IFSD) in Sydney. Previous Next

< Back From elected to connected: Designing for recursive representation Nick Vlahos, Selen Ercan, Nardine Alnemr and John Dryzek (University of Canberra), Andrew Leigh (MP) Tue 4 May 2021 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Seminar recording is available on our YouTube channel. Abstract Recent thinking on improving the deliberative qualities of elected representation can be captured under the broad heading of what Jane Mansbridge terms recursive representation, which seeks ongoing interaction between representatives and their constituents. This paper explores the possibilities of facilitating such interaction by establishing a series of deliberative townhalls where the constituents meet their elected representatives and discuss the issues of common concern. Empirically, the paper draws on a recent experiment in ‘directly representative democracy’ in Australia, which involved designing two deliberative town halls with a Federal Member of the Parliament to discuss a controversial issue (mitochondrial donation) ahead of a parliamentary debate on this issue. Drawing on the interviews with the participants of these town halls, we argue that recursive representation works well in directly representative democracy to the degree three criteria of deliberative capacity are met: authenticity, inclusion and consequentiality. The paper unpacks the meaning of each criteria from the perspective of town hall participants and discusses their relevance for the theory and practice of recursive representation. About the speakers Nick Vlahos is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Selen Ercan is an Associate Professor of Politics at the Institute’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. Nardine Alnemr is a PhD candidate at the entre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. John Dryzek is Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Centenary Professor in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis. Andrew Leigh is a Member of the Australian House of Representatives. Previous Next

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

< Back When does deliberation occur, and how do you know you've found it? Simon Niemeyer, University of Canberra Tue 26 July 2016 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract This presentation focusses on the question of how the process of deliberation takes place in mini public settings. In part it revisits the findings of Goodin and Niemeyer (2003) who found that most of the transformation takes place during the early phase of deliberation where information is acquired. The findings draw from a real-world deliberative event in Uppsala Sweden involving 60 participants considering options for addressing the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. As for Goodin and Niemeyer, transformation is measured in terms of position on underlying issues (attitudes/beliefs, values) at three stages (pre; mid, following information presentations; and post-deliberation), but in this case policy preferences were also surveyed permitting a wider range of analysis. The results are consistent with Goodin and Niemeyer, where the greatest transformation occurs during the early information phase of the event. However, another measure of transformation (intersubjective consistency) is most strongly affected during the later deliberation phase. The results raise the question in respect to what counts as deliberative transformation. They also suggest that deliberation from the individual perspective may involve a sequence whereby the initial opening of minds induces a higher level of receptiveness to information and transformation, which is followed by a subsequent process of reflection. To the extent that this model of internal deliberation is valid it potentially accounts for wildly conflicting results obtained from observing deliberation, as well as potential implications for understanding the possibility of both deliberation within and deliberation in mass settings. About the speaker Simon Niemeyer is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow whose research covers the broad fields of deliberative democracy and environmental governance, particularly in respect to climate change. His focus is on the forces that shape public opinion and how this can be improved so that the expressed preference of the public better reflects their collective long-term interests. This has guided his research in the direction of exploring the nature of preference change during deliberative minipublics, which is now moving into a phase of understanding the possibility for deliberative preference formation in mass public settings and the institutional features that best facilitate deliberative democratic governance. Simon completed his PhD at the Australian National University and since then has been the recipient of a number of Australian Research Council Awards, including his current Future Fellowship. As well as his Future Fellowship he is the lead investigator on an ARC project concerning the possibilities for achieving mass public deliberation; a co-investigator on another ARC project on deliberative democracy and achieving just outcomes when adapting to climate change (with David Schlosberg), and a co-investigator on a Swedish Research Council project (with Julia Jennstål) concerning the nature of the deliberative person. He is currently co-located between the University of Uppsala and the University of Canberra while he develops international links for the next phase of research in assessing deliberativeness of national political settings. Previous Next