Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies. From Conflict to Common GroundUgarriza, Juan E. and DidierCaluwaerts (eds.) Basingstoke/UK, Palgrave Macmillan (2014), 248 p., ISBN 978‐1‐137‐35780‐9

Abstract

Empirical studies of deliberative democracy have seen an unprecedented rise in the last decade. While the earliest phase of deliberative theory throughout the 1980s and 1990s was mainly concerned with formulating a coherent theoretical statement, systematic empirical inquiries on deliberation have only relatively recently begun to emerge. Yet, within this short timeframe, scholars have made enormous progress in tracing deliberative processes and exploring its antecedents and consequences. Most of the effort in this respect has, so far been geared towards the exploration of experimental micro-environments under ideal discursive conditions. Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies. From Conflict to Common Ground by Juan E. Ugarriza and Didier Caluwaerts takes a refreshingly different route. An edited volume organized into 13 chapters, its contributions explore how democratic deliberation takes shape and plays out in non-ideal settings within the public spheres of highly polarized societies (Dryzek 2005, O'Flynn 2006). The authors take an important step in reconnecting empirical research with the large-scale theoretical conceptions aimed at the societal level and the individual “lifeworlds” of the citizens in mass-democracies (Chambers 2009, Habermas 1998). In fact, the inclusion of the term democratic deliberation in the book title precisely underscores this (partial) departure from the normative standards applied in micro-settings. Finally, chapters 11 and 12 provide some extensions and integrations of the diverse findings. First the contribution of Sarah Maddison in chapter 11 explores the place of agonism in deliberative theory. Although some scholars have begun to reconcile deliberative and agonistic theory, Maddison remains skeptical about the extent to which this can succeed. In the end, she finds that many of the examples presented in the book are building a case for agonistic theory which “lives with” rather than artificially “deals with” conflict by enforcing consensual politics (pp. 202-3). In chapter 12, Didier Caluwaerts and Juan E. Ugarriza map institutional and cultural prerequisites for successful deliberation in divided societies. In classifying and categorizing the experiences of the cases, Caluwaerts and Ugarriza point out the importance of decentralization, which creates a strong nexus of informal and formal sites of political action. In particular, they hint at the crucial role of the elite that can promote or undermine such endeavors. Equally, civil society movements cannot be overly partisan if they should contribute to deliberative resolutions of conflicts. While the deliberative systems approach has ample room for politicization and confrontation (and hence becomes more adjacent to agonist theories), a healthy deliberative system in their eyes maintains a balance between confrontation and constructivity. In sum, the book hints at two valuable features for theorists and practitioners of deliberation. First, classic accounts of deliberative democracy have been founded on the idea that deliberation should be an all-encompassing feature of deliberation for society. For instance, Habermas (1998) and Nino (1996) famously argue that rational deliberation bears the potential of remedying the problems involved with structural inequalities in modern societies. The surge of research on micro-environments has led to a partial negligence of this idea (Chambers 2009). In taking up the perspective, the book re-links deliberative theory to the holistic vantage point it originated from. Secondly, it connects to the recent development in the deliberative literature aimed at a “systemic turn”. This involves dealing with imperfect conditions and deviations from the ideal speech situation, as everyday communication is conceived of as a complex amalgam of deliberative and non-deliberative interactions. Therefore, exploring deliberation in divided societies has received little attention so far (exceptions are Dryzek 2005, O'Flynn 2006). Considering the shortage of empirical studies on national political systems as deliberative entities, the volume fills an important gap in the literature—especially with respect to the exploration of exotic cases like Ukraine, Colombia, and Iran, which we know next to nothing about. Yet, the approach of the book is not without shortcomings. Given that each of the chapters offers a broad, large-scale evaluation, many analyses only provide rough markers for highly complex processes. Consequently, the reader relies on the interpretative judgment of the author(s). Even though Caluwaerts and Ugarriza identify commonalities among the cases, empirically oriented scholars might not be fully satisfied with the approach and the methodology. These criticisms notwithstanding, Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies. From Conflict to Common Ground is a very important and much needed contribution to the body of literature on deliberative democracy. Given the infant stage of empirical research of deliberative systems, the exploratory nature of the book raises intriguing questions for future research.