Deliberative Democracy Research Articles

The Indonesian health law system remains predominantly administrative and technocratic in nature, thereby falling short in ensuring social justice in the distribution of healthcare services, particularly for vulnerable groups such as indigenous communities in underdeveloped, remote, and outermost (3T) regions. This study aims to reconstruct the paradigm of health law in Indonesia through the lens of legal political philosophy in order to promote a more inclusive, participatory, and sustainable approach to healthcare delivery. Employing a qualitative descriptive method, this research utilizes literature review and content analysis to explore and reformulate the health law paradigm based on secondary data interpreted through legal political philosophy. The findings suggest that legal political philosophy plays a critical role in reshaping the health law paradigm by highlighting the interconnection between law, political power, and morality, as well as the state’s responsibility to uphold the right to health in a fair and inclusive manner. This reconstruction must be grounded in principles of justice, transparency, public participation, and ethical integration, transforming health law into a vehicle for social emancipation that strengthens deliberative democracy and substantive justice.

This paper challenges the assumed connection between sortition and the ‘deliberative turn’ in democratic theory. Drawing on the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning (Mercier and Landemore, 2012) we argue that agonistic debate between elected policy advocates with the outcome determined by randomly selected citizens’ juries would provide a better division of labour than moderated deliberation in citizens’ assemblies, and operationalize this with the example of the ‘Superminority’ method (Sutherland and Kovner, 2020). The paper concludes that sortition would be better conceptualized as part of the republican theory of the mixed constitution rather than deliberative democracy.

ABSTRACT This article proposes a new model of bicameral sortition democracy that rethinks the division of labor between elected and randomly selected bodies. Existing bicameral proposals either give sortition chambers weak or co-equal authority, limiting their ability to realize the epistemic promise of deliberative democracy. By contrast, I propose a model in which an elected chamber sets the legislative agenda and oversees deliberative fairness, while a sortition chamber holds exclusive authority to deliberate and decide policy. This design preserves the communicative and authorization functions of elections, while securing the epistemic advantages of cognitively diverse citizen deliberation. I evaluate this model against three alternatives, pure sortition, co-equal bicameralism, and subordinate sortition bicameralism, along four normative dimensions: resistance to elite capture, representation and inclusion, epistemic quality, and legitimacy and accountability. I argue that only a model that empowers citizens in their ‘post-learning’ capacity, while grounding decisions in a democratically visible and contestable process, can deliver a political system that is both legitimate and epistemically robust.

Problem: The judicial system is no stranger to the corruption that plagues the public sector. Recently, the importance of redefining the principles that have characterized the work of judges has emerged, with a view to ensuring their performance is timely, efficient, and citizen-friendly. Therefore, the transition to deliberative democracy, taking into account the principles of open justice, is pertinent. Objective: To analyze the impact of open justice, as the cornerstone of the open State, on strengthening deliberative democracy in Colombia. Methodology: The research was structured using a qualitative paradigm, legal-philosophical research, exploratory-projective scope, and deductive method. Results: The participatory principle of open justice, although not the exclusive contribution of this trend, is a scenario that should be observed not only because it complies with international agreements, but also because it counters criticisms of the need for "democratization". Conclusion: This governance does not undermine the principles of autonomy and independence of the judiciary, but rather represents an opportunity, given the institutional design of constitutional democracy, to strengthen dialogue and deliberative democracy in Colombia, especially because judges are increasingly influencing political and moral debates given the lag of the legislative branch.

The concept of accountability is central to understanding how sustainable corporate governance (SCG) structures shape organizational behavior, legitimacy, and firm performance in the pursuit of sustainability goals. While widely invoked, accountability is often treated inconsistently across governance contexts—oscillating between technical compliance and ethical legitimacy. This paper provides a structured conceptual review of how accountability is framed and operationalized within sustainability governance, with a specific focus on its implications for sustainable performance, corporate sustainability strategies, and governance effectiveness. Based on a qualitative analysis of thirteen peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2025, the study identifies three dominant conceptual clusters: compliance-oriented, legitimacy-oriented, and hybrid approaches. Each cluster reflects different accountability logics and governance mechanisms—ranging from ESG metrics and sustainability reporting frameworks to participatory forums and stakeholder engagement processes that support sustainable development. The article synthesizes theoretical contributions from institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and deliberative democracy to explore how accountability serves as a bridge between formal governance mechanisms and legitimacy claims. A conceptual framework is proposed to illustrate the tensions and complementarities between compliance-driven and legitimacy-driven governance models in sustainability contexts. By deepening the theoretical understanding of accountability in corporate sustainability, this review contributes to the literature on ESG governance, social and environmental reporting, and the legitimacy–performance nexus in corporate settings. The findings offer a foundation for advancing more inclusive, transparent, and sustainability-oriented corporate governance practices in response to global sustainability challenges and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

BackgroundDeveloping sustainable health promotion interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges due to limited infrastructure and diverse cultural contexts. Community engagement is essential for effective health promotion, but higher intensity strategies may be infeasible in under-resourced settings. This study aimed to adapt the Mentor Mother (MM) HIV peer program to include HPV self-screening for Nigerian women living with HIV using deliberative democracy (DD) principles.MethodsThe study utilized a tiered DD approach to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on feasible and sustainable strategies for the MM program. The process included two tiers: an initial deliberation among the research team and a subsequent community deliberation. The research team deliberation involved online sessions to identify feasible program adaptations as well as a model deliberation process. The community deliberation included a diverse group of stakeholders who participated in a two-day conference, engaging in small and large group discussions to reach consensus on program adaptations.ResultsThe research team identified two options for HPV sample collection and result delivery. The community deliberation reached consensus on both questions. For sample collection, the preferred option was for MMs to educate women in organized groups and transport samples to the laboratory. For result delivery, the consensus was for MMs to return all results to patients after additional training. The process demonstrated high levels of participant satisfaction, increased self-efficacy in explaining HPV screening, and adherence to DD principles of inclusivity, reasoned justification, and societal perspective.ConclusionThe DD process was feasible and effective in adapting the MM program for HPV screening in Nigeria. The approach empowered community members and enhanced the intervention’s development. However, adaptations were necessary to address cultural norms and logistical challenges. The study highlights the potential of DD to inform health promotion strategies in LMICs, ensuring interventions are culturally appropriate and sustainable.

Prime Minister Sutan Sjahrir's political policies promoted progressive social democratic values. The concept of social democracy is not merely a mechanical combination of socialism and democracy. Instead, it views the two as two sides of the same coin that complement and reinforce each other. This research examines Sutan Sjahrir's socio-democratic ideas, which are analyzed using Jürgen Habermas's political philosophy theory. The aim is to identify the socio-democratic ideas promoted by Sutan Sjahrir, which will be reviewed from the perspective of Jürgen Habermas's political philosophy. This study employs a literature review method, which is analyzed using content analysis. This method is used to collect and analyze the content of a text, including elements such as words, image meanings, symbols, ideas, themes, and various forms of messages that can be conveyed. The results of this research show (1) Sutan Sjahrir's socio-democratic ideas regarding the separation of powers, social democracy, true independence, equality, and social justice. (2) Sutan Sjahrir's socio-democratic ideas on the separation of powers, social democracy, true independence, equality, and social justice are relevant to Habermas' ideas on the public sphere and deliberative democracy, which emphasize active citizen participation in political decision-making

Abstract While scholars of deliberative democracy have long conceded that good deliberation requires careful facilitation, little attention has been paid to the effects of different facilitation methods. This paper has three aims. First, it establishes the importance of facilitation. Second, it argues that facilitation may not be enough to counteract the imbalances in power and influence within deliberation. As such, this paper introduces two games that can be utilized in concert with facilitation: deliberative worth exercises and simulated representation. The former pushes participants to remain aware of their behavior patterns within deliberation by asking them to choose the best deliberator at the end of each round of deliberation; the latter enables empathy and perspective-taking by partnering participants and asking them to represent one another’s viewpoints for a portion of deliberation as if they were their own. Third, using proof-of-concept experiments, this paper demonstrates the efficacy of these games.

This article will address the use of TikTok as a political communication tool in Jorge Álvarez Máynez's presidential campaign in the 2024 Mexican elections. In a context of apathy toward traditional politics and the exponential growth of social media, TikTok is emerging as one of the main platforms in the electoral battlefield, where more than competing for ideas, it's competing for the attention of young audiences. Theoretical Foundation: The research is based on contributions from digital political communication, emotional technopolitics, and algorithm theory. Authors such as Castells (2009), Gerbaudo (2018, 2022), Cervi, Tejedor and Blesa (2023) and Rodríguez (2025) explain how digital environments reconfigure the political map, privileging aesthetics, charisma and virality over programmatic argumentation. Methodology: A qualitative content analysis was carried out on thirty videos officially published on Máynez's account, between March and May 2024. The speeches, performative elements, musical and humorous resources, as well as citizen interaction were studied, paying special attention to user reception and participation. Results: The campaign was characterized by a strategic and intensive use of the platform, with visual and emotional narratives that generated high levels of interaction. In a poorly regulated electoral environment, Máynez achieved an unprecedented communication advantage, driven by algorithms that favored performative and emotional discourses, giving her disproportionate visibility compared to her opponents. Conclusion: TikTok doesn't democratize, but rather personalizes; it doesn't equalize but fragments; and far from strengthening democratic deliberation, it displaces it toward an attention market dominated by algorithmic logic.

ABSTRACT As liberal democracies confront deepening distrust and democratic erosion, deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are often promoted as instruments for rebuilding trust in political institutions. This article questions that premise. It argues that DMPs depend on background structures of second-order trust-citizens' confidence in the broader system that authorises and responds to participatory forums. When these structures are eroded, DMPs cannot meaningfully deliver trust-building outcomes, no matter how inclusive or well-designed they are. Drawing on the case of the European Citizens' Panels during the Conference on the Future of Europe (2021-2022), the article shows that while participants valued deliberation, they remained sceptical of institutional responsiveness and sincerity. Their mistrust reflected not procedural deficiencies within the panels, but the perceived democratic deficit of the EU itself. This analysis exposes a critical blind spot in the deliberative democracy literature: the assumption that trust is both desirable and achievable under crisis conditions. Instead, the article proposes an alternative democratic function for DMPs — as institutions for organising and expressing democratic distrust. Reimagined as oversight bodies rather than trust-generating devices, DMPs could enhance accountability, visibility, and contestation in contexts where rebuilding consensus is less urgent than safeguarding democracy from further decline.

Abstract This paper investigates what drives collaboration or conflict between domain and method experts in deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI), and how these dynamics can be managed to fairly reshape the space of ethics guiding expert work. The emergence of sophisticated epistemic technologies, e.g., AI, has amplified the importance of method experts. Leveraging their knowledge of data science, mathematics, and coding, method experts have challenged the authority of domain experts, like external auditors. These challenges generate tensions extending beyond jurisdictional and operational control to profound ethical and moral concerns, since jurisdictional authority determines whose values are embedded in AI-driven decision-making. Empirical research presents divergent views on how domain and method experts navigate such tensions in AI deployments, with some studies suggesting that domain experts leverage their status and power to resist changes to ethical considerations. To reconcile these fragmented perspectives, we develop a conceptual framework grounded in the literature that frames expert work as a balance between individual craftsmanship and collective judgment. We offer two contributions. First, drawing on foundational literature on technology and expert work as well as empirical studies on AI and external auditing, we identify existing conditions and mechanisms that foster cooperation or conflict between different expert groups. Second, informed by Habermasian conceptions of deliberative democracy, we explicate how the space of ethics in deploying AI can be fairly reshaped through multi-layered deliberations that account for diverse stakeholder interests. Our framework provides a foundation for future empirical studies to deepen understanding of AI’s impact on expert work and ethics.

In the decade between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, critical voices within the conservation biology community argued that site selection for protected areas was most often done in a way that was unscientific. Conservation practitioners, many of whom became acutely aware of the constraints of the policy world through direct participation, believed that they needed to think pragmatically about establishing a scientific basis for the design of protected areas. Some of the conservation practitioners came to see rationalistic tools such as optimization algorithms embedded within decision-support systems as means of reconciling social, economic, and environmental interests. This paper recapitulates the history of the first significant policy initiative that purported to use algorithmic decision support software, MARXAN, by interweaving environmental history, history of computing, and history of science. Specifically, it is a historical reconstruction of the use of MARXAN in its first large-scale conservation policy project: a rezoning of Australia's Great Barrier Reef that took place between 1998 and 2004. This paper asks: how exactly was MARXAN used in the conservation policy planning initiative? And, what role did MARXAN play in narratives about the success of the policy initiative? I argue that in Australian case, it was the commitment to political value of democratic deliberation and not the allure of algorithmic objectivity that stood behind what was by many considered an agenda-setting marine conservation policy. These findings add support to the growing consensus in critical algorithmic studies against algorithmic determinism by situating the agency of the users of MARXAN within a larger context of a "drama" as reported (Hilgartner in Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 2000) of science advice.

ABSTRACT Recent studies have explored how social responsibility journalism can serve as an antidote to polarization. This study builds upon mediatized collective memory scholarship to examine how social responsibility journalism can seize upon memorial days as opportunities to employ deliberative principles as guidelines for advancing social norms that counter polarization. Media discourse on Tisha B’Av provides a useful case study, as it is a national memorial day marking historical disasters that befell the Jewish people, attributed primarily to deep internal polarization and “baseless hatred,” a concept comparable to affective polarization. Thematic analysis of radio broadcasts reveals that journalists utilized collective memory scripts to point out the relevancy of Tisha B’Av, to characterize current polarization trends, and to call for public and media action to alleviate polarization, while implicitly referencing deliberative democracy principles. However, deliberative democracy ideals remain at the level of rhetoric. The discussion calls for further research on ways by which social responsibility journalism can utilize collective memory opportunities to counter polarization.

Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) represent an innovation in the design of organizations by creating blockchain-based human-machine systems that are governed based on the collective decisions of their participants. Although this new form of organizing promises to sustain participation and foster decentralized governance, many existing DAOs have failed to achieve the intended degrees of decentralization. This study aims to understand how DAOs can fulfill their potential for decentralization by empowering individuals to participate in governance. Using an abductive approach guided by the empowerment theory, this research identifies three key practices underpinning empowerment in DAOs: promoting autonomy, ensuring transparency, and fostering communication. A configurational approach is used to identify complementarities among these practices that lead to three distinct governance archetypes associated with varying degrees of decentralization. Based on fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) of 30 DAO cases, we introduce “deliberative democracy” as a DAO governance archetype that allows for increasingly decentralized governance. Our findings demonstrate that, although a high degree of autonomy is needed to sustain decentralization, there needs to be sufficient communication among autonomous actors to facilitate the collective management of DAOs. These findings advance the understanding of decentralization in information systems research and highlight the governance mechanisms that foster decentralization in blockchain-based systems.

Abstract Offensive language affects contemporary societies by hindering communication and increasing polarisation. In this study, we apply computational linguistics to investigate offensive reactions to public figures in the climate debate on Twitter across their roles and popularity. We also use sentiment analysis to inspect the accuracy of lexical criteria in detecting negative attitudes and examine the types of social media users based on the frequency of offensive content in their posts. With an in-depth, large-scale corpus analysis comprising one million words, we demonstrate that frequent offensiveness in responses to politicians relatively rarely expresses personal attacks, and the popularity of public figures does not always come together with the highest density of offensive reactions. We also show that most users publish predominantly non-abusive posts. The study sets foundations for strategies to be employed to reduce polarisation that constitutes a threat to deliberative democracy.

Citizen participation in policy-making has become a defining feature of contemporary democratic governance, yet its effectiveness varies across political, social, and technological contexts. This narrative review aims to synthesize evidence on mechanisms of citizen engagement, influencing factors, and governance outcomes. Literature searches were conducted across Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar using targeted keywords such as public participation, participatory governance, and deliberative democracy. Inclusion criteria focused on empirical and conceptual studies addressing citizen engagement in policy-making, while both qualitative and quantitative designs were considered. The results show that mechanisms such as Participatory Action Research, Citizen Advisory Boards, and digital platforms facilitate transparency, accountability, and trust when effectively institutionalized. Comparative evidence from contexts including Japan, Indonesia, and Europe demonstrates that participatory models enhance policy legitimacy and responsiveness but require adaptation to local cultures and institutional capacities. However, systemic barriers—ranging from political dominance and socio-economic inequalities to digital literacy gaps—continue to hinder inclusivity and long-term sustainability. These findings emphasize the importance of embedding participatory mechanisms within institutional and legal frameworks while leveraging information and communication technologies to broaden access.This review concludes that citizen engagement is both a normative imperative and a practical strategy for improving governance. Future research should explore cross-country comparisons, develop long-term evaluation metrics, and examine how marginalized populations can be more effectively integrated. Strengthening participatory governance is crucial for advancing transparency, accountability, and democratic resilience.

The rise of social media platforms has fundamentally reshaped the global information ecosystem, fostering the spread of disinformation. Beyond the circulation of false content, this article frames disinformation as an aesthetic crisis of public communication: an algorithmic reorganization of sensory experience that privileges performative virality over shared intelligibility, fragmenting public discourse and undermining democratic deliberation. Drawing on John Dewey’s philosophy of aesthetic experience and critical theory (Adorno, Benjamin, Fuchs, Han), we argue that journalism, understood as a form of public art rather than mere fact-transmission, can counteract this crisis by cultivating critical attention, narrative depth, and democratic engagement. We introduce the concept of aesthetic literacy as an extension of media literacy, equipping citizens to discern between seductive but superficial forms and genuinely transformative experiences. Empirical examples from Portugal (Expresso, Público, Mensagem de Lisboa) illustrate how multimodal journalism—through paced narratives, interactivity, and community dialogue—can reconstruct Deweyan “integrated experience” and resist algorithmic disinformation. We propose three axes of intervention: (1) public education oriented to aesthetic sensibility; (2) journalistic practices prioritizing ambiguity and depth; and (3) algorithmic transparency. Defending journalism as a public art of experience is thus crucial for democratic regeneration in the era of sensory capitalism, offering a framework to address the structural inequalities embedded in global information flows.

abstract Dr Stockmann’s endeavor to straddle truth and rhetoric summons up the long-age Platonic division between rational and truth-seeking debate, and manipulative and power-oriented oratory. Identifying the doctor’s speech as a case of tentative deliberative rhetoric, this article speculates over its shortcomings and eventual victory in defeat. It purports to demonstrate how this speech sits uneasily between mass public discourse and morality-framed oratory, and how it fails in either earning the doctor absolute and effective followership, or ushering in a democratic deliberation that could defuse mob violence. This takes the article a step further as it considers how the genre of the play itself steers it in a direction that offers not a reconciliation between truth and power, but rather a polarization thereof. While it draws upon classical philosophy and modern deliberation theory, this article is equally grounded in the playwright’s own socialist outlook on drama as well as in Girardian anthropological explanations of the mechanism of the tragic. The latter is activated in An Enemy of the People by the tragic hero’s parrhesia and the scapegoating he incurs at the hands of the majority, both being the obverse or the tragic pattern of the people’s will in participatory democracy.

This study examines the integrity of general elections through the lens of prophetic journalism. A qualitative approach was employed to explore the perspectives and experiences of institutional administrators, community leaders, and local residents regarding electoral integrity grounded in prophetic journalism. This approach emphasizes the importance of relationships among various actors in the public policy process, including government institutions, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. The research was conducted at the East Java Provincial General Election Commission (KPU), with data collected directly by the researcher through observation of words and actions. Data collection was carried out holistically and integratively, focusing on relevance to the study objectives. Data analysis involved systematically searching, organizing, and processing all interview transcripts while ensuring validity through careful verification procedures. The results indicate that electoral integrity can be maintained effectively through a combination of deliberative democracy and prophetic journalism. In this context, the media functions not only as an information distributor but also as a moral agent ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness throughout the electoral process. Campaigns to validate and counter hoax news during elections are most effective when prophetic journalism is integrated with agenda-setting theory, allowing the media to shape public perception through information filtering, digital literacy education, and the delivery of objective and ethical reporting. Prophetic journalism also serves as a social control mechanism, reinforcing transparency and oversight by combining the press’s watchdog function with principles of honesty, responsibility, and wisdom, preventing electoral manipulation and safeguarding democratic integrity.

This article aims to examine the concept of pseudo-activity as formulated by Theodor W. Adorno, establishing a dialogue with the proposal of the end of the labor society, offering a reflection in light of Jürgen Habermas’s perspective. Both thinkers are associated with the critical tradition of the Frankfurt School, although they present different approaches regarding the implications of modernity for work, culture, and the public sphere. Adorno criticizes rationalization and mass culture, considering them instruments of dehumanization in social and labor interactions. This dynamic generates practices that, although seemingly emancipatory, in fact perpetuate the logic of the system. In this context, pseudo-activity emerges as a form of simulated action, disconnected from any real transformation of social structures. Habermas, for his part, although heir to Adornian criticism, redirects the focus of analysis to communicative rationality, highlighting the relevance of public discourse and democratic deliberation. His view of the post-industrial society or a collapsing labor society provides a theoretical basis for understanding current changes in the role of labor and the emergence of fragmented issues. Based on this theoretical articulation, the article analyzes the consequences of the replacement of socioeconomic agendas by identity-based issues in the public domain, especially from the 1990s onward, influenced by neoliberalism and the technological revolution.