Political Deliberation Research Articles

Ciudadanía Compleja y Reivindicación Cultural

En este trabajo se intenta realizar una caracterización teórica de la ciudadanía en un entorno globalizado, con el fin de situar los nuevos marcos referenciales en relación con la justicia, la política deliberativa y la reivindicación cultural. Finalmente se analizan las condiciones éticas de un diálogo intercultural.

Egyptian reforms post-2005 and the politics of succession: implications and consequences for the future Egyptian reform process

Egyptian economic reforms have been an on-going process since the Egyptian government adopted liberal market reforms in 1991 (Kienle 2001, 2004), influenced by a number of internal socio-economic factors, including growing levels of poverty, heightened inflation, high levels of corruption and rising levels of unemployment, in particular among new university graduates. These factors were exerting heavy pressure on a highly bureaucratic and inefficient state (Bayat 1997). However, the ensuing economic reforms resulted in tightened fiscal and monetary polices, and a subsequent increased and heightened socio-economic crisis in Egypt, which the Egyptian government attempted to control by imposing increasingly authoritarian measures, with political de-liberalization evident in both urban and rural areas (Kienle 2001). This led, at the turn of the millennium, to a period of failed economic reforms and increased levels of authoritarianism, which coincided with the political rise of the president's son, Gamal Mubarak, whose economic and business credentials have led to optimism concerning the possibility of future reform and change in Egypt. This paper examines the electoral promises made by Hosni Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections and the ensuing economic and political implications for the political succession in Egypt, leading to conclusions about the future processes of economic and political reform in Egypt and the impact upon them of the political succession

Constitutionalist Contention in Contemporary Egypt

This article tackles the problem of political—institutional change in undemocratic regimes commonly considered impervious to meaningful political contention. Egypt is one of the contemporary world's most stolid authoritarian regimes, a superpresidential system in which all effective power resides in the executive. It has been governed by uninterrupted emergency law since 1981 and since 1992 has experienced a further process of political deliberalization. Simultaneously, Egyptian politics have witnessed the rise of new political actors: courts, human rights organizations, and professional associations. What explains such manifestations of political dynamism in the midst of political stasis? This article contends that two processes of legal mobilization and internationalization have interacted to produce revived courts, new human rights organizations, and transformed professional unions. This interpretation departs from the emphasis on authoritarian resilience in the Middle East, advancing a more relational conception of state—society relations.

Why science cannot stand alone.

In an era in which certain arenas of scientific research have become increasingly controversial, this article critically evaluates what it means to "believe in science." Many scientists today seem to claim a sovereign right to no political interference under the rubric of freedom. This article questions such a notion, and explores the dominance of science and the silencing of moral voices by undertaking two brief investigations-the first into National Socialist Germany, which insisted that it was defined by "applied biology," and the second into the world of contemporary American biomedicine. When all ethical barriers are eradicated, it seems that a will to power takes over-manifested in Nazi Germany's vaunted scientific autonomy. In light of these sobering historical examples, this article reminds the reader that members of the public, including physicians, rightly deliberate about how to conscientiously order their lives together, and that part of that instrinsically political deliberation is to set limits to the ways medical science is applied and what scientists may do in pursuit of their goals.

Ethics, Markets, and MacIntyre

Abstract MacIntyre’s theory of practices, institutions, and their respective kinds of goods, has revived and enriched the ethical critique of market economies, and his view of politics as centrally concerned with common goods and human flourishing presents a major challenge to neutralist liberal theorists’ attempts to exclude distinctively ethical considerations from political deliberation. However, the rejection of neutrality does not entail the rejection of liberalism tout court: questions of human flourishing may be accorded a legitimate role in political decisions-including those about economic systems - provided that the powers of the state remain subject to certain recognizably liberal constraints. Further, although neutralist liberals often defend market economies on the mistaken grounds that they alone are consistent with the principle of ethical neutrality, a non-neutralist defence of them should not be ruled out, especially if the substantive theory of goods used to evaluate them is somewhat less restrictive than MacIntyre’s.

Life beyond the public sphere: Towards a networked model for political deliberation

As the odds for a change of government in the Australian elections in late 2007 improve, there is increased conflict not only between the two sides of federal politics, but also between the mainstream press (which in recent years had maintained a largely supportive stance towards the government) and citizen journalists and news bloggers (many of whom have long held sharply critical views). The increasingly visible disconnect between the electorate and many political journalists points to wider observations about the decline of the mass-mediated public sphere, and the emergence of a variety of networked issue publics, possibly acting as public spherules in their own right and interacting with one another in complex patterns of exchange. This article explores the implications of this transformation for citizen engagement in politics and policy development, and applies observations from the analysis of produsage, or user-led content creation, to the democratic process.

Assessing the Difference Critique of Deliberation: Gender, Emotion, and the Jury Experience

Despite increasing enthusiasm for political deliberation as a rejuvenating tonic for representative democracy, some theorists question the extent to which deliberative forums adequately incorporate diverse individuals and communication styles. Unfortunately, the theoretical debate between the deliberative theory and the “difference critique” has reached an impasse. To advance this important literature, we derive two formal propositions from each perspective and test these rival claims in the context of the jury system, the most prominent institutionalized deliberative practice in the United States. Surveys of over 3,000 jurors who served in local courthouses indicate that gender and other demographic differences are poor predictors of jurors’ satisfaction with their service experience, including their perceptions of deliberation. The study also shows that emotion—a dimension of deliberative experience presumed to be gendered—is important for both men and women. On balance, the results call into question the power of the difference critique, at least in the context of modern jury deliberation.

Genres of political speech: Oratory and conversation, today and in antiquity

In this essay, I contrast the conversational model of Habermas and deliberative democrats with that of another model proposed by classical rhetoricians, for whom political deliberation was based on oratory, not conversation. Oratory and conversation differ in their fora, the degree of equality among their participants, the legitimacy of non-rational appeals, and their agonistic or cooperative character. These differences are mirrored, to varying degrees, in the models of deliberation proposed by contemporary defenders of reasoned conversation and classical rhetoricians. I consider why the classical rhetoricians considered deliberative oratory, not conversation, as best suited to political speech, and I suggest that the rhetorical perspective points up problems in some of the fundamental assumptions of deliberative democrats, thus raising questions about whether deliberative democracy should be viewed as a viable political theory. Before contrasting the conversational model with deliberative oratory, however, I first examine the continuities between the conversational model developed by proponents of deliberative democracy and the traditional conception of conversation as expressed, primarily, by Cicero and, later, the Renaissance humanists.

Spheres, Sites, Subjectivity, History: Reframing Antebellum American Society

Mary Kelley's Learning to Stand and Speak is landmark in both the debate over the gendered "doctrine of separate spheres" and our understanding of civil space in antebellum America. Rather than situating women and men in "separate spheres, public and private," she offers a framework of "multiple sites in civil society." Drawn from critical theory, "discursive sites" or "sites of cultural production," describe circles of authors and readers sharing a common framework of language, understanding, and problematic. There is a multiplicity of these sites - or perhaps "publics"—in a modern culture, and Kelley situates them in "civil society," which she construes broadly as the domain protected by law, but excluding partisan and deliberative politics. The discursive sites that make up the sociology of civil society have both public and private dimensions, cutting across "separate spheres," and rendering them meaningless. Kelley and contributor Philip Gould see powerful continuities in the experience of women between the Revolution and the Civil War, and beyond. The contributions of Jeanne Boydston and Rosemarie Zagarri bring history into play in ways that complicate our abandonment of the doctrine of separate spheres, bringing into focus issues of class and generational experience. Boydston argues that the protection of law in antebellum America had sharp contours and boundaries, and thus "civil society" had a distinctly more limited, class-defined, reach than Kelley would suggest. Zagarri points to a profound generational divide in the 1820s, as American women responded to a "revolutionary backlash" limiting their place in public.

The law (and politics) of safe injection facilities in the United States.

Safe injection facilities (SIFs) have shown promise in reducing harms and social costs associated with injection drug use. Favorable evaluations elsewhere have raised the issue of their implementation in the United States. Recognizing that laws shape health interventions targeting drug users, we analyzed the legal environment for publicly authorized SIFs in the United States. Although states and some municipalities have the power to authorize SIFs under state law, federal authorities could still interfere with these facilities under the Controlled Substances Act. A state- or locally-authorized SIF could proceed free of legal uncertainty only if federal authorities explicitly authorized it or decided not to interfere. Given legal uncertainty, and the similar experience with syringe exchange programs, we recommend a process of sustained health research, strategic advocacy, and political deliberation.

The (Severe) Limits of Deliberative Democracy as the Basis for Political Choice

Gerald F. Gaus 1. A Puzzle: The Majoritarianism of Deliberative Democracy As Joshua Cohen observes, “[t]he notion of a deliberative democracy is rooted in the intuitive idea of a democratic association in which the justification of the terms and conditions of association proceeds through public argument and reasoning among citizens” (1989: 21). Deliberative democrats insist that this deliberation must be public in a radical sense: only reasons that can be embraced by all of us are truly public, and hence justificatory. As Gerald Postema has put it, a public reason must be a shared reason (1995b: 70). Postema, and most deliberative democrats, insist that this idea of public, shared reasoning, is not simply a theoretical commitment, but a regulative aim of practical politics: “[a]greement among members of the community is set as the openended task or project of ...[the] exercise of practical reason and judgment”(Postema, 1995a: 356). Thus “[t]he aim of the regulative idea is agreement of conviction on the basis of public reasons uttered as assessed in public discourse...” (Postema, 1995a: 356). Of course advocates of deliberative democracy are well aware that complete actual consensus is not a reasonable aim “even under ideal conditions” (Postema, 1995a: 356). The deliberations of citizens may not yield a consensus, and so we may have to cut the discussion off by taking a vote (Postema, 1995a: 356). Habermas’ view is more complex. His “two-track” conception of deliberative politics conceives of an interplay between democratic procedures and deliberative collective will formation: the procedures do not

The Rationalizing Voter: Unconscious Thought in Political Information Processing

We review and evaluate a growing literature in social and political psychology on the ubiquity of unconscious thought processes and present a theoretical model, called John Q. Public (JQP), which seeks to explain how citizens form and express their political beliefs, attitudes, and choices. Our most revolutionary claims are that people are generally unable to reliably report their political beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions; that unconscious thought underlies all political deliberation, introducing important systematic biases, but paradoxically also providing the capacity for rational action in the face of severe cognitive limitations; and that conscious deliberation is typically more rationalizing than rational.

Spaces of Opposition: Activism and Deliberation in Post-Apartheid Environmental Politics

Drawing on recent political theory that examines the relationship between inclusive deliberation and oppositional activism in processes of democratisation, we develop a case study of environmental justice mobilisation in post-apartheid South Africa. We focus on the emergence of a network of social movement organisations embedded in particular localities in the city of Durban, connected into national and transnational campaigns, and centred on grievances around industrial air pollution. We analyse how the geographies of uneven industrial and urban development in Durban combine with sedimented place-based histories of activism to make particular locations spaces of democratic contention, in which the scope and operation of formal democratic procedures are challenged and transformed. We examine the range of strategic engagements adopted by social movement organisations in pursuing their objectives, looking in particular at the dynamic interaction between inclusion in deliberative forums and more adversarial, activist strategies of legal challenge and dramaturgical protest. We identify the key organisational features of groups involved in this environmental justice network, which both enable and constrain particular patterns of democratic engagement with the state and capital. We also identify a disjuncture between the interpretative frames of different actors involved in participatory policy making. These factors help to explain the difficulties faced by social movement organisations in opening up the space for legitimate nonparliamentary opposition in a political culture shaped by norms of conciliation and consensus.

Democracy after Liberalism: Pragmatism and Deliberative Politics. By Robert B. Talisse

Democracy after Liberalism: Pragmatism and Deliberative Politics. By Robert B. Talisse

Liberal family law in the making: Nordic and European harmonisation

This paper discusses the past and contemporary legal harmonisation exercises of family law in the Nordic countries and Europe. The critique is that the harmonised ‹European family law’ only entrenches the status quo and reiterates traditional family patterns, the male norm, heteronormativity, and a public/private divide represented in the neutral guise of a liberal rights discourse. Furthermore, the critics point out that the political economy of legal harmonisation is, to a large extent, ignored. In the Nordic countries, egalitarianism and broad political deliberation characterised much of the previous legal harmonisation, whereas rights discourse in its liberal sense is a novelty, more or less triggered by the European integration. This paper discusses the gendered implications of the emerging rights discourse in the Nordic countries and the linkages between family law, the labour market and social welfare. The paper argues that the harmonisation exercise cannot be regarded as one consisting only of legal norms and reasoning, but rather it should be discussed from the perspective of a political and epistemological challenge to the prevailing ‹truths’ about marriage, family and sexuality.

Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme

This paper details a content analysis scheme to measure the quality of political deliberation in face-to-face and online groups. Much of deliberation research studies the outcomes of deliberation, but there has been a lack of analysis of what groups actually do when tasked with deliberating. The coding scheme was developed out of the theoretical literature on deliberation and further enhanced by the empirical literature on small groups, deliberation, online political talk, and conversation analysis. Strict standards for creating coding schemes were followed to ensure a valid and reliable coding process. Results of the coding of deliberations on the topic of public schools suggest that participants produced a fairly high level of reasoned opinion expression, but not necessarily on the topic which they were asked to deliberate. It is hoped that the code scheme can be utilized by practitioners and researchers of political and social deliberations.

Global Protesters Versus Global Elites: Are Direct Action and Deliberative Politics Compatible?1

In this article I examine the legitimacy of direct action in relation to liberal deliberative norms and global institutions (World Bank, World Trade Organization, etc.). Because the deliberative processes of these institutions are illegitimate according to the theory of deliberative politics, the activists of the movement for global justice are legitimate to confront these institutions. Moreover, confrontational action in itself may have a deliberative value for at least seven reasons: (1) initiating deliberation (agenda-setting); (2) enlarging participation; (3) enlarging representation; (4) disseminating information and arguments (publicity); (5) stimulating imagination; (6) pushing for action; (7) re-opening deliberations. Finally, social movements such as the movement for global justice may be seen themselves as deliberative arenas. Thus, those who seek to evaluate the legitimacy of direct actions need to take into consideration the deliberative nature of the process through which activists decide which means may be more efficient in order to repair defects in the official deliberative process, and promote equality, liberty, and justice.

From pragmatism to perfectionism

In recent work, Cheryl Misak has developed a novel justification of deliberative democracy rooted in Peircean epistemology. In this article, the author expands Misak's arguments to show that not only does Peircean pragmatism provide a justification for deliberative democracy that is more compelling than the justifications offered by competing liberal and discursivist views, but also fixes a specific conception of deliberative politics that is perfectionist rather than neutralist. The article concludes with a discussion of whether the `epistemic perfectionism' implied by the pragmatist argument could be endorsed by liberal democrats.

Incidence of Hybridization between Naturally Sympatric Westslope Cutthroat Trout and Rainbow Trout in the Middle Fork Salmon River Drainage, Idaho

AbstractIntrogressive hybridization has been widely reported for westslope cutthroat trout (WCT) Oncorhynchus clarkii lewisi and rainbow trout (RBT) O. mykiss and is often a result of introductions of nonnative RBT into previously allopatric populations of westslope cutthroat trout. The WCT evolved in sympatry with RBT in a portion of its native range. Few studies have evaluated natural hybrid zone structure in sympatric populations or the effects of nonnative introductions within sympatric populations. We used one mitochondrial DNA marker and three co‐dominant nuclear DNA markers to examine 17 populations of WCT that were sympatric with native RBT‐steelhead (anadromous RBT). As 5 of the 11 sample locations were situated downstream of stocked headwater mountain lakes, we wanted to determine the effects of headwater lake introductions on naturally sympatric populations of WCT and RBT‐steelhead below the lakes. Hybrids were found in streams below stocked and unstocked headwater lakes. Our results indicated that the majority of the populations displayed a bimodal hybrid structure, linkage disequilibrium, and Hardy‐Weinberg disequilibrium. This suggests recent, ongoing hybridization but also strong assortative mating, which may be indicative of minimal impacts from stocking or independent events of natural hybridization. Natural hybrid zones should be addressed in current political deliberations about the inclusion of hybridized populations of WCT in Endangered Species Act considerations. A decision to discount protective actions for such stocks may lead to a loss of potentially adaptive genetic diversity and the fragmentation of populations.

Experiencing institutionalization: the development of new budgets in the UK devolved bodies

PurposeThis paper aims to examine an early stage of the institutionalization of accounting practices in devolved UK governments, concentrating on: the construction by devolved bodies of a “rational” set of planning and budgeting documents; the extent of homogeneity/heterogeneity in organizational response to seemingly similar institutional pressures; and politicians' cognition of accounting numbers.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses neo‐institutional theory to examine the planning and budgeting documents of the devolved bodies and material gathered from semi‐structured interviews.FindingsThe findings point to a process of nested translations, from mission through aims and objectives to targets, with accounting numbers present only in the last stage whereby time‐bounded targets are formulated and used to assess achievements. Because of the negotiations around the diverging interests of actors, the translation process is neither linear nor stable.Originality/valueThe paper contributes to the literature by: examining the emergence and use of new accounting and budgeting systems in political organizations; understanding the experience of institutionalization of accounting practices; and exploring the impact of accounting reform on political deliberation and joined‐up government.