Practice Of Deliberative Democracy Research Articles

Deliberative Participation in Local Development

In this paper I aim to improve the theory and practice of participation in local, grassroots, or micro‐development initiatives. First, I classify weaker and stronger types of participation and, in relation to these accounts, I propose and explain an ideal of deliberative participation derived from the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. Second, in relation to these types of participation and especially the deliberative ideal, I evaluate Sabina Alkire's recent efforts, in Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, to apply Sen's theory to micro‐projects. Although I find much to approve of in her approach to grassroots participation, I argue that it could be strengthened by features of deliberative participation. Third, I analyze and rebut three charges leveled against Sen's democratic turn, deliberative democracy, and deliberative participation — namely, these allied accounts are flawed by too much indeterminacy, too little autonomy, and insufficient realism with respect to asymmetries of power.

The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy

Canadian nuclear waste management policy has taken a deliberative democratic turn. What explains this turn? What is its significance? What lessons does it teach us? I trace a narrative of a powerful discursive coalition that was able to take advantage of institutional and financial opportunities to advance deliberative democratic decision making. I identify limitations in this turn by evaluating the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s subsequent consultation process against the criteria of inclusion, equality, reciprocity, agreement, and integration. Despite impressive deliberative democratic designs, the process falls short of each criterion. This analysis clarifies the relative importance of actors to coalitions and institutions. Even with a strong coalition and favorable institutional context, realizing deliberative democracy is contingent on the will of involved actors. This conclusion has implications for the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.

Articulating political knowledge in deliberation

The theory and practice of deliberative democracy have attracted considerable attention from political scientists in recent years. The reason for the increasing interest in this form of communicati...

The Empirical Study of Deliberative Democracy: Setting a Research Agenda

Deliberative democracy has emerged as a leading concern of political theory and its principles have guided over a 1,000 experiments in citizen participation in local governance. Despite its importance, very little systematic empirical research has been conducted. Here an attempt is made to enumerate the key questions that should guide empirical research on the deliberative capacities of ordinary citizens, the qualities of the deliberative processes in which they participate and the effects of deliberation on collective outcomes and on individual participants. The paper closes with a discussion of the likely results of this research and their implications for a possible reconstruction of the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.

Towards a Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Proposal for a Popular Branch

Frustrated by the failure of theorists of deliberative democracy to envision concrete institutional design proposals that the theory recommends, the author proposes a fourth branch of government called the Popular Branch. The Article recommends replacement of the initiative and referendum processes with deliberative assemblies, where stratified random samples of lay citizens are compelled to convene and decide policy questions in a jury-like environment. The Article tries to evision how this mechanism for garnering both a civic voice and a popular will could be integrated with the separation of powers and acceptable checks and balances.

The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations

This article investigates 16 organizations that attempt to foster better public deliberation in local and national communities. It develops a typology of these organizations and discusses them in the context of the scholarly literature on deliberative democracy. It particularly focuses upon the contributions these organizations may make to debates within the literature between advocates of relational and rational modes of deliberation. It finds that, much like the literature, practitioners of deliberative democracy wrestle with the competing demands of inclusiveness and group cohesion. Organizations attempt to solve this dilemma by stressing group action. However, this emphasis on action raises another dilemma associated with the relation between deliberative and representative models of politics. The essay concludes by suggesting that these organizations have accepted the challenge of improving public life through discourse that has been laid down by deliberative democratic theory. As such, they represent a natural experiment in deliberative democracy that deserves the serious attention of the scholarly community.

The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: Results from Four Large‐Scale Trials

The goal of deliberative democracy is to revitalize civic culture, improve the nature of public discourse, and generate the political will necessary to take effective action on pressing problems. While there exists a fairly substantial amount of literature on the desired features of a deliberative democracy, there is little empirical research on the practical feasibility of convening a large‐scale public deliberative process.This article describes a model of deliberative democracy which offers a practical opportunity for all citizens to participate, provides citizens extensive information about the nature of the policy problem, engages citizens in the same problem‐solving context as elected officials, and uses rigorous methods. The practical feasibility of this model is assessed through four large‐scale implementations, each addressing controversial and politically charged issues in cities ranging in population from 100,000 to 400,000. The conclusion from these trials is that it is possible to convene a large‐scale public deliberative process that enables local governments to take effective action on previously intractable issues.