Deliberative Democratic Theory Research Articles

The #TrustedInfo2022 dataset: States’ trust-building social media campaigns during the 2022 election cycle

Abstract We introduce a dynamic dataset of all communications by state election officials (EOs) on social media during the 2022 election cycle and develop metrics to assess the effectiveness of trust-building strategies on voter confidence. We employ quantitative manual content analysis of 10,000 organic posts from 118 state EOs’ accounts on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter between September 10 and November 30, 2022, and code for the presence of variables that measure EOs’ efforts to combat misinformation and build trusted networks of communications. The measures we present here address two questions: (1) How much coordination was there among states in terms of incorporating the #TrustedInfo2022 campaign, promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State, in their social media communications, and (2) How much of states’ social media communications explicitly signaled that EOs are trusted sources of information? We demonstrate the applicability of our data on research that evaluates the impact of trust-building campaigns on voter confidence in elections, which is grounded on theories of deliberative democracy and democratic listening.

Deliberative Democracy and Pragma-Dialectics Related

AbstractThis paper adopts a pragma-dialectic approach to explore inclusion in real-world argumentation. Having outlined theories of deliberative democracy—focussing on Habermas’s discourse model—and pragma-dialectic methods for analysing argumentative exchanges in the real world, we then relate them. From this we identify the potential for using the enhanced detail of pragma-dialectic analysis to constructively understand dynamics of inclusion in the political decision processes of central concern to deliberative democratic theories.In the remainder of the article we illustrate this potential with our own pragma-dialectic analysis of an instance of real-world argumentation in a political policymaking process—a deliberative forum in the contentious field of mental health. The detail afforded by the pragma-dialectic method allows us to more clearly identify the complex layers and dynamics of argument involved in these policy deliberations, allowing insights into mechanisms for inclusion in deliberations, relative to the parties to such deliberations, their roles and competing interests and perspectives.By relating the two fields of deliberative democratic theory and pragma-dialectics this article aims to develop their complementary potential—in particular by suggesting, and briefly illustrating—how pragma-dialectic methods might enhance analysis of the dynamics of argumentation in political policymaking processes, in particular as an aid to constructive reflection on those processes by theorists and participants together.

A meta‐analysis of the effects of democratic innovations on participants’ attitudes, behaviour and capabilities

AbstractDemocratic innovations aim to strengthen citizen participation in democratic decision‐making processes. Building on theories of deliberative democracy, participatory democracy and direct democracy, different types of democratic innovations have been developed, ranging from mini‐publics, to participatory processes and referendums and citizens’ initiatives. Over the last four decades, an expanding number of scholars have investigated the effects of these democratic innovations on citizens. However, even though a considerable amount of research has been done, there currently exists no overview of the effects of different types of democratic innovations on citizens’ attitudes, behaviour and capabilities. In addition, it is unclear which effects prove robust across studies, and which effects require more investigation.The aim of this paper is to systematically evaluate what we know and what we do not know yet about the effects of democratic innovations on citizens who participate in them. In order to do so, we conduct a meta‐analysis of 100 quantitative empirical studies published between 1980 and 2020. We find, perhaps unsurprisingly, that mini‐publics are widely researched for their effects on citizens, whereas studies into the effects of participatory processes and referendums and citizens’ initiatives on participating citizens are much less frequent. We also find that participation in mini‐publics changes citizens’ policy attitudes and positively affects citizens’ political attitudes, knowledge, internal efficacy and reasoning skills. For participatory processes, our analyses indicate that they appear to have a positive effect on participants’ political attitudes and knowledge and no effect on participants’ internal efficacy, but there are too few studies to draw robust conclusions. Participation in referendums and citizens’ initiatives appears to have a positive effect on participants’ knowledge and internal efficacy, even though these findings should also be considered preliminary due to the limited number of studies.

Vertical interaction between village councils, citizen associations, and the municipality: the associations’ perspective

Based on deliberative democracy theory, this article examines differences between village councils and citizen associations in terms of their interests and interaction with the municipality. Survey data shows that they are engaged with many issues that municipalities are responsible for, and that distance to the municipality’s town hall affects their engagement. Survey data also shows that local councils occupy a position closer to the municipality than citizen associations. The two types of associations are satisfied with their interaction with the municipality but based on different parameters. Regular meetings where the associations have access to direct conversations with politicians and administration and the opportunity to access municipal funds are some of the things that mean most for perceptions of positive interaction.

Desenvolvendo capacidades para a comunicação democrática: uma abordagem integrada de ensino baseada na deliberação

This study describes an innovative educational proposal to develop deliberative skills – motivation and ability to explain points of view based on reflected considerations, reciprocal involvement, and more inclusive and respectful communication. Based on theories of deliberative democracy – and expanding citizen participatory initiatives and experiences in the area of education, we propose an approach with (i) peer learning, (ii) playful and performative activities, and (iii) authentic discussions about controversial political issues. Our experiment illustrates how to develop a conceptual understanding of deliberative principles, promote selfreflection, and practise democratic discussions on contentious issues. This study has theoretical and practical implications for programs that seek to promote democratic communication.

Leadership. Decision-Making. Legitimacy. How deliberative are the labor unions in Romania?

Deliberative democracy theory highlighted democratic deliberation as a modus operandi for facilitating group decision-making. In 2023, members of Romanian labor unions in several sectors took to the streets in strikes and protests, demanding higher revenues and better work conditions. Nevertheless, misunderstandings and internal ruptures shadowed their noble ends and fueled mistrust amongst unionists. This dynamic reminds rather of interest party politics as it employs vertical power relations, influenced by social and professional background segmentation. One question that reasonably arises in this context is how deliberative the decision-making process is within the unions in Romania. We specifically analyze elements of deliberative organizational leadership and the power relations within labor unions through a qualitative study in the form of interviews. Keywords: Labor Unions, Romania, Deliberation, Representation, Leadership

Iqbal's Spiritual Democracy and Habermas's Deliberative Democracy: A Comparative Study

The current study is written in the context of the civilizational dialogue between the West and the Muslim world with reference to Jürgen Habermas and Muhammad Iqbal's political views. It explores the congruence and contrasts between Habermas's discourse theory of democracy or deliberative democracy and Iqbal's theory of spiritual democracy. This research strives to find out the extent to which the core values of Habermas's theory and that of Iqbal’s are compatible. For Habermas, the core values of social order are liberty and equality, whereas Iqbal upholds liberty, equality, and solidarity. It has been investigated whether they both mean the same phenomena by the same terms or not. For Habermas and Iqbal, democracy is the best form of government but neither one is satisfied with the existing democratic practices. In principle, they accept democracy as the best political system. The research paper also sheds light on the historical and cultural influences that have shaped the political ideologies of both Habermas and Iqbal, considering the impact of Western Enlightenment ideals on Habermas and the role of Islamic jurisprudence and spirituality in shaping Iqbal's democratic theory. Through critical analysis, this study aims to deepen the understanding of complexities inherent in the dialogue between Western and Muslim civilizations and offers insights into potential avenues for collaboration in political theory and practice.

Practicing deliberation in challenging speech cultures: the role of metadiscourse

Abstract This qualitative research draws on language and social interaction (LSI) approaches to consider how speech culture shapes the practice of deliberation in a country presumed to be a challenging environment for deliberative practices: Israel. Our analysis examines structured deliberative forums conducted by communication students in Israel, to demonstrate how participants reference, use, and orient to both deliberative democracy discourse and Israeli speech culture in ways that enable them to overcome cultural challenges to doing deliberation. We found that participants utilize metadiscourse to take stances that frame cultural challenges of deliberation, negotiate the tensions between deliberative principles and local speech culture, and creatively integrate local speech norms with deliberation. This research contributes to LSI and Political Communication scholarship, by enhancing practical theory of deliberative democracy. The explication of the role of metadiscourse reframes the relationship between culture and deliberation thereby providing new directions for scholars, practitioners, and educators of deliberative democracy.

The Rise, Fall and Re-Rise Of Deliberative Democracy In New Zealand

In New Zealand the last few years have seen a re-emergence of interest in processes that build on the theory of deliberative democracy. Commentary on this trend, which typically positions deliberative democracy as a novel development in New Zealand politics, ignores several decades of public agencies’ democratic experimentation. In this article we describe three of the 15 identified processes displaying the critical elements of deliberative democracy: the Capital Power citizens’ jury (1996); Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council’s public deliberation on pre-birth testing (2007–08), and the citizens’ advisory panel on the Newtown–Berhampore cycleway (2014). We analyse the reasons for their ostensible failure and identify lessons that current policymakers interested in deliberative democracy should draw from these historical cases.

Can we do inclusive politics in urgent times?

In times of crisis it is even more important to ensure that political decisions have broad, popular and trusted support from a wide range of people than in normal, non-crisis times. We argue that the best way to achieve this is through the use of deliberative mini-publics, as leaving a crisis response only to our political leaders presents them with almost irresistible opportunities for the arrogation of power, possible corruption, and the use (or abuse) of emergency measures for partisan political point scoring. Having demonstrated the theoretical basis for our argument, which builds on the foundation of deliberative democratic theory, we then address the practical aspects of using informed deliberation within a mini-public during a crisis, when efficacy and speed are the most urgent and challenging aspects of decision making. The obvious solution, to us, is to institutionalize deliberative mini-publics in our democratic structures so that they are ready and able to rapidly address any crisis as it arises.

Embedding deliberation: guiding the use of deliberative mini-publics in climate policy-making

ABSTRACT The use of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs), such as citizens’ assemblies, is becoming more common in climate policy-making across many countries. The upsurge of these methods reflects an acknowledgement of the need to engage the publics in policy choices that significantly impact their lives. Many DMPs to date have focused on the general challenge of decarbonization, across a range of policy areas. In this article, we first situate DMPs within the wider field of public engagement methods. We then draw from deliberative democratic theory and practice to argue that the next step for climate DMPs is to focus them on specific climate policy challenges and to embed and routinize their use in existing policy-making institutions. We present a case study of the targeted use of a climate DMP, which we designed and ran in partnership with the UK Climate Change Committee, focused on home energy decarbonization. We use this case study to explore barriers and challenges to embedding such an approach in climate policy-making institutions. Finally, we suggest ways that such challenges can be overcome and identify a number of tensions that must be navigated as DMPs become embedded in climate policy-making.

When democratic deliberation encounters Confucian moral governance: Rethinking consultative politics in rural China

The last decades have witnessed the flourishing of consultative democracy (xieshang minzhu, a concept similar to deliberative democracy) in China, with ambitions for implementing consultative politics and governance. In the West, mainstream deliberative democracy studies largely overlook the fact that deliberation is an elusive and polysemic notion, which develops into various practices in different social and cultural contexts. Therefore, a non-Western-centred approach needs to be adopted to further investigate deliberative experimentation in rural China. Based on the four months of fieldwork conducted in several villages in rural China, this paper argues that China’s rural villages have inherited a strong Confucianism-based idea of deliberation and consultation. With case studies from the sociological–political perspective, this paper also aims to shed some new light on the compatibilities between modern democratic governance approaches and the informal, hierarchical and highly moralised forms of public order in the rural Chinese acquaintance society. Incorporating these empirical observations could bridge the gap between Western and Chinese perspectives on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy.

Procedural fairness andthe resilience ofhealth financing reforms inUkraine.

In 2017, Ukraine's Parliament passed legislation establishing a single health benefit package for the entire population called the Programme of Medical Guarantees,‎ financed through general taxes and administered by a single national purchasing agency. This legislation was in line with key principles for financing universal health coverage. However, health professionals and some policymakers have been critical of elements of the reform, including its reliance on general taxes as the source of funding. Using qualitative methods and drawing on deliberative democratic theory and criteria for procedural fairness, this study argues that the acceptance and sustainability of these reforms could have been strengthened by making the decision-making process fairer. It suggests that three factors limited the extent of stakeholders' participation in this process: first, a perception among reformers that fast-paced decision-making was required because there was only a short political window for much needed reforms; second, a lack of trust among reformers in the motives, representativeness, and knowledge of some stakeholders; and third, an under-appreciation of the importance of dialogic engagement with the public. These findings highlight a profound challenge for policymakers. In retrospect, some of those involved in the reform's design and implementation believe that a more meaningful engagement with the public and stakeholders who opposed the reform might have strengthened its legitimacy and durability. At the same time, the study shows how difficult it is to have an inclusive process in settings where some actors may be driven by unconstrained self-interest or lack the capacity to be representative or knowledgeable interlocutors. It suggests that investments in deliberative capital (the attitudes and behaviours that facilitate good deliberation) and in civil society capacity may help overcome this difficulty.

Institutional Gaps in Agonistic and Communicative Planning Theories. Critical Implications of the ‘Systemic Turn’ in Deliberative Democracy Theory

The paper critically reviews communicative and agonistic planning theories from the viewpoint of a systemic turn in deliberative democracy theory. While the approach reveals complementarities between the theories, it also argues that each theory is vulnerable to criticism because of an ‘institutional gap’. The theories are found to complement each other in addressing planning conflicts at different dimensions. Communicative planning theory deals with conflicts between different stakeholders’ interests in planning processes. Agonistic planning theory, in turn, concentrates on conflicts from a more ontological dimension, related to the (implicit) conflict between hegemonic and marginalized discourses and related identity-forming processes of inclusion and exclusion in planning policies and governance. The institutional gap of communicative planning theory is argued to reside in its focus on situational deliberation that largely ignores the institutional dimension of rules and norms of democratic conduct. Agonistic pluralism, in turn, does engage with the dimension of democratic institutions, but in an overly critical manner, making it difficult for agonistic planning theory to address the dynamic interplay between institutional reconfiguration and policy stabilization in planning. This is argued to be the institutional gap of agonistic planning theory. The paper calls for further work in the field of planning theory to incorporate a systemic approach to deliberative democracy and thereby tap into the dialectics of institutional and situational dimensions of planning.

Deliberators’ Awareness of Attitude Transformation

The significance of deliberators’ awareness of attitude transformation can be derived directly from deliberative democracy theory, but the issue has received little attention in research. This paper is an attempt to synthesize literature on factors influencing this awareness into a heuristic that can guide further inquiry. Conceptualizing learning as a fundamental mechanism through which attitudes are influenced during deliberation, either consciously or subconsciously, this heuristic stipulates that the level of awareness of any transformation is enhanced by overt persuasion in accordance with communicative rationality, and lowered, first, by various subconscious biases prompted in dialogue settings, and, second, by certain forms of calculated manipulation of deliberators. For illustrative purposes, the paper also presents a few more tangible, if tentative, observations from two small Swedish citizen dialogues that exemplify how design of deliberation may interact with factors influencing awareness of attitude transformation in real-life settings. More specifically, the observations suggest that ‘hot’ dialogues addressing well-defined and conflictual policy choices may favor awareness, while ‘colder’ consensus-oriented dialogues on broader issues might make participants less aware.

Multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Legitimacy: A Deliberative Systems Perspective

The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) as institutions for social and environmental governance in the global economy has received much scholarly attention over the past years. To date, however, research has yet to focus on assessing the legitimacy of MSIs in their interactions with other actors within larger systems of deliberation. Drawing on the deliberative systems perspective developed within deliberative democracy theory, we theorise a normative framework to evaluate the roles of MSIs within the broader systems of governance they co-construct through their interactions with other initiatives, governments, non-governmental organisations, and other external actors. As we demonstrate in our evaluation of the illustrative case of the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety as a MSI in the context of the Bangladeshi garment industry, this framework can help researchers assess whether a MSI ultimately serves to enhance or undermine the deliberative legitimacy of the overall system of which it forms a part.

Democratic Liberal Theory Based on Literature Review

Since the emergence of the application of the idea of democracy as the system of choice, various groups have complained about the evil practices of democratic politics. One of the shooting targets is that we choose the wrong one, namely adopting the model of the majority or liberal democracy. In the literature on democratic theory, one of the relevant theories for improving democratic practice is TDD (Theory of Deliberative Democracy). Although still using the principle of representation, TDD in general makes corrections or improvements to the procedures and substance of democracy which have so far been poorly practiced in Indonesia. This research is qualitative research using a descriptive-analytic method to provide a clear picture of the object of the problem. The conclusion of this study shows evidence of the existence of a democratic model both in substance and procedure. In contrast to the representative mechanism which was originally derived from the theory of representative democracy. There is visible hypocrisy and inconsistency in the implementation of democracy, which has never been considered a complete system.

Post-Truth Politics and the Competition of Ideas

ABSTRACT “Post-truth” politics is often framed as a failure of the competition of idea­s. Yet there are different ways of thinking about the competition of ideas, with different implications for the way we understand its benefits and risks. The dominant way of framing the competition of ideas is in terms of a marketplace, which, however, obscures the different ways ideas can compete. Several theorists can help us think through the competition of ideas. J. S. Mill, for example, avoided the metaphor of the market by focusing, instead, on competition as the testing of arguments in adversarial encounters before a critical audience. Georg Simmel, alternatively, conceived of competition as a form of indirect conflict, where two individuals strive in parallel to gain audience approval. This view emphasizes innovation and creativity in the competition of “all for all.” More recently, theorists have developed the market logic of competition by thinking of a marketplace not for ideas but for rationalizations. This articulates some of the features of Simmel’s view of competition, but underestimates the degrees of constraint required to secure the goods of competition. Ultimately, recognizing these different modes of competition in the public sphere can enrich our theories of deliberative democracy and sharpen our view of the problem of “post-truth” politics.

Blake Emerson, Review of Elizabeth Fisher & Sidney A. Shapiro Administrative Competence: Reimagining Administrative Law

Elizabeth Fisher and Sidney Shapiro’s important book is both innovative and traditional, and innovative insofar as it creatively reinterprets tradition. The argument is traditional because it centers administrative “expertise” as the cornerstone of bureaucratic legitimacy. At least since the Progressive Era, and arguably well back into the nineteenth century, Congress and the courts justified the delegation of policymaking power to administrative bodies in large part on the grounds of the practical, workaday experience, as well as technical skill, of public officers. The theory was most memorably articulated by James Landis’s The Administrative Process (1938), which defended independent regulatory agencies’ professional “expertness,” relatively confined subject-matter jurisdiction, and accountability to public opinion. In the wake of the New Deal, the expertise model underpinned the law’s understanding of administrative power, providing an all-purpose reason for courts to defer to agencies’ determinations of law, policy, and fact. That theory has come in for rounds of criticism over the years. It has seemed to many scholars as well as judges to ignore the important value choices that agencies must make above and beyond instrumental calculations about how to achieve well-defined goals. Theories of regulatory capture, interest-group pluralism, presidentialism, and deliberative democracy have offered alternative understandings of administrative legitimacy. On all of these theories something other than expertise is necessary to justify the significant power that unelected officials wield within a democratic-constitutional system. It seems that no one trusts an expert anymore. But nor have any of the competing theories successfully supplanted expertise as a broadly accepted, “neutral” basis on which to exercise administrative power. The problems of trust and legitimacy have reached almost epic proportions as the Supreme Court takes up constitutional challenges to administrative power and develops new doctrines to narrow agencies’ authority. At the same time, the American public fractures politically over whether to “follow the science” or rather “deconstruct the administrative state.” Now is the time, if ever, to rethink what US administrative law is about and how it ought to develop in the future.

Seeing the Whole Picture. Towards a Multi-perspective Approach to News Content Diversity based on Liberal and Deliberative Models of Democracy

ABSTRACT By providing diverse news content, news media are key for a well-functioning public sphere. However, agreement on how to measure news content diversity is lacking. Research often refers to democratic theory as normative reference point, but different models of democracy understand news content diversity differently. Our study makes a unique, innovative contribution to this field: (1) We develop a methodological framework for measuring news content diversity, that is a set of comprehensive measuring instruments that derive different operationalizations of topic and actor diversity each from liberal and deliberative democratic theories. (2) Considering that a good public discourse requires more than diversity, we analyze news content diversity in the context of four other journalistic standards: neutrality, rationality, discursivity, and civility. (3) We prove the applicability of our measuring instruments by means of a standardized content analysis of six German news media as a case study. The different quality profiles of these outlets our analysis reveals are explained by their different functions in the media system. Our study shows how important a multi-perspectival normative approach to news content diversity is, both empirically and theoretically. Future studies on news content diversity should make their normative foundations transparent and derive their indicators purposefully therefrom.