Journal articles on the topic 'Deliberative democracy'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Deliberative democracy.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Deliberative democracy.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Uhr, John. "Testing Deliberative Democracy: The 1999 Australian Republic Referendum." Government and Opposition 35, no. 2 (April 2000): 189–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00023.
Full textAbstract:
THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES AUSTRALIAN REFERENDUM PRACTICE WITH the aim of contributing to the growing international debate over concepts of deliberative democracy, defined in terms of democratic regimes structured to maximize community deliberation in public decision-making. Theories of deliberative democracy go beyond earlier approaches to participatory democracy by specifying in greater detail the nature of the deliberative process in which citizens should be able to participate and of the importance of institutions of civil society to an effective deliberative process. The focus on ideals of public deliberation ref lects the ambition of deliberative democrats (the ‘deliberati’ if you will) to ground political decision-making in norms of shared public reason. Where earlier approaches to participatory democracy investigated rights to political participation, current approaches to deliberative democracy also investigate responsibilities of political participants – particularly responsibilities to comply with norms of rational political deliberation.
2
Mendes Motta, Filipe. "A expansão da agenda deliberativa, poder e populismo (Entrevista com Nicole Curato)." Compolítica 11, no. 1 (November 3, 2021): 145–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.21878/compolitica.2021.11.1.468.
Full textAbstract:
Nicole Curato é professora associada no Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, na Universidade de Camberra, na Austrália. Nos últimos anos, fez numerosas contribuições teóricas e empíricas para a pesquisa deliberativa, publicando os livros Power in Deliberative Democracy (2019, em coautoria com Marit Hammond e John Min) e Democracy in a Time of Misery (CURATO, 2019), uma extensa etnografia sobre como a vida pública foi reconstruída no sequência de um tufão mortal nas Filipinas. Nicole também tem colaborado para as discussões sobre populismo e democracia. Nesta conversa, Nicole discute os últimos avanços nos estudos sobre democracia deliberativa, incluindo a ampliação da diversidade de questões abordadas por esse campo de pesquisa, as relações entre poder e deliberação, a intensificação de experimentos deliberativos com minipúblicos e a importância de abordagens etnográficas para a pesquisa democrática.
3
Ebeling, Martin, and Fabio Wolkenstein. "Exercising Deliberative Agency in Deliberative Systems." Political Studies 66, no. 3 (September 29, 2017): 635–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723514.
Full textAbstract:
At the heart of the ideal of deliberative democracy lies an emphasis on the political autonomy of citizens participating in procedures of public justification aimed at the promotion of the common good. The recent systemic turn in deliberative democracy has moved so far away from this ideal that it relegates the deliberations of citizens to a secondary matter, legitimising forms of rule that may even undermine the normative impulses central to the project of deliberative democracy. We critically discuss this theoretical development and show how deliberative agency can effectively be exercised in complex political systems. We argue, in particular, that political parties play a central role in facilitating the exercise of deliberative agency, fostering deliberation among citizens and linking their deliberations to decisions. Instead of giving up on the possibility that citizens participate in procedures of public justification, deliberative democrats should look to parties’ unique ability to enable deliberation.
4
Barker, Derek W. M. "Deliberative Justice and Collective Identity." Political Theory 45, no. 1 (August 3, 2016): 116–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0090591715609407.
Full textAbstract:
Drawing upon insights from virtue ethics, this essay develops a concept of collective identity specifically suited to deliberative democracy: a virtues-centered theory of deliberative justice. Viewing democratic legitimacy as a political phenomenon, we must account for more than the formal rules that must be satisfied according to deontological theories of deliberative democracy. I argue that common approaches to deliberative democracy are unable to account for the motivations of deliberation, or ensure that citizens have the cognitive skills to deliberate well. Next, I engage with critics of deliberative democracy who have moved toward broader and more humanistic concepts of deliberation but have stopped short of conceiving of justice as a virtue and, in their own way, neglected questions of collective identity. I reconstruct justice as a virtue from a deliberative perspective, combining virtue ethics’ emphasis on habituation with a weaker sense of collective identity that allows for value pluralism and disagreement, consistent with deliberative democracy. That is, deliberative democracy requires a shared and habituated civic culture of mutual understanding of differences. Finally, drawing from discourse on race in contemporary American politics, I conclude with brief illustrations of the need for a collective identity based on mutual understanding. Although deliberative democracy does not require a thick or intense sense of social solidarity, it does need citizens to share habits, inclinations, and capacities to engage in communication across their differences.
5
Garner, Robert. "Animal rights and the deliberative turn in democratic theory." European Journal of Political Theory 18, no. 3 (February 25, 2016): 309–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1474885116630937.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democracy has been castigated by those who regard it as exclusive and elitist because of its failure to take into account a range of structural inequalities existing within contemporary liberal democracies. As a result, it is suggested, deliberative arenas will merely reproduce these inequalities, advantaging the already powerful extolling mainstream worldviews excluding the interests of the less powerful and those expounding alternative worldviews. Moreover, the tactics employed by those excluded social movements seeking to right an injustice are typically those – involving various forms of protest and direct action – which are incompatible with the key characteristics of deliberatively democracy. This paper seeks to examine the case against deliberative democracy through the prism of animal rights. It will be argued that the critique of deliberative democracy, at least in the case of animal rights, is largely misplaced because it underestimates the rationalistic basis of animal rights philosophy, misunderstands the aspirational character of deliberative theory and mistakenly attributes problems that are not restricted to deliberation but result from interest group politics in general. It is further argued that this debate about the apparent incompatibility between the ideals of deliberative democracy and non-deliberative activism disguises the potential that deliberative democracy has for advocates of animal rights and, by extension, other social movements too.
6
Benson, Jonathan. "Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge." Politics, Philosophy & Economics 18, no. 1 (June 15, 2018): 76–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470594x18782086.
Full textAbstract:
This article defends deliberative democracy against the problem of tacit knowledge. It has been argued that deliberative democracy gives a privileged position to linguistic communication and therefore excludes tacit forms of knowledge which cannot be expressed propositionally. This article shows how the exclusion of such knowledge presents important challenges to both proceduralist and epistemic conceptions of deliberative democracy, and how it has been taken by some to favour markets over democratic institutions. After pointing to the limitations of market alternatives, deliberative democracy is defended by arguing that tacit knowledge can be brought into deliberation through the mechanism of trust in testimony. By trusting the testimony of a speaker, deliberators are able to act on knowledge even without it being explicitly expressed. The article then goes on to discuss the implications of this defence for deliberative theory, and particularly, the forms of reason which deliberative democrats must see as legitimate.
7
Smith, Graham, and Corinne Wales. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy." Political Studies 48, no. 1 (March 2000): 51–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00250.
Full textAbstract:
In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary democratic practice, there has been a growing interest in theories of deliberative democracy. However theorists have often failed to sufficiently address the question of institutional design. This paper argues that recent experiments with citizens' juries should be of interest to deliberative democrats. The practice of citizens' juries is considered in light of three deliberative democratic criteria: inclusivity, deliberation and citizenship. It is argued that citizens' juries offer important insights into how democratic deliberation could be institutionalized in contemporary political decision-making processes.
8
Ercan, Selen A. "Deliberative Democracy." Democratic Theory 6, no. 1 (June 1, 2019): 97–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/dt.2019.060106.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democracy is a growing branch of democratic theory. It suggests understanding and assessing democracy in terms of the quality of communication among citizens, politicians, as well as between citizens and politicians. In this interview, drawing on his extensive research on deliberative practice within and beyond parliaments, André Bächtiger reflects on the development of the field over the last two decades, the relationship between normative theory and empirical research, and the prospects for practicing deliberation in populist times.
9
Kim, Won Dong. "Complement to James S. Fishkin’s Theory of Deliberative Democracy : Focusing on Representative, Deliberation, Political Equality of Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill." Korean Association of Regional Sociology 23, no. 3 (December 31, 2022): 5–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.35175/krs.2022.23.3.5.
Full textAbstract:
James S. Fishkin is one of the major theorists who have intensively studied on the problem of deliberation from the beginning of the theory of deliberative democracy. Theory of citizen-led deliberative democracy could be understood as the latest type of democracy in his typology of democracy. But, his theory of deliberative democracy involves some internal limitations. For example, the analyses of both the role of political representation in the history of Western democracies and changes in its character are not sufficiently reflected in Fishkin’s theory of democracy. Especially, the connection from elite deliberation to civic-led deliberation does not seem to be smooth. From this viewpoint, this study aims to complement Fishkin’s theory of deliberative democracy by examining representation, deliberation, and political equality suggested by Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill. This attempt is expected to contribute to strengthen the historical, empirical, and theoretical foundations on the function of representation and the main agents of deliberation which are needed for the elaboration of Fishkin's theory of deliberative democracy.
10
Dieleman, Susan. "Epistemic Justice and Democratic Legitimacy." Hypatia 30, no. 4 (2015): 794–810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12173.
Full textAbstract:
The deliberative turn in political philosophy sees theorists attempting to ground democratic legitimacy in free, rational, and public deliberation among citizens. However, feminist theorists have criticized prominent accounts of deliberative democracy, and of the public sphere that is its site, for being too exclusionary. Iris Marion Young, Nancy Fraser, and Seyla Benhabib show that deliberative democrats generally fail to attend to substantive inclusion in their conceptions of deliberative space, even though they endorse formal inclusion. If we take these criticisms seriously, we are tasked with articulating a substantively inclusive account of deliberation. I argue in this article that enriching existing theories of deliberative democracy with Fricker's conception of epistemic in/justice yields two specific benefits. First, it enables us to detect instances of epistemic injustice, and therefore failures of inclusion, within deliberative spaces. Second, it can act as a model for constructing deliberative spaces that are more inclusive and therefore better able to ground democratic legitimacy.
11
Nishiyama, Kei. "Democratic education in the fourth generation of deliberative democracy." Theory and Research in Education 19, no. 2 (May 22, 2021): 109–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14778785211017102.
Full textAbstract:
While the discussion on education for deliberative democracy is increasingly gaining prominence, there is a deep gap between the theories of deliberative democracy and democratic education with respect to what deliberative democracy is and ought to be. As a result, theories and practices of democratic education tend to be grounded in a narrow understanding of the meaning of deliberative competencies, students’ deliberative agency, and the role of schools in deliberative democracy. Drawing on the latest theorization of deliberative democracy – deliberative system theory – this article aims to question and revise these assumptions. The article suggests that meta-deliberation is a key practice that can reconcile the gap between the two theories.
12
Fishkin, James S. "DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONS." Social Philosophy and Policy 28, no. 1 (November 30, 2010): 242–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0265052510000129.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper examines the potential role of deliberative democracy in constitutional processes of higher law-making, either for the founding of constitutions or for constitutional change. It defines deliberative democracy as the combination of political equality and deliberation and situates this form of democracy in contrast to a range of alternatives. It then considers two contrasting processes—elite deliberation and plebiscitary mass democracy (embodied in referenda) as approaches to higher law-making that employ deliberation without political equality or political equality without deliberation. It finally turns to some institutional designs that might achieve both fundamental values at the same time, or in the process of realizing a sequence of choices.
13
Baker, Judith. "Democratic Deliberations, Equality of Influence, and Pragmatism." Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume 24 (1998): 253–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1998.10717502.
Full textAbstract:
Democracy is committed to procedures of decision-making which express the values of both political equality and truth. One current program, that of strong or deliberative democracy, explicitly defends institutions which reflect the dual commitments to truth and equality. Like many other political theorists, however, deliberative democrats do not address the issue of a minority group which always loses the vote. The presumption is that free and equal deliberation by agents who think in terms of the common good is sufficient for political equality. I will argue, however, that the proposed deliberative procedures do not preclude persistent failure for a minority, and that this problem should lead us to acknowledge that power relations can underpin decision-making arrangements even within the ideal framework of deliberative democracy. Political equality and effective political equality seem to come apart.In order to come closer to the idea of effective political equality, this paper will look at the notion of equality of influence. It may seem tautological, and so redundant, to argue that political egalitarians and particularly deliberative democrats need to recognize equality of influence.
14
Muzaqqi, Fahrul. "Menimbang Gagasan Negara Hukum (Deliberatif) di Indonesia*." Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 5 (May 20, 2016): 175. http://dx.doi.org/10.31078/jk758.
Full textAbstract:
In these recent years the idea of deliberative democracy appears as an alternative idea in the middle of discourse of democracy’s contest and configuration. Through its critics which are submitted into two dominant democratic traditions (also seeking to synthesize them), viz republicanism and liberal democracy, deliberative democracy makes serious efforts to pass theoretical tensions of those two democratic traditions over by formulating a communicative participation theory in an autonomous public sphere which whom is inclusive (multi-actors), free from pressures, discrimination and manipulation.Yet, the idea of deliberative democracy self if it is observed from many deliberation literatures and practices which are studied and implemented in many countries, it has at least two variants that are mutually exclusive. First, variant of impartialism which emphasize on normative principles including the attitude and action to be inclusive, autonomous (non-partisan) and holding on the argumentation which whom considers multi-perspectives and multi-actors in taking a decision or public policy. Inter-subjectivity of an opinion was emphasized very much relating to goodness and rightness of a decision. Second, the impartialism’s critics that realizes to the real of politics and criticizes the model of impartiality that is regarded as too utopian and idealistic in applying deliberation. Principles of reciprocity, continuity, inclusivity and heterogeneity of deliberation are taken as substitute of inter-subjectivity principle in impartiality model.This paper makes a try to investigate the origin of deliberative democracy idea in modern democratic tradition. Furthermore it analyzes development of two variants of deliberative democracy idea. Finally, it endeavors to contextualize the history of Indonesian idea of democracy especially in the idea of consensus discussion (musyawarah mufakat) which is the heart of Indonesian democracy. Of course this paper uses more historical approach to explore them all.
15
Martínez-Bascuñán, Máriam. "Misgivings on Deliberative Democracy: Revisiting the Deliberative Framework." World Political Science 12, no. 2 (November 1, 2016): 195–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/wps-2016-0006.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn the last few years, the Deliberative Framework has become the main model in the consolidation of democratic processes. Deliberative theorists argue that deliberation helps to promote the democratic level of our societies, and they have good reasons to support this view. This article, however, is critical with some of these claims, questioning the widespread assumption of an existing connection between deliberation and democracy. With this objective in mind, we will examine the following three questions: Who deliberates? Under what conditions does deliberation take place? What is the content of deliberation? Once the potential repressive components of deliberation are made clear, we try to reach some normative considerations regarding how to promote certain mechanisms of deliberation that are in fact more in line with deliberative emancipation ideas and, as such, better assertions for promoting democracy.
16
Albuquerque, Newton De Menezes, and Guilherme Dourado Aragão Sá Araújo. "A democracia contemporânea e a crítica aos limites entre público e privado: por uma nova teoria da cidadania / The contemporary democracy and the critics of the limits between public and private: for a new theory of citizenship." Revista Brasileira de Direito 13, no. 3 (December 22, 2017): 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.18256/2238-0604.2017.v13i3.1175.
Full textAbstract:
Resumo: Sob a óptica do problema da legitimidade das decisões democráticas, este trabalho expõe a necessidade de reversão da tendência publicista em prol de maior reconhecimento do poder deliberativo voluntário individual ou comunitário. Demonstrou-se o surgimento da democracia direta na Grécia antiga e as implicações modernas que levaram ao desenvolvimento das formas representativas, bem como seus problemas inerentes. Utilizando-se de pesquisa bibliográfica, o ensaio expõe que os mecanismos de verificação da legitimidade democrática não se mostraram suficientes para garantir a verdadeira democracia em seu aspecto material. Concluiu-se que esses problemas provocam a necessidade de se repensar o objeto deliberativo da democracia em questões eminentemente individuais como a união entre pessoas do mesmo sexo ou livre comércio de drogas e armas.Palavras-chave: teoria da democracia; legitimidade; democracia direta.Abstract: From the perspective of the problem of legitimacy of democratic decisions, this paper exposes the need for revert the publicist trend towards greater recognition of the individual or community volunteer deliberative power. It showed the appearance of the direct democracy in ancient Greece and the modern implications that led to the development of the representative forms, as well as its inherent problems. Through literature research, it states that the mechanisms of verification of democratic legitimacy were not sufficient to ensure true democracy in its material aspect. It concludes these problems cause the need to rethink democracy’s deliberative object in eminently individual issues such as same sex marriage or free trade of drugs and arms.Keywords: theory of democracy; legitimacy; direct democracy.
17
Arsovski, Dusan. "Deliberative democracy and legitimacy." Theoria, Beograd 62, no. 1 (2019): 119–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo1901119a.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I approach the issue of the legitimacy of deliberative democracy according to how the problem between deliberation and participation is resolved. The assumption is that the decision arrived at through deliberation is legitimate if all those impacted by this decision have parttaken in its making. However, it is believed that the deliberation of all whom the decision concerns is impossible. The representative model of deliberative democracy, proposed by John Parkinson, offers a solution to this problem, commonly named mini-forums strategy. The critique of all attempts at developing theory through mini-forums as institutionalized forms of decision-making, submitted by Christina Lafont, demonstrates certain flaws of such attempts, but it also showcases some valuable ideas Parkinson put forth. After presenting the critique offered by Lafont I will provide my own critique of Parkinson?s model, in which I indicate: 1) the relativism of his definitions, which creates issues regarding the application of his theory and 2) the inadequacy of strategies which offer solutions of the problem of the legitimacy of deliberative democracy through a representational model.
18
KOVALEVSKA, Daria. "DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AS A MECHANISM OF CIVIL SOCIETY’S INFLUENCE ON THE STATE." Epistemological Studies in Philosophy Social and Political Sciences 6, no. 2 (December 27, 2023): 134–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.15421/342333.
Full textAbstract:
This article explores the role of deliberative democracy in political modernization and the dynamic relationship between civil society and the state. It aims to elucidate the essence of deliberative democracy as a mechanism for civil society’s influence on the state, and systematically analyze the conceptual studies of deliberative democracy in the context of civil society’s power potential, both in Ukraine and globally. The study reflects on the evolution of civil society, highlighting its transformation from a state-dominated concept to one of parity with government institutions. The research emphasizes the significance of public discourse in legitimizing government decisions and examines the roles of various scholars in developing the concept of deliberative democracy.Deliberative democracy, a post-classical theory, is contrasted with electoral democracy, focusing on public discourse as a key legitimacy source for legislative acts. The paper delves into the historical origins of deliberation and deliberative democracy, crediting political scientist J.Bessette with coining the term. It discusses the critical elements of deliberative democracy, including public dialogue, rational discourse, and institutionalized exchange of opinions for decision-making. The model incorporates elements of representative, direct, and participatory democracy, highlighting its basis in public consultation and discourse.The article also examines various forms of the deliberative process, including open public discussions and behind-closed-doors exchanges, underscoring the importance of information, argumentation, and persuasion. It critiques the liberal interpretation of democracy and stresses the need for citizen involvement in governance, spotlighting the role of political civil society organizations in fostering democratic deliberation.
19
Owen, David S. "Deliberative democracy." Philosophy & Social Criticism 27, no. 5 (September 2001): 117–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019145370102700505.
Full text
20
Warren, Mark E. "Deliberative Democracy and Authority." American Political Science Review 90, no. 1 (March 1996): 46–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2082797.
Full textAbstract:
The topic of authority only rarely figures into theories of deliberative democracy, no doubt owing to the widely held view that authority is inherently undemocratic. But deliberative democrats need a concept of authoritative decision making, not least because the scale and complexity of contemporary societies radically limit the numbers of decisions that can be made by deliberatively democratic means. I argue for an inherently democratic conception of authority, in large part by examining and rejecting the view—held by radical democrats, conservatives, and most liberals—that authority involves a surrender of judgment by those subject to authority. In contrast, I develop the view that authority, particularly in posttraditional contexts, involves a limited suspension of judgment enabled by a context of democratic challenge and public accountability. An important point is that democratic authority supports robust deliberative decision making by enabling individuals to allocate their time, energy, and knowledge to the issues most significant to them.
21
Hobson, Kersty. "On the Modern and the Nonmodern in Deliberative Environmental Democracy." Global Environmental Politics 9, no. 4 (November 2009): 64–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/glep.2009.9.4.64.
Full textAbstract:
The “deliberative turn” in green political theory and applied environmental decision-making is now well-established. However, questions remain about the applicability of its concepts and methods to non-Western or “nonmodern” contexts, to use a term from Gupte and Barlett's 2007 article in this journal that is the stimulus to this article. In such places the societal pre-conditions of modernity deemed theoretically necessary for “authentic deliberation” to occur are mostly absent. Yet, authentic deliberation does take place, prompting questions about the geographical and cultural bias of the deliberative environmental democratic project. This article takes up such questions, arguing that in deliberative theory modernity is more than a bias, which is highlighted when the nonmodern is counted in. Instead, in its noun-form modernity suggests a particular type of deliberating subject, replete with specific capacities and knowledge, which the nonmodern is, in true binary fashion, deemed to lack. This article draws on qualitative data from deliberative workshops in northern New Mexico, USA, to argue that such categorizations do not hold up to empirical or conceptual scrutiny, particularly in light of Bruno Latour's work on modernity and the Modern. Thus, this article argues that deliberative environmental democracy research should therefore be recast as an ethnographic and context-based project, and explores how such a project could be carried out.
22
Tanasoca, Ana. "Informal Networked Deliberation: How Mass Deliberative Democracy Really Works." Analyse & Kritik 45, no. 1 (May 1, 2023): 23–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/auk-2023-2003.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Deliberative democracy started out as an ideal for mass democracy. Lately, however, its large-scale ambitions have mostly been shelved. This article revivifies the ideal of mass deliberative democracy by offering a clear mechanism by which everyone in the community can be included in the same conversation. The trick is to make use of people’s overlapping social communicative networks through which informal deliberative exchanges already occur on an everyday basis. Far from being derailed by threats of polarization, echo chambers, and motivated reasoning, informal networked deliberation can indeed put everyone in touch, directly or indirectly, with everyone else.
23
Bohman, James. "Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity." Episteme 3, no. 3 (October 2006): 175–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.175.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTIt is often assumed that democracies can make good use of the epistemic benefits of diversity among their citizenry, but difficult to show why this is the case. In a deliberative democracy, epistemically relevant diversity has three aspects: the diversity of opinions, values, and perspectives. Deliberative democrats generally argue for an epistemic form of Rawls' difference principle: that good deliberative practice ought to maximize deliberative inputs, whatever they are, so as to benefit all deliberators, including the least effective. The proper maximandum of such a principle is not the pool of reasons, but rather the availability of perspectives. This sort of diversity makes robustness across different perspectives the proper epistemic aim of deliberative processes. Robustness also offers a measure of success for those democratic practices of inquiry based on the deliberation of all citizens.
24
Parkinson, John. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy." Political Studies 51, no. 1 (March 2003): 180–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00419.
Full textAbstract:
The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: ‘that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question’ ( Dryzek, 2001, p. 651 ). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them. Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.
25
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development." Perspectives on Politics 9, no. 2 (June 2011): 269–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1537592711000892.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China is now permeated by a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian concentrations of power with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation is usually associated with democracy, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments such as votes and rights. Deliberation is a mode of communication involving persuasion-based influence. Combinations of non-inclusive power and deliberative influence—authoritarian deliberation—are readily identifiable in China, probably reflecting failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China: the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule, or deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
26
Rotar, Nataliya. "Transformation of Markers of the Deliberative Democracy Theory in Modern Political Science." Mediaforum : Analytics, Forecasts, Information Management, no. 10 (July 28, 2022): 25–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.31861/mediaforum.2022.10.25-42.
Full textAbstract:
The article studies the features of the transformation of markers of the theory of deliberative democracy in modern political science. It has been established that a feature of this model of democracy is the possibility of its definition as a process and form of politics aimed at transforming the individual interests of political subjects by organizing a rational discussion and reaching consensus on the problems that determine the subject field of political decisions. It is substantiated that the initial model of the theory of deliberative democracy by J. Bessett is based on the concept of institutionalized order, norms of public opinion and consensus, which are the source of the organization of the process of deliberation in a democratic political process. As one of the effective ways of making political decisions, deliberative democracy in the concept of J. Bessette functionally relies on discussion and discourse that form a space for competition of opinions and beliefs and public opinion in the status of resource support for the political course. In J. Bessette’s model of deliberative democracy, the status of the subject of discussion and discourse is assigned to politicians and experts and did not provide for the acquisition of such a status by all citizens. It has been proved that modern versions of the theory of deliberative democracy, built around the idea of deliberation occurring with the participation of political institutions, civil society institutions and citizens, pay special attention to such markers as procedures, forms and results of deliberation. Meaning discussion, dialogue and discourse as forms of deliberation, delibe-rative democracy is modelled as a forum in which reasoning, ideas, opinions, preferences are transformed in the process of public discussion and approach rationality. According to the ideal model of deliberative democracy, political discussion (discourse, dialogue) should be oriented towards the development of a justified rational agreement on social norms. Only the result of a discussion in the form of consensus, reached in real actual political discourse, makes the social norm justified, substantiated and true. Achieving consensus in the deliberative model of democracy acts as a strategic skill based on intellectual and psychological techniques and technologies, the admissibility of which is derived from the procedures of the public political process and the virtues of political subjects. One such technique is the listening technique. It is substantiated that discussions about the relationship between deliberation and legitimacy, which is reflected in the procedural principles of democracy (interaction and publicity; accountability; collective mind), have become an important direction in the transformation of markers of deliberative democracy. Democratic practices of relying on a deliberative model of legitimacy should take into account the vulnerability of political behaviour (participation, activity) to quasi-deliberative forms of organizing discussion and the conditional possibility of attaining consensus on the common good. Its search, not its achievement, is a resource of democracy that maintains interest and ensures inclusion in public problems that can be solved by means of politics.
27
Talisse, Robert. "New Trouble For Deliberative Democracy." Dossier : Public Participation, Legitimate Political Decisions, and Controversial Technologies 12, no. 1 (December 4, 2017): 107–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1042280ar.
Full textAbstract:
In the past two decades, democratic political practice has taken a deliberative turn. That is, contemporary democratic politics has become increasingly focused on facilitating citizen participation in the public exchange of reasons. Although the deliberative turn in democratic practice is in several respects welcome, the technological and communicative advances that have facilitated it also make possible new kinds of deliberative democratic pathology. This essay calls attention to and examines new epistemological troubles for public deliberation enacted under contemporary conditions. Drawing from a lesson offered by Lyn Sanders two decades ago, the paper raises the concern that the deliberative turn in democratic practice has counter-democratic effects.
28
Christmann, Luiza Landerdahl. "Democracia Deliberativa e Participação Popular no Licenciamento Ambiental do OSX-Estaleiro/SC: Desafios E Possibilidades." Veredas do Direito: Direito Ambiental e Desenvolvimento Sustentável 10, no. 20 (April 14, 2014): 111. http://dx.doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v10i20.282.
Full textAbstract:
O presente artigo é um recorte da dissertação de mestrado do autor, que teve como objeto de estudo a participação popular no licenciamento ambiental do OSX-Estaleiro/SC, a fim de compreender em que medida ela se realizou de modo a efetivar a gestão do risco ambiental. Neste momento, buscou-se compreender o processo de informação e participação (interna e na audiência pública) das comunidades envolvidas. Utilizou-se como metodologia a abordagem qualitativa, orientada pela perspectiva hermenêutico-dialética, e como técnicas de pesquisa a pesquisa bibliográfica, a entrevista semiestruturada e a pesquisa documental. Como teoria de base, adotou-se a teoria da democracia deliberativa, de Habermas. Como resultado, constatou-se a existência de muitos desafios para a concretização dos postulados comunicacionais da democracia deliberativa, mas também a existência de possibilidades decorrentes da complexidade do processo. Concluiu-se pela necessidade de ampliação e reforço dos postulados comunicionais antes definidos, na tentativa de possibilitar uma autêntica deliberação. AbstractThis article is a part of the author’s dissertation, that had the objective to comprehend the extent to which the popular participation was carried out during the OSX-Estaleiro/SC, Biguaçu, environmental licensing process, and understand if it happened in way to become effective the environmental risk management. In this moment, it intended to comprehend the information and participation process by involved community. The qualitative research approach was adopted and it was guided by a dialectical perspective. The bibliographical and documental research technique was used conjunctionally with semi-structured interview technique. It was adopted Habermas’s deliberative democracy theory as the main theoretical reference. About results, it was realized the existence of many challenges to implement the deliberative democracy’s communicative rules, however also the existence of possibilities from complex process. It concluded about the necessity of extend and reinforce the communicative rules to earn an authentic deliberation. KeywordsPublic participation. Deliberative democracy. OSX-Estaleiro/ SC environmental licensing. Communicative rules.
29
He, Baogang, and Mark E. Warren. "Authoritarian Deliberation in China." Daedalus 146, no. 3 (July 2017): 155–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00454.
Full textAbstract:
Authoritarian rule in China increasingly involves a wide variety of deliberative practices. These practices combine authoritarian command with deliberative influence, producing the apparent anomaly of authoritarian deliberation. Although deliberation and democracy are usually found together, they are distinct phenomena. Democracy involves the inclusion of individuals in matters that affect them through distributions of empowerments like votes and rights. Deliberation is the kind of communication that involves persuasion-based influence. Combinations of command-based power and deliberative influence – like authoritarian deliberation – are now pervading Chinese politics, likely a consequence of the failures of command authoritarianism under the conditions of complexity and pluralism produced by market-oriented development. The concept of authoritarian deliberation frames two possible trajectories of political development in China. One possibility is that the increasing use of deliberative practices stabilizes and strengthens authoritarian rule. An alternative possibility is that deliberative practices serve as a leading edge of democratization.
30
Boswell, John, and Jack Corbett. "Deliberative Bureaucracy: Reconciling Democracy’s Trade-off Between Inclusion and Economy." Political Studies 66, no. 3 (October 2, 2017): 618–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723512.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democrats have long considered the trade-off between norms of inclusion and efficiency. The latest attempt at reconciliation is the deliberative systems model, which situates and links individual sites of deliberation in their macro context. Yet, critics argue that this move to scale up leaves inclusive practices of citizen deliberation vulnerable. Here, we seek to mitigate these concerns via an unlikely source: bureaucracy. Drawing on the notion of policy feedback, with its attendant focus on how policies (re)make democratic politics, we envision a deliberative bureaucracy where implementation and service delivery are imbued with norms of justification, publicity and, most radically, inclusion. Looking at promising contemporary governance practices, we argue that a deliberative bureaucracy, with the rich public encounters it might foster, can reconcile the desire to scale up deliberative democracy to whole systems with the desire to hold on to the benefits of scaled-down citizen deliberation.
31
Sokalska, Edyta. "Searching for a new formula of a state: international discourse on deliberative democracy." Acta Iuridica Resoviensia 40, no. 122 (March 30, 2023): 124–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.15584/actaires.2023.1.8.
Full textAbstract:
The idea of civil society has became one of the most important premises of deliberative democracy. The question concerning the best model of democracy is still present in the international political and scientific discourse. The contemporary research approach to deliberative democracy referred to as the ‘systemic turn’ exposes three factors: the search for opportunities to develop and promote deliberation on a mass scale; the emphasis on the division of tasks and activities among participants within the system; the introduction of a certain continuum to the criterion of deliberation linking the multiplicity of institutions and the processes that occur among them. It is significant that many researchers confirm that thanks to deliberative methods and tools, the legitimacy of local government activities is strengthened. Identified shortcomings of deliberative democracy at the local level (potential institutional neutralization of activists’ activities, participatory frustration or widespread incompetence of citizens participating in deliberation) have become contribution to the discussion on the further directions of development of this form as well as possibilities for its improvement.
32
Milojevic, Miljana. "Rationality and deliberative democracy." Theoria, Beograd 53, no. 3 (2010): 71–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo1003071m.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I will give a short description of deliberative democracy, its advantages over the aggregative model of democracy and its strategies for overcoming the obstacles which the social choice theory puts before the defenders of democracy. I will continue with the argument that the aim of deliberative democracy should not be reaching the consensus or unanimity, but obtaining preference single-peakedness. For, there is a practical impossibility of consensus reaching and the single-peakedness criterion is sufficient for prevention against the 'paradoxes of democracy'. Through the analysis of the given explanations of the ways in which deliberation can lead to the realization of single-peakedness, I will make an attempt to defend the position which holds that acquiring singlepeakedness, in the impartial conditions of deliberation, is a goal that is as equally unreachable as is reaching of the consensus because of the multidimensionality of the alternative evaluation criterion. However, I will show that even if deliberation does not necessarily lead to a preference single-peakedness, which would prevent Condorcet's paradox from happening, in accordance with Arrow's ethical conditions of democratic choice, it nevertheless reveals why these paradoxes are created in the first place, and it is providing us with an insight into how we can redefine the alternatives so that we can obtain a true single-peakedness of our preferences.
33
Wright, Simon, Tatjana Buklijas, and Max Rashbrooke. "The Rise, Fall and Re-Rise Of Deliberative Democracy In New Zealand." Policy Quarterly 20, no. 2 (May 8, 2024): 3–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.26686/pq.v20i2.9478.
Full textAbstract:
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.
34
Mancic, Zeljko. "Deliberative democracy and the internet: Could online deliberative democracy replace classical democracy." Filozofija i drustvo 23, no. 2 (2012): 168–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/fid1202168m.
Full textAbstract:
This text deals with one of the attempts to make the idea of deliberative democracy more acceptable by conducting it through the Internet. Citing the simplicity of access and use of the Internet, many authors believe that it is possible to join deliberative democracy with direct democracy, and thus reach the best possible system of political decision making. It will be shown, however, that although this idea has many advantages over classical theories of deliberative democracy, it raises more issues than it solves. Despite this, the idea of online deliberative democracy should not be neglected, but rather joined with existing procedures of political decision making, significantly improving these procedures.
35
Pietrzyk–Reeves, Dorota. "Deliberative democracy and citizenship." Polish Political Science Yearbook 35, no. 1 (March 31, 2006): 43–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2006004.
Full textAbstract:
The model of deliberative democracy poses a number of dificult questions about individual rationality, public reason and justification, public spiritedness, and an active and supportive public sphere. It also raises the question about what kind of civic involvement is required for the practices of democratic deliberation to be effective. The aim of this article is to examine the last question by looking at the role and value of citizenship understood in terms of participation. It argues that deliberative democracy implies a category of democratic citizens; its institutional framework calls for the activity and competence of citizenry, and consequently, the participatory forms of deliberative democracy come closest to the democratic ideal as such. Also, the model of participatory-deliberative democracy is more attractive as a truly democratic ideal than the model of formal deliberative democracy, but it certainly faces more dificulties when it comes to the practicalities, and especially the institutional design. This problem is raised in the last section of the article where the possible applicability of such a model to post-communist democracies is addressed. The major dificulty that the participatory-deliberative model poses for the post-communist democratization can be explained by a reference to the cultural approach towards democratization and to the revised modernization theory presented by Inglehart and Welzel. The problem of the applicability of such a model in the post-communist context seems to support the thesis presented here which suggests that active citizenship, civic skills and civic culture are indispensable for the development of deliberative politics.
36
BARABAS, JASON. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions." American Political Science Review 98, no. 4 (November 2004): 687–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404041425.
Full textAbstract:
Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.
37
김주성. "Deliberative Democracy or Participatory Democracy?" Korean Political Science Review 42, no. 4 (December 2008): 5–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.18854/kpsr.2008.42.4.001.
Full text
38
Kim, Jung-hee. "The Linkage between Participatory Budgeting and Deliberative Democracy: A Comparative Study of Cases in South Korea, China, and Australia." Korean Association of NGO Studies (KANGOS) 18, no. 2 (August 31, 2023): 1–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.35225/kngos.2023.18.2.1.
Full textAbstract:
The purpose of this study is to identify and propose the necessary tasks for establishing deliberative participatory budgeting in South Korea by comparing and examining the characteristics of deliberative participatory budgeting implemented by local governments in three countries with different political and social backgrounds. To do so, theoretical and practical discussions on ‘deliberative participatory budgeting’, which encompass perspectives of participatory and direct democracy as well as deliberative democracy, were reviewed. Then, three cases of ‘deliberation-based participatory budgeting’ implemented by local governments such as Zeguo town in China, the city of Greater Geraldton in Australia, and Eunpyeong-gu in Korea, were compared and analyzed. The cases of Zeguo and Geraldton demonstrated that when participatory budgeting systems are combined with deliberative mechanisms such as deliberative pollings and town meetings to address local issues, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy can positively interact with each other and contribute to problem-solving. The case of Eunpyeong-gu stood out for utilizing deliberation in public forums from the stage of proposing ideas for solving local issues to determining priorities. As improvement tasks, it was suggested to diversify the Korean participatory budgeting model, which is primarily operated under the ‘resident proposal project’, and reduce the ‘bias in participation by self-selection’ through the multi-level operation of public forums based on neighborhoods, themes, and target groups.
39
Dryzek, John S. "Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building." Comparative Political Studies 42, no. 11 (April 7, 2009): 1379–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332129.
Full textAbstract:
Effective deliberation is central to democracy and so should enter any definition of democratization. However, the deliberative aspect now ubiquitous in the theory, practice, and promotion of democracy is generally missing in comparative studies of democratization. Deliberation capacity can be distributed in variable ways in the deliberative systems of states and other polities. A framework is described for locating and analyzing the contributions of its components and so evaluating the degree to which a polity’s deliberative system is authentic, inclusive, and consequential. An emphasis on deliberation reveals important determinants of democratic transition and consolidation, thereby providing substantial explanatory as well as evaluative and normative purchase.
40
Blaug, Ricardo. "New Developments in Deliberative Democracy." Politics 16, no. 2 (May 1996): 71–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.1996.tb00023.x.
Full textAbstract:
This paper inspects recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy. It identifies three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation. Each has its strengths; each has its implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy in order to articulate a legitimate and practical politics, the respective gains of these three types must be brought together.
41
Junaenah, Inna. "Kontribusi Tatanan Islam terhadap Demokrasi Permusyawaran di Indonesia." AHKAM : Jurnal Ilmu Syariah 16, no. 2 (December 11, 2016): 163–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.15408/ajis.v16i2.4446.
Full textAbstract:
The Contributions of Islamic Order to Deliberative Democracy in Indonesia. Many references indicate the dynamic development of democracy with various definitions and classifications. The founding fathers did not want liberal democracy. Therefore, the consultative democracy was selected as outlined in the formulation of the fourth principle of Pancasila. This decision was considered special because there has been a contribution of Islamic thought. This article describes the principles of Islam in the deliberation that carry deliberative democracy including the meaning and purpose of deliberation, the agency that deliberation, and decision making. Those principles are reflected in the formulation of the fourth principle, the existence of the people’s Consultative Assembly, the membership of the Assembly in 1945 before amendments, and decision making method.DOI: 10.15408/ajis.v16i2.4446
42
McKay, Spencer, and Peter MacLeod. "Practitioner’s Note." Democratic Theory 5, no. 2 (December 1, 2018): 108–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050209.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative forums, such as citizens’ assemblies or reference panels, are one institutionalization of deliberative democracy that has become increasingly commonplace in recent years. MASS LBP is a pioneer in designing and facilitating such long-form deliberative processes in Canada. This article provides an overview of the company’s civic lottery and reference panel process, notes several distinctive features of MASS LBP that are relevant to addressing challenges to democratic deliberation, and outlines possible areas for future research in deliberative democracy applied in both private and public settings.
43
Savic, Vanja. "Integration of deliberative democracy and policy-making: A vision of a deliberative system." Filozofija i drustvo 23, no. 4 (2012): 170–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/fid1204170s.
Full textAbstract:
The paper examines major propositions of deliberative democratic theory, divided into problems of inclusion, deliberation and citizenship and their parallel articulation, as well as empirical examination and specification, in literature on post-empiricist policy-making. The theory of deliberative democracy and literature on deliberative policy-making have raised similar concerns and made parallel proposals about possible remedies of ills of contemporary democracy i.e. policy-making, specifically concerning broader inclusion in democratic and policy-making practices, deliberative consideration of issues in both policy-making and democratic politics and enhanced civic skills of democratic participants i.e. policy-takers. Authors in both sets of literature reach a similar conclusion about incorpora?tion of democratic i.e. policy-making deliberative efforts into institutions of liberal democracy so as to create a larger ?deliberative system? of interconnected chains of communication and legitimacy.
44
Mladenovic, Ivan. "From public reason to deliberative democracy." Filozofija i drustvo 27, no. 1 (2016): 237–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/fid1601237m.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I shall investigate the relationship between public reason and deliberative democracy, mainly as it is presented in Rawls?s later political theory. Against the critics who claim that Rawls has no deliberative democratic theory, I shall argue that he presented a complex view of public deliberation that contains a set of formal and substantive requirements derived from the idea of public reason. My main aim in this paper is to defend and further elaborate the thesis that Rawls?s later political theory is crucially important for deliberative democracy. Furthermore, in light of the recent literature on deliberative democracy, I examine the relevance of Rawls?s view for addressing some current problems, but also look at some limits of the public reason perspective.
45
Doyle, Oran, and Rachael Walsh. "Deliberation in Constitutional Amendment: Reappraising Ireland’s Deliberative Mini-Publics." European Constitutional Law Review 16, no. 3 (September 2020): 440–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1574019620000243.
Full textAbstract:
Deliberative democracy innovations in constitutional amendment processes – Ireland’s experimentation with deliberative mini-publics on constitutional issues – Factors influencing the political take-up of recommendations – The significance of the support of the legislative majority –Deliberative mini-publics as an accountability mechanism.
46
Arias-Maldonado, Manuel. "An Imaginary Solution? The Green Defence of Deliberative Democracy1." Environmental Values 16, no. 2 (May 2007): 233–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096327190701600206.
Full textAbstract:
As part of the recent rethinking of green politics, the construction of a green democracy has been subjected to increasing scrutiny. There is a growing consensus around deliberative democracy as the preferred model for the realisation of the green programme. As a result several arguments emerge when deliberative principles and procedures are to be justified from a green standpoint. This paper offers a critical assessment of the green case for deliberative democracy, showing that deliberation is being asked to deliver more than it is able to. However, it is suggested that the connection between sustainability, understood as a normative principle, and deliberative procedures may ultimately offer the best grounds for such a defence.
47
Tirtanadi, Adrian. "National Deliberative Democracy." Good Society 15, no. 2 (January 1, 2006): 41–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25702818.
Full text
48
Heath, Joseph. "Post-deliberative Democracy." Analyse & Kritik 43, no. 2 (November 1, 2021): 285–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0019.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Within any adversarial rule-governed system, it often takes time for strategically motivated agents to discover effective exploits. Once discovered, these strategies will soon be copied by all other participants. Unless it is possible to adjust the rules to preclude them, the result will be a degradation of the performance of the system. This is essentially what has happened to public political discourse in democratic states. Political actors have discovered, not just that the norm of truth can be violated in specific ways, but that many of the norms governing rational deliberation can also be violated, not just without penalty, but often for significant political gain. As a result, the level of noise (false or misleading communications) has come to drown out the signal (earnest attempts at deliberation). The post-truth political condition is the cumulative result of innovations developed by actors who adopt an essentially strategic orientation toward political communications.
49
Tirtanadi, Adrian. "National Deliberative Democracy." Good Society 15, no. 2 (January 1, 2006): 41–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.15.2.0041.
Full text
50
Shelly, Robert. "Institutionalising Deliberative Democracy." Alternative Law Journal 26, no. 1 (February 2001): 36–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1037969x0102600108.
Full text