Search

Victims, criminals, and survivors – these are dominant ways in which the media portrays communities affected by disasters. These portrayals are not benign. They present a deficient form of citizenship that reduces communities to disempowered subjects whose agency can only be realised with humanitarian responses or disciplinary action by the state. In this article, we make a case for portraying disaster-affected communities as political agents who assert their status as co-equal citizens bearing ideas and grievances, capable of justifying their views, and have a stake in shaping the course of post-disaster response. We argue that this portrayal is not only normatively desirable but politically possible. We draw on the case of People Surge – a grassroots alliance formed in the Philippines in 2013 in the aftermath of the world’s strongest storm.

This article investigates how communities experiencing poverty can exercise their deliberative agency in a media-saturated society. While empirical research on deliberative democracy tends to focus on the role of mini-publics in giving low-income households the opportunity in small-scale, carefully designed forums to characterise, justify, and reflect on their views, such conception of deliberative agency gets lost in the picture once deliberative theory begins thinking in systemic terms. This article proposes a remedy to this theoretical and analytical gap by characterising the hypermediated character of the deliberative system and identifying possibilities for communities experiencing poverty to maximise the affordances of digital media for them to make an appearance in the public sphere, speak in their own voice, and carry the embodied and storied character of their arguments. I present two illustrative cases drawing on the experiences of families with low income directly affected by the bloody war on drugs in the Philippines who utilise photojournalism and online music streaming to break in the public sphere and engage in systemic deliberations about the drug war. These examples demonstrate how communities experiencing poverty express their deliberative agency amidst fear, trauma and deprivation and democratise a media-saturated deliberative system under an increasingly authoritarian regime. Overall, this article hopes to strengthen the link between normative media studies and democratic theory and offering possibilities for reforming the public sphere that recognises the poor’s deliberative agency.

What is the state of deliberative democracy in the age of serial crisis? This survey article provides a descriptive and reflective assessment of recent developments in the field in the light of a political context in which there is growing incivility, political polarization, normalization of disinformation and the growing appeal of finding simplistic solutions to complex problems. We describe deliberative democracy as a field of research that has evolved to become (a) assertive in practice, (b) precise in theory, (c) global in reach and (d) ambitious in empirical research. For each of these facets of deliberative democracy, we reflect on the extent to which the field has responded to conceptual, empirical and political challenges, and identify its shortcomings, which warrant further attention. We conclude by drawing attention to research imperatives that the field needs to address to remain relevant in a highly unequal, climate-challenged and increasingly fragile global public sphere.

Contemporary democratic backsliding typically unfolds gradually, as elected incumbents slowly and relentlessly subvert democratic institutions without openly questioning the principles of democracy...

Global governance can be informed by a deliberative assembly composed of lay citizens

Challenging the usual theoretical dichotomy between populism and deliberative democracy, Chapter 11 offers conceptual, methodological, and empirical observations regarding Rodrigo Duterte’s populist rise in the Philippines that incorporates insights from both theories of populism and of deliberative democracy. For many observers, Duterte’s rise has signaled the legitimization of divisive, vulgar, and plainly murderous rhetoric in one of Asia’s oldest democracies. Such observers also often regard populism as a top-down, manipulative, and homogenously spiteful rhetoric, not noting the contingent and dynamic character of populist claim-making from below. This chapter argues that ethnographic research on what it calls “populist publics” open a discussion on possible spaces for the democratization of populist claims. Methodologically, the chapter proposes shifting our gaze from the populist leader to the relationship he or she negotiates with the public. As such, it builds on this volume’s conception of populism as fundamentally relational. Regarding Duterte’s populist appeal, it concludes that while it invigorated the voices of those who have long been left out of politics, it also created its own voice-denying (and life-denying!) rationalities that further excluded not the elites, but the most vulnerable communities.

This Special Issue uses Cristina Lafont’s latest book Democracy without Shortcut to stimulate a focused debate about the role of minipublics in democratic systems and the normative and practical prospects of a participatory and deliberative democracy. This Editorial Introduction provides an overview of current and emerging debates on minipublics research, locates Lafont’s work in these debates, and presents a summary of contributions in the issue.

“At the mass grave, girl” said my key informant, when I asked her where she wanted to meet one Tuesday afternoon in Tacloban City, Philippines. She sounded blase when she said this, as if she asked...

The Journal of Public Deliberation is turning over a new leaf. This short introduction maps new directions for the journal and invites readers to continue engaging the vibrant field of deliberative democracy.

This commentary aims to take stock of the 2016 presidential elections in the Philippines that led to the landslide victory of the controversial Rodrigo Duterte. It argues that part of Duterte’s electoral success is hinged on his effective deployment of the populist style. Although populism is not new to the Philippines, Duterte exhibits features of contemporary populism that are befitting of an age of communicative abundance. This commentary contrasts Duterte’s political style with other presidential contenders, characterises his relationship with the electorate and concludes by mapping populism’s democratic and anti-democratic tendencies, which may define the quality of democratic practice in the Philippines in the next six years.

Disasters are often described as exceptional moments that demand global solidarity. A ‘state of humanitarian exception’ emerges as citizens foreground norms of compassion and cooperation while contestatory discourse – the argumentative, blame-seeking and fault-finding forms of speech – are stigmatized as inappropriate interventions in a society seeking to recover from a distressful crisis situation. This article critically unpacks these representations of post-disaster situations empirically and normatively. By analysing the discussions in the public sphere over the first 100 days after Typhoon Haiyan battered Central Philippines, the article examines the moral force behind the ‘discourse of compassion’ and its ‘ethical boundary work’ that places the ‘discourse of contestation’ outside the scope of acceptable conduct. It proposes that the discourse of compassion’s ethical boundary work is only democratically acceptable when one takes a short view of a crisis situation. Drawing on deliberative democracy theory, the article argues for the importance of contestatory discourse in fostering inclusive discourse formation and ensuring that the state of humanitarian exception does not become the rule.

This piece reflects on the on the legacies of democratic deliberation, particularly mini-publics in responding to issues of disinformation, bigotry and nativism that has entered the political mainstream today. It aims to provoke conversations about the limitations of mini-publics in promoting democratic renewal and reconsider the functions of these forums in democracy’s ‘dark times.’

Trump of the East, Duterte Harry, the bastard child of Philippine democracy—these are some of what ways in which Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been depicted by the international press. This chapter seeks to go beyond these convenient labels and propose a historicized, contextualized, and critical approach to studying populism in the Philippines. It argues that the extraordinary popularity of Rodrigo Duterte has deep roots in the Philippines’ colonial history and in a national subjectivity that carries a lingering anxiety about freedom and sovereignty. It rejects the depiction of Duterte’s supporters as pathologically anti-democratic but is critical of the President’s failure to harness the grassroots momentum for democratic renewal and institution building.

One would be hard-pressed nowadays to find any practitioners and scholars in the field of post-disaster reconstruction who would argue against the virtues of community participation. In practice, however, the legacy of community participation has been mixed. This paper pursues this line of inquiry by examining the manifestations of participation in three communities affected by Typhoon Haiyan that struck the Philippines on 8 November 2013. The findings suggest that different governance logics emerge in each of the three case studies: authoritarian; communitarian; and deliberative. These logics promote particular understandings of who should participate in the reconstruction process and the appropriate scope of action for citizens to express discontent, provide feedback, and perform democratic agency. The paper contends that design interventions in participatory procedures, as well as contingencies in wider social contexts, shape the character and legacies of community participation. It concludes by comparing the legacies of these three 'governance enclaves' and imagining possibilities for participatory politics in post-disaster settings.

In the transition literature, ‘free and fair elections’ is often treated as the most important indicator of democratic quality. In this paper, however, we argue that ‘free deliberation among equals’ is in many respects a more telling measure. On the face of it, this argument might strike one as implausible. After all, the decisive moment in many transitions is the signing of a pact between elements in the government and opposition who are more concerned to protect their own interests than to explain themselves to others. Yet while pacts may not be particularly deliberative, they still occasion a great deal of deliberation across society as a whole. We argue that the different sites where deliberation occurs can be understood as forming a deliberative system. To give substance to this idea, we then outline a systemic framework that may be used to describe and evaluate the deliberative capacity of transitional regimes. Finally, we turn to the cases of Venezuela and Poland to illustrate the empirical applica...

This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.

When a presidential contender makes a joke about lusting over a dead Australian missionary, one could expect that this candidate would not go very far; but not in the year 2016. Dubbed as ‘the year of voting dangerously,’ the Philippines rode the tide of global discontent and gave landslide victory to the controversial Rodrigo Duterte. We argue that part of Duterte’s electoral success is a form of responsiveness that speaks to the injuries a frustrated public had to endure over years of a reform-oriented, technocratic yet often callous politicians associated to Duterte’s predecessor and other ‘progressive’ political elites. This form of responsiveness, however, takes an illiberal character—a kind of selective responsiveness that restores the esteem of many, but simultaneously thrives by denying the humanity of others.

The theory and practice of democracy have moved on from the paradigm of electoral democracy to conceptualising alternative models that can facilitate democratic deepening in different contexts. Methodology should follow too. In this piece, I build on Morlino’s framework, which takes a step towards a pluralised assessment of democratic qualities but remains largely hinged on the electoral model of democracy. I suggest that Morlino’s heuristic tools can be further sharpened by incorporating a deliberative democratic criterion. I provide an empirical illustration through the Philippine case – a country that already exhibits formal features of electoral democracy but fails to translate democratic impulses into democratic deepening.

A common objection against deliberative democracy relates to the impression that citizens, in general, are unwilling to participate in democratic politics. We contribute to the growing literature that challenges this impression by analyzing the discursive profile of citizens that participate in deliberation. By discursive profile, we refer to participants' own perceived role in the democratic process and their articulated motivations for joining a deliberative forum. We find that those who turned up in face-to-face deliberation tend to be less cynical toward politics. Moreover, based on their expressed motivations for participating, it can be inferred that linking the deliberative forum to decision makers provided an initial hook to participants. However, this changed as participants completed the process. At the end of deliberations, appreciation for the process itself ended up being the most resonant sentiment. These findings are based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses of data gathered from Australia's First Citizens' Parliament. Related Articles McBeth, Mark K., Donna L. Lybecker, and Kacee A. Garner. 2010. “The Story of Good Citizenship: Framing Public Policy in the Context of Duty-Based versus Engaged Citizenship.” Politics & Policy 38 (1): 1-23. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00226.x/abstract Crowley, Kate. 2009. “Can Deliberative Democracy Be Practiced? A Subnational Policy Pathway.” Politics & Policy 37 (5): 995-1021. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2009.00208.x/abstract Stephan, Mark. 2004. “Citizens as Representatives: Bridging the Democratic Theory Divides.” Politics & Policy 32 (1): 118-135. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2004.tb00178.x/abstract Related Media Film: Citizens' Parliament. 2009. NewDemocracy. Canberra. February. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWOoQwpJdrE Data and Discussion Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance. 2013. Australian National University. http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/ Una objecion comun en contra de la democracia deliberativa es que los ciudadanos parecen estar indispuestos a participar en la politica democratica. En este articulo contribuimos a la creciente literatura que cuestiona tal impresion mediante un analisis del perfil discursivo de los ciudadanos que participan en procesos de deliberacion. Entendemos por perfil discusivo, la percepcion que tienen los ciudadanos de su propio papel como participantes en el proceso democratico y sus motivaciones para sumarse a un foro deliberativo. Encontramos que aquellos que deliberan cara a cara tienden a ser menos cinicos hacia la politica. Mas aun, basados en las motivaciones para participar que han expresado los deliberantes, inferimos que la vinculacion del foro deliberativo con los tomadores de decisiones sirvio inicialmente para enganchar el interes de los participantes. No obstante, en nuestras observaciones, este nivel de involucramiento cambio en la medida que los participantes completaron el proceso. Al culminar sus deliberaciones los participantes expresaron aprecio por el proceso mismo, siendo este el sentimiento mas relevante en nuestro estudio. Estos hallazgos estan basados en un analisis cuantitativo y cualitativo de los datos disponibles del Primer Parlamento Ciudadano de Australia.

The project of deliberative democracy is increasingly pursued through designed mini-publics. But exactly how they are designed proves crucial in determining whether or not mini-publics can deliver on their promise. This article explores the role of appreciative inquiry – a version of deliberative design that is gaining ground. In this approach, participants are primed to develop an ‘appreciative gaze’ by focusing the discussion on what already works well in the system and imagining possibilities for building on these strengths. It is distinguished from contestatatory approaches in that argumentative, blame-seeking and deficit-oriented forms of discourse are considered counter-productive to the process. We argue against a one-sided emphasis on appreciative inquiry, which must be balanced with more contestatory forms. Focusing on appreciative approaches to deliberation at the expense of contestation obstructs the ability of a group to deliberate properly and secure crucial deliberative outcomes. Our analysi...

Citizens who support populist leaders are often portrayed in negative terms. They are disparaged for their prejudice and naiveté, some even earning the label “basket of deplorables” from Hillary Clinton. Rodrigo Duterte's supporters were not exempted from such criticism. In the 2016 Philippine presidential race, they were pejoratively labelled Dutertards, which pathologised their fervent and unrelenting support for the controversial candidate. This article interrogates such depictions by examining the logics that underpin Duterte's strong public support. I argue that part of Duterte's appeal hinges on “penal populism,” built on two political logics that reinforce each other: the politics of anxiety and the politics of hope. While the former foregrounds the language of crisis, danger and uncertainty, the latter reclaims democratic agency. The article examines the articulations of these logics among Duterte's supporters based on ethnographic fieldwork in disaster-affected communities where Duterte enjoyed decisive victories.

Recent developments in deliberative democratic theory have witnessed a renegotiation of classic deliberative principles to conceptualise the form deliberation could take under suboptimal speech situations. Application of deliberative virtues is negotiated, suggesting that different contexts warrant different deliberative expectations. Such approach presents a topical model of deliberation but it also raises concerns regarding the extent of these norms’ negotiability, whether there remain core deliberative virtues that cannot be compromised regardless of the context. This piece addresses this theoretical challenge by putting forward a sequential analysis of democratic deliberation. It draws on pragma-dialectics, an approach to the study of argumentation that examines how a ‘difference of opinion’ is handled in practice. It suggests that deliberative norms and discursive tactics have specialised functions at particular moments of exchange while retaining focus on components that make deliberation a distinct form of political practice.

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has shifted the focus away from seeking to design separate, internally deliberative ‘mini-publics’ and towards a new appreciation of their external, systemic quality. Yet, so far, such accounts have not gone beyond recognising a potential for mini-publics to contribute to deliberative systems. In this paper, we argue that a systemic conceptualisation of mini-publics must recognise their fundamentally ambivalent character: Since mini-publics have the potential both to foster and to undermine systemic deliberation, it is insufficient to celebrate their positive potential alone, and vital to develop frameworks that allow for a critical evaluation of mini-publics’ systemic role. To this end, we propose a framework based on the systemic qualities of deliberation-making, legitimacy-seeking and capacity-building, and conclude that key to mini-publics’ quality, when judged against these criteria, is not just their own features, but the degree of ‘co-development’ of all system components.