Search

Si la démocratie a besoin que les citoyens délibèrent pour en maintenir sa vivacité, l’importance des lieux qui favorisent la délibération est primordiale. La plateforme YouTube, malgré le formatage des vidéos qu’elle abrite et la rigidité de son interface participative, semble être parfois le creuset d’une initiation politique chez les jeunes adultes. L’espace de commentaires est en effet un tiers espace où le discours politique s’exerce par une confrontation d’idées hétérogènes dont la vidéo est le point de départ. Cette implication se déploie dans une participation discursive, stimulée par une minorité de webspectateurs surinvestis. Cet article analyse la chaine YouTube #DataGueule et l’une de ses vidéos avec son corpus de commentaires, dont les résultats sont renforcés par une enquête auprès de son public. If democracy needs citizens to deliberate to maintain its vivacity, the importance of deliberation’s places is central. YouTube platform, despite the video formatting and the rigidity of the participatory interface, seems to be the receptacle of the young adult’s political initiation. Space of comments is in fact a third space where political discourse is exercised through a confrontation of heterogeneous ideas, for which video is the starting point. This involvement unfolds in a discursive participation, stimulated by a minority of overinvested web viewers. This article analyzes the YouTube channel #DataGueule and one of its videos with its corpus of comments, the results of which are reinforced by a inquiry of its audience.

The epistemic accountability conception highlights that epistemic considerations matter for political legitimacy. The validity of contributions to political deliberation doesn’t just depend on whether someone has standing to contribute and on purely practical considerations. It also depends on the epistemic status of those contributions. This means that well-ordered political deliberation is subject to some epistemic norms. In this chapter, I first introduce the general idea. I then discuss candidate epistemic norms. I argue that political deliberation shouldn’t be subject to a truth norm or a knowledge norm. But it should be subject to a justified belief norm. I also discuss procedural epistemic norms: a responsiveness norm and an epistemic justice norm.

The idea of citizens being mere spectators who "watch" politics is widespread in public and academic debates. Scholarship in relation to democratic theory tends to see spectatorship as a state in which citizens are politically uninterested, isolated, and passive. Although this understanding aptly captures the problems about the idea of spectatorship, it is only a partial awareness and prevents us from seeing that positive forms of spectatorship are also possible. I show that positive spectatorship occurs when citizens show an interest in one or more political problems and, together with others, strive to understand them better. I consider the distinctive elements of this form of spectatorship characterized by careful observance, relationality, and proactivity. I argue that it is normatively desirable, and I reflect on the ways in which positive spectatorship helps thinking about democratizing politics. Relatedly, I also revisit the theatrical metaphor of politics, which is often associated to the concept of spectatorship as something negative for democracy. I argue that, when combined with a proper understanding of spectatorship, the theatrical metaphor can be used originally to envisage ways forward in the democratization of our societies.

O objetivo deste artigo é discutir as contribuições da teoria da democracia deliberativa para a jurisdição constitucional. Por meio de abordagem qualitativa e analítica e de pesquisa bibliográfica, explicativa e exploratória, foram realizadas considerações sobre a ação comunicativa, o papel da racionalidade e do discurso como pressupostos da deliberação, com base em Habermas. Em seguida, tratou-se sobre a legitimidade e o papel da participação popular na formação das decisões políticas, sobretudo no âmbito do Poder Judiciário.

Cross-cutting communication among people of differing political views is essential because it embeds opportunities for deliberation in everyday life. Prior research indicates that people tend to av...

Landscape Approaches have been proposed as a transferable model of multi-stakeholder governance, yet assume conditions of ideal speech, trust, and transparency that seem untransferable to authoritarian regimes. This paper argues that building Landscape Approaches under authoritarian conditions cannot be based on a governance deficit model of awaiting idealized political conditions, but instead needs to pay attention to how local social and political structures influence what is deliberated, and by whom. The paper presents evidence from a multi-stakeholder environmental intervention around Lake Indawgyi in Kachin State, Myanmar, to draw lessons for transferring Landscapes Approaches under conditions of political authoritarianism, sporadic violent conflict, and rapid socio-economic change. Using information gathered from village surveys and interviews with policymakers, the paper analyzes how multifunctionality, stakeholder engagement, and deliberation are achieved, and with whose influence. The paper argues that common principles of Landscapes Approaches need to acknowledge more how state-led agendas can influence agendas and participation in conservation; but also how the composition and interests of stakeholders are not fixed under socio-economic transformation. Focusing on local and contextual drivers of environmental change and political inequality are more useful for transferring Landscape Approaches to authoritarian regimes than adhering to optimistic principles, or testing associations between variables without reference to context. Indeed, the latter risks depoliticizing conflictual processes, and implicitly endorsing political inequalities. The 2021 military coup in Myanmar has added to these inequalities.

Despite the complex interdependencies in today’s digital news ecology, it is still common to study digital journalism primarily by looking at how ‘non-journalists’ are influencing journalists from ‘outside’ the field of professional journalism. When it comes to how digital journalism is shaping non-journalists, we mostly find audience research or research on the effects of journalistic reporting. We argue that understanding journalism’s role in society today requires us to more broadly ask how imaginaries about journalism influence all kinds of actors that make up our digital public. In this paper, we therefore discuss how imaginaries about journalism shape the practices and identity of Mozilla, an organization best known for the development of the Firefox web browser. Mozilla currently explores collaborations with, or support of journalism, and we argue that this exploration is shaped by imaginaries about journalism. Using a Mozilla project as an example that seeks to support alternatives to advertising as the dominant way to finance journalistic content online, we show how Mozilla is trying to support its own mission by supporting organizations whose practices and values are considered compatible with this mission. We argue that Mozilla is not aiming to support ‘journalism’ as such, but a particular and rather traditional idea of fact-oriented journalism that facilitates political deliberation. Our findings suggest that studying how particular imaginaries about digital journalism influence non-journalists can help illuminate journalism’s role in today's digital news ecology beyond its ‘democratic function’ and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the digital transformation as a whole.

With deliberative democracy becoming increasingly incorporated into political processes, the instances of citizens and politicians meeting in deliberation, so-called mixed deliberations, is increas...

This article argues that the concept of deliberation is construed too narrowly in political corporate social responsibility (CSR) and that a concept of deliberation for political CSR should err toward useful speech acts rather than reciprocity and charity. It draws from the political philosophy, labor relations, and business ethics literatures to outline a framework for an extended notion of deliberative engagement. The characters of deliberative behavior and deliberative environment are held to generate four modes of engagement: strategic deliberation, unitarist deliberation, pluralist deliberation, and deliberative activism. The article concludes by arguing that political CSR will be better positioned to realize its potential by moving away from primarily consensus-centered objectives to a more responsive range of deliberative goals and practice.

Based on a comparative content analysis of political talk in three popular Chinese online forums (government-run, commercial-lifestyle, and commercial-topical), this paper investigates how the private and public spheres are connected thru everyday talk about childcare concerns. Compared to the government-run (party-state) forum, the nonpolitical (lifestyle and topical) forums created open and inclusive ‘third spaces’ for citizens to engage in child welfare politics. In such spaces, the reason, rule-based deliberation was not the dominant communicative practice. Rather, political (narrative) acts of complaining and sharing personal concerns – grounded in citizens’ life experiences – were the norm, capturing and recognizing public problems in the private sphere. We argue that to understand the nature of political talk in Chinese third spaces, communicative acts that have not been considered central to deliberative reasoning, such as complaining and sharing personal concerns should be given more normative importance.

Bawaslu resolves by deliberation by bringing together the disputing parties to then take a final and binding decision. The final and binding nature of this Bawaslu decision does not apply to certain disputes, namely the dispute over the verification of political parties participating in the General Election and the determination of the final list of candidates for the election of members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD. The existence of these two characteristics of Bawaslu's decision then led to different interpretations between Bawaslu and the KPU. The formulation of the problem, namely 1). The authority of Bawaslu in resolving election disputes regarding the task of supervising the implementation of elections, 2). The nature of Bawaslu's decisions in resolving election disputes. The research method used in this paper is normative juridical, namely an approach to legal norms or applicable laws and regulations, theories, and history. From the discussion of the problem, it is concluded that a decision that is final and binding is given to Bawaslu by law in order to end election disputes so that it will show the role of Bawaslu as a unified function of organizing elections. Meanwhile, exceptions to the nature of final and binding decisions on political party verification disputes and the permanent list of candidates for members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD indicate that Bawaslu is not a judicial institution, so it cannot decide disputes related to constitutional rights as election participants.

This paper suggests the conception of the ‘political’ in Aristotle’s Politics as an alternative to the Hobbesian conception of the ‘political’. More specifically, I will develop two arguments in th...

The COVID pandemic has brought a spectacular prominence to the role of digital technologies in public health. However, the policy discourse about digital technology has been for the most part strikingly narrow. Even as there is a discussion of the impact of particular digital tools, there is relatively little deliberation on the broader issues of how these technologies are reconstituting core aspects of health systems and polities. How did we get to a narrow debate on a vast topic? One way to understand this irony is by turning to the history of an older technology, namely agricultural biotechnology. This article focuses on two dominant framings that significantly narrowed the debates on agricultural biotechnology: first, a narrative that had a relentless focus on agricultural biotechnology as a neatly delineated field that produced stable products, and second, the ascent of a language of ethics that elided structural explanations and addressed only downstream impacts. The brief foray into the early years of agricultural biotechnology is useful in understanding contemporary politics of digital technology.

Deliberative democracy has become the dominant framework for theorizing the politicalrelationship between citizens and the state. In particular, many have turned to this conceptionof democratic politics in debating the proper role that public opinion should play in the broadscope of politics, while also comparing these aspirations to empirical democratic realities. This dissertation considers and challenges optimistic accounts of the place for deliberative public opinion in contemporary democratic politics. The argument which emerges alleges that deliberative theorists have failed in defending the theory from critiques of inconsistency and/or incoherence. In preparing the critique, I first locate deliberative democracy within the historical outlines of political theory more generally. I then describe generational statements of the theory and accompanying critiques, drawing upon empirical literature which provides a sobering portrait of the inefficacy of the average (non-deliberative) citizen. The upshot of the discussion suggests that the twin goals of obtaining a ‘deliberative’ and ‘democratic’ political culture confront dim prospects. I draw upon recent debates revolving around the ‘Systemic Turn’ to suggest that deliberative democracy risks running its course as a useful theory of political life. I conclude by considering whether deliberative democracy can be salvaged as a regulatory ideal as it becomes married to political realism, given changing political contexts and socio-political malleability.

Participatory practices are prominent strategies for increasing the legitimacy and effectiveness of resource commons governance. Despite increases in participatory practices legitimacy of such governance is in decline. Remaining commons are sites of conflict echoing wider disillusionment in democratic governance across mature liberal democracies. Much participatory governance literature argues that more involvement of citizens in deliberation and decision-making is the solution, turning away from representative practices to strengthen direct participation in commons governance. In this paper we draw on seminal work in political representation theory to examine legitimacy and political agency in participatory governance practices. We develop a conceptual lens drawing on key elements of: Hannah Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation; Michael Saward’s Representative Claim; and, Vivan Schmidt’s throughput model of legitimacy. The lens comprises three ‘conditions’ for analyzing how political agency of participants is constituted through institutional processes: authorization, dissent and exit, and accountability. We argue that this conceptual lens can serve the participatory turn in commons governance by enabling explicit consideration of the links between political participation and representation as foundations of democratic legitimacy.

Even though corruption by politicians and in politics is widespread worldwide, it is more pronounced in developing countries, such as Zimbabwe, where members of the political elite overtly abuse power for personal accumulation of wealth. Ideally, the news media, as watchdogs, are expected to investigate and report such abuses of power. However, previous studies in Zimbabwe highlight the news media’s polarised and normative inefficacies. Informed by the theoretical notion of deliberative democracy developed via Habermas and Dahlgren’s work and Hall’s Encoding, Decoding Model, this article uses qualitative content analysis to examine how online readers of Zimbabwe’s two leading daily publications, The Herald and NewsDay, interpreted and evaluated allegations of corruption leveled against ministers and deputy ministers during the height of factionalism in the ruling party (ZANU PF). The article argues that interaction between mainstream media and their audiences online shows the latter’s resourcefulness and, at least, discursive agency in their engagement with narratives about political corruption, itself an imperative premise for future political action.

This paper presents findings from a study of high school students (N = 165) engaged in discussions of controversial political issues within Close Up Washington’s civic education program. We report ...

Would public meetings incite more civic engagement if they were structured in ways that are simply more engaging? I addressed this question by conducting an original survey with an oversample of racial and ethnic minorities and individuals from low-income households. The survey featured a randomized experiment in which each study participant was shown a short clip of an actual school board meeting that was (1) a standard meeting with no public participation, (2) a meeting with public participation, or (3) a meeting with deliberation (public participation followed by a reasoned response from the school board). The experience of viewing the more participatory and deliberative school board meetings led to increased trust in local officials and a stronger willingness to attend school board meetings in the future. This study has significant implications for civic engagement, local politics, and public school governance.

Purpose This paper aims to document the narratives that emerged in favour of and against the austerity measures proposed by the Auckland Council, with specific reference to performing arts organisations (PAOs) in the aftermath of the pandemic 2020. Design/methodology/approach Written submissions from stakeholders received in response to austerity measures were analysed to identify the arguments presented to support/oppose funding cuts to PAOs. These narratives were thematically grouped into accounting, political, artistic and social categories to deliberate on the tensions that exist between these when funding PAOs. Findings This study identifies the arguments presented by grass-root PAOs on the rationale of their existence from a Pacific perspective. The analysis suggests that accounting, hitherto considered as a “sword” can also be used as a “shield” if PAOs direct their research accordingly and offers future research directions. Originality/value Prior studies concerning funding difficulties of PAOs have relied on opinions obtained ex-post from selected stakeholders. There are no known studies, which factor the opinions of grass-root PAOs, captured “during” funding deliberations. This study bridges this gap in the New Zealand setting by providing an analysis of grass-root opinions from the Pacific perspective, conducted during a funding deliberation.

Political parties have been the subject of a recent resurgent interest among political philosophers, with prominent contributions spanning liberal to socialist literatures arguing for a more positive appraisal of the role of parties in the operation of democratic representation and public deliberation. In this article, I argue for a similar re-evaluation of the role of political parties within contemporary republicanism. Contemporary republicanism displays a wariness of political parties. In Philip Pettit’s paradigmatic account of republican democracy, rare mentions of political parties often stress their tendency to lead to factionalism or corruption. Others working in the republican tradition such as Richard Bellamy and Ian Shapiro provide more extended discussion of the role of parties, but limit their theoretical function to enabling electoral competition. I argue that political parties play a far more significant role in promoting non-domination than this. In addition to enabling electoral competition, I show that political parties are also essential to the effective operation of two other components of republican democracy: contestation and interest-formation. I further argue that understanding political parties in these terms is compatible with republican democracy more generally, addressing the worry that parties will produce factional rather than common-good oriented public decisions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to deepen the understanding of adaptive governance, which is advocated for as a manner to deal with dramatic changes in society and/or environment. To re-think the possible contributions of organizations and organization theory, to adaptive governance.Design/methodology/approachBased on social systems theory this study makes a distinction between “governance organizations” and “governance communities.” Organizations are conceptualized as the decision machines which organize and (co-)steer governance. Communities are seen as the social environments against which the governance system orients its operations. This study considers the adaptive mechanisms of organizations and reflect on the roles of organizations to enhance adaptive governance in communities and societies.FindingsDiverse types of organizations can link or couple in different ways to communities in their social environment. Such links can enhance the coordinative capacity of the governance system and can also spur innovation to enable adaptation. Yet, linking with communities can also slow down responses to change and complexify the processes of deliberation in governance. Not all adaptive mechanisms available to organizations can be used in communicating with communities or can be institutionalized, but the continuous innovation in the field of organizations can inspire continuous testing of small-scale adaptive mechanisms at higher levels. Society can thus enhance its adaptive capacity by managing the role of organizations.Originality/valueThe harnessing of insights in organization theory and systems theory for improving understanding of adaptive governance. The finding that both experiment and coordination at societal level are needed, toward adaptive governance, and that organizations can contribute to both.

Background Lack of access to essential medicines presents a significant threat to achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in sub-Saharan Africa. Although it is acknowledged that essential medicines policies do not rise and stay on the policy agenda solely through rational deliberation and consideration of technical merits, policy theory is rarely used to direct and guide analysis to inform future policy implementation. We used Kingdon’s model to analyse agenda setting for essential medicines policy in sub-Saharan Africa during the formative phase of the primary healthcare (PHC) concept. Methods We retrospectively analysed 49 published articles and 11 policy documents. We used selected search terms in EMBASE and MEDLINE electronic databases to identify relevant published studies. Policy documents were obtained through hand searching of selected websites. We also reviewed the timeline of essential medicines policy milestones contained in the Flagship Report, Medicines in Health Systems: Advancing access, affordability and appropriate use, released by WHO in 2014. Kingdon’s model was used as a lens to interpret the findings. Results We found that unsustainable rise in drug expenditure, inequitable access to drugs and irrational use of drugs were considered as problems in the mid-1970s. As a policy response, the essential drugs concept was introduced. A window of opportunity presented when provision of essential drugs was identified as one of the eight components of PHC. During implementation, policy contradictions emerged as political and policy actors framed the problems and perceived the effectiveness of policy responses in a manner that was amenable to their own interests and objectives. Conclusion We found that effective implementation of an essential medicines policy under PHC was constrained by prioritization of trade over public health in the politics stream, inadequate systems thinking in the policy stream and promotion of economic-oriented reforms in both the politics and policy streams. These lessons from the PHC era could prove useful in improving the approach to contemporary UHC policies.

It has been argued that a ‘new climate politics’ has emerged in recent years, in the wake of global climate change protest movements. One part of the new climate politics entails experimentation with citizen-centric input into policy development, via mechanisms of deliberative democracy such as citizens’ assemblies. Yet relatively little is known about the motivations and aspirations of those commissioning climate assemblies or about general public perceptions of these institutions. Addressing these issues is important for increasing understanding of what these deliberative mechanisms represent in the context of climate change, how legitimate, credible and useful they are perceived to be by those involved, and whether they represent a radical way of doing politics differently or a more incremental change. This article addresses these gaps by presenting findings from mixed method research on prior expectations of the Devon Climate Assembly, proposed following the declaration of a climate emergency in 2019. The research compares and contrasts the views of those commissioning and administering the citizens’ assembly, with those of the wider public. Findings indicate widespread support, yet also considerable risk and uncertainty associated with holding the assembly. Enabling input into policy of a broad array of public voices was seen as necessary for effective climate response, yet there was scepticism about the practical challenges involved in ensuring citizen representation, and about whether politicians, and society more generally, would embrace the ‘hard choices’ required. The assembly was diversely represented as a means to unlock structural change, and as an instrumental tool to achieve behaviour change at scale. The Devon Climate Assembly appears to indicate ‘cautious experimentation’ where democratic innovation is widely embraced yet carefully constrained, offering only a modest example of a ‘new climate politics,’ with minimal challenges to the authority of existing institutions.