Search

Research on deliberative democracy has been flourishing over the past decades. We now know more about the conditions that enable or hinder inclusive and consequential deliberation, and how different actors, such as politicians, activists, and citizens, perceive and experience deliberative practices. Yet there are still many unknowns that drive research in deliberative democracy, especially as the field continues to develop in new directions and seeks to offer remedies for the problems democracies face today. This chapter unpacks what deliberative democracy research is, what it involves, and how we might go about conducting it. It discusses how the normative theory interacts with empirical research and how the deliberative ideals shape the practice and purpose of research. The chapter makes a case for methodological and epistemological diversity and outlines thirty-one different methods for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy.

This chapter takes a close look at the role of ethnography in the study of deliberative practice. It describes ethnography as both a perspective and a toolbox. As a perspective, ethnography is a fitting methodology to fulfil critical theory’s task of rendering political power visible, particularly in its subtle and insidious forms. The ethnographic perspective is also responsive to developments in deliberative theory, such as the recognition of the role of passions, silences, and performativity in political communication. As a toolbox, ethnography offers a range of data-gathering and analytical techniques to make sense of public deliberation, while placing the positionality of the researcher at the centre of this approach. Finally, this chapter examines ethnography’s tensions with deliberative democracy’s normative commitments and draws on the authors’ extensive experience in ethnographic fieldwork to prompt reflections about the practical and ethical challenges of this approach.

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.

The field of deliberative democracy has long recognised the role of interruptive protests to make polities more sensitive to good reasons. But how exactly interruptive protests enhance deliberative systems remain an open question. ‘Non-deliberative acts may have deliberative consequences’ is a crucial line of argument in the deliberative systems literature, but the precise character of these consequences is yet to be spelled out. In this article, I describe three ways in which consequences of interruptive protests enhance the deliberative system. I argue that interruptive protests can redistribute (1) voice and visibility, (2) attention, and (3) deliberative agency which, in turn, can lay bare the weaknesses of a dysfunctional deliberative system. The arguments I put forward are based on interpretive case studies focusing on protest movements in the Philippines and Puerto Rico in the aftermath of record-breaking hurricanes. Overall, this paper seeks to clarify the relationship between deliberative politics and protest action, by identifying the distinctive contributions of interruptive protests in redistributing power in dysfunctional deliberative systems.

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...

No democratic state has yet implemented a climate plan strong enough to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. This has led some to argue that democracy cannot cope with a challenge of this magnitude. In this article, we take stock of the claim that a more deliberative democratic system can strengthen our ability to respond effectively to the climate crisis. The most visible development in this direction is the recent citizens’ assemblies on climate change in Ireland, France, and the UK. We begin our analysis of the promise of deliberative democracy with a recognition of the difficulties that democracies face in tackling climate change, including short-termism; the ways in which scientific and expert evidence are used; the influence of powerful political interests; and the relationship between people and the politicians that represent them. We then introduce the theoretical tradition of deliberative democracy and examine how it might ameliorate the challenges democracies face in responding to the climate crisis. We evaluate the contribution of deliberative mini-publics, such as citizens’ assemblies and juries, and look beyond these formal processes to examine how deliberation can be embedded in political and social systems around the world. We conclude that deliberation-based reforms to democratic systems, including but not limited to deliberative mini-publics, are a necessary and potentially transformative ingredient in climate action. This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication Policy and Governance > Governing Climate Change in Communities, Cities, and Regions.

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

Citizens are often accused of being disinterested and incapable of taking part in politics. This chapter demonstrates how deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) can be designed to address this issue, in a manner that conforms to norms of deliberative democracy. DMPs are, by design, venues that should facilitate balanced and critical deliberation among participants representing differing viewpoints. The design features of mini-publics, such as random selection and moderated small-group discussions, should thus at least to some extent correct potential biases in evidence. Mini-publics’ capacity for critical scrutiny can be further strengthened by specific design features that help participants to become more reflective in their own views.

This chapter discusses the procedure of selecting participants to DMPs. It underlines the importance of a representative sample in order to guarantee diversity of opinions and participants. In comparison with other possible methods – election through voting, a corporatist system where the participants are appointed by civil society organisations and other interest groups, and self-selection where all interested people can take part – random selection is the best way of guaranteeing the necessary diversity in a DMP. The chapter highlights key aspects in the implementation of random sampling, whether pure or stratified, and the strategies that can make a DMP sample as representative as possible.

This introductory chapter provides a definition of DMPs and identifies their core design features. The role of DMPs is situated in relation to the broader project of deliberative democratisation to make a measured case about the role of these processes in shaping the course of collective decision-making. To avoid accusations of participatory elitism, the chapter argues that DMPs are not the only tool citizens use to promote deliberative norms or institutions of democracy. Deliberative democracy can only flourish in broader transformations in political parties, media systems and political economy.

This chapter focuses on core design features concerned with the ‘deliberative experience.’ It starts by identifying the guiding principles in design – inclusiveness, equality in participation and integrity – and then discusses core design features relating to the deliberative experience. DMPs are dynamic processes. Flexibility and appropriateness of the design to the particular DMP’s purpose, size, and mandate are critical.

This chapter uses real-world examples to show how DMPs can be integrated into the wider democratic system, supplementing and reinforcing institutions of representative democracy and beyond, thus presenting the conceptual, actual and potential role of DMPs. The relationship of DMPs to the key arenas and practices of will formation and decision making are discussed, as well as how DMPs can be combined with other practices. Of course, DMPs are no panacea, but the examples presented suggest that DMPs can enhance democratic will-formation, decision making, and empowered inclusion. Much depends on how the DMPs are sequenced into a process.

This chapter examines the bases of deliberative mini-publics’ (DMPs) internal and external legitimacy and discusses how their outputs can influence collective decision-making. It addresses some of the most contentious issues in the field of democratic innovations today including: To what extent should deliberative mini-publics shape decision-making? Should DMPs be empowered to make binding decisions? Are they better off taking an advisory role? What is the basis of DMPs’ legitimacy in the first place?

Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) are gaining popularity as a way to engage ordinary citizens in policymaking. From climate assemblies to online citizen panels on Covid19, these initiatives raise questions about effective approaches to democratic reform as well as the future of democracy itself. Bringing together ten leading scholars in the field of deliberative democracy, this important book examines the features of a Deliberative Mini-Public (DMP) and considers how DMPs link into democratic systems. It examines the core design features of DMPs and their role in the broader policy process and takes stock of the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of citizen participation. The book offers valuable insights into the contributions that DMPs can make not only to the policy process, but also to the broader agenda of revitalising democracy in contemporary times.

How does everyday politics of participation manifest in post-disaster contexts? Can a disaster prompt a political system to shift to a more inclusive, open, and participatory governance direction? In this article, we draw on our ethnographic work in the Philippines in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 and Nepal after the Gorkha Earthquake in 2015 to explore these questions. Our comparative ethnographic analysis shows that attempts at institutionalising participation served to further entrench authoritarian practices rather than promote citizen voice and government accountability. Post-disaster policies that invoke people’s participation, we argue, tend to (a) control rather than democratise information; (b) silence rather than promote citizen voice; (c) distort rather than respond to grievances. Our findings call for a reorientation of understanding of participation and accountability in post-disaster governance. Decision-makers, not merely disaster-affected communities, deserve to be the focus area of scholarly attention and policy reform, if community-led reconstruction agenda is to be realised in practice. Our conclusion has implications for the study and practice of democratic governance of disasters in unequal societies prone to disasters.

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.

This editorial introduction provides a statement of our vision for the Journal of Deliberative Democracy and an overview of the Special Issue on the Frontiers of Deliberative Democracy.

The small island of San Francisco, Cebu in the Philippines has gained global recognition for its community-based disaster management program. By institutionalizing the purok system—a sub-village level of organization—citizens are empowered to plan and implement disaster preparedness programs that fit their specific needs and geographical context.We interrogate the logics that underpin this prize-winning governance innovation. We find that San Francisco—the island where all survive even after the most devastating of disasters—functions through the modality of participation as knowledge transfer. It is underpinned the ethos of solidarity over conflict and takes place in a predetermined rather than citizen-driven space for participatory politics. We situate our arguments in the recent literature on public participation to understand the precise character of participatory politics in the field of disaster response.

Is one of Asia's oldest democracies rejecting its tradition of liberalism in exchange for a strongman who can restore self-esteem and bring order to a desperate nation?

“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...

This essay reflects on the development of the field of deliberative democracy by discussing twelve key findings that capture a number of resolved issues in normative theory, conceptual clarification, and associated empirical results. We argue that these findings deserve to be more widely recognized and viewed as a foundation for future practice and research. We draw on our own research and that of others in the field.

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.

As the attention of spectacular publics wanes, disaster-affected communities begin to feel a sense of abandonment. This causes injuries to their esteem and poses limits on the scope of political action. This chapter narrates how ‘patient publics’ are constructed through the micro-politics of waiting. It argues that patient publics create a vocabulary for both acquiescence and negotiation to a political order that reproduces their subordination. Despite these limitations, however, the chapter argues that deliberative democratic theory can learn from how political claims are made amidst despair. It draws attention to modest achievements of communities that struggle but nevertheless strive to make an appearance in the public sphere.

Spectacles have an ambivalent role in democratic life. They can reinforce or break inequalities in voice and visibility. They can inspire or stifle reflections on the political causes of widespread misery. This chapter examines the production, mediation, and reception of the spectacle of Typhoon Haiyan. It argues that dramatic portrayals of the typhoon constructed ‘spectacular publics’ that bestowed attention to the suffering of distant others. While there are valid reasons to criticize spectacular representations of tragedy as ‘disaster pornography’ meant to respond to the demands of audiences with fleeting attention spans, this chapter demonstrates the potential of spectacles in democratizing discourses. Spectacular publics can grow moral communities and transform audiences into publics, which in turn set in motion a series of public deliberations.

Contestatory publics refer to the arena of confrontational claim-making which demands responsiveness and accountability to decision-makers. They are confrontational as far as they aggressively lay blame on parties they consider to be the cause of their suffering. Beyond critique, they also offer alternative visions for reconstruction by drawing on their experiences as communities who suffered from the disaster. The repertoire used in their contestations are visceral. In protests, public displays of grief, and emotional speeches, the weight of claims are established through performances of mourning and indignation. For contestatory publics, misery has a productive political power. This chapter focuses on the case of People Surge, a network of peasants, fisherfolk, urban poor communities, students, and members of religious organizations which led protest action in exceptionally challenging circumstances.

The Introduction places the book in conversation with the scholarly literature that views post-disaster politics using the lens of democratization. It interrogates the ethical and political value of democracy in the most trying of times and reimagines how democracy can be experienced in the context of widespread suffering. It makes a case for contextualizing normative assumptions about inclusiveness, voice, and accountability in relation to the material, social, and affective consequences of communities surviving a spectacular tragedy. These theoretical arguments are contextualized using the case of the Philippines in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan—one of the strongest storms that made landfall in recent history—which resulted to over 6000 deaths and widespread displacement. It concludes by providing a summary of the book’s theoretical and empirical chapters.

This final chapter focuses on two lessons for deliberative democracy based on disaster ethnography. It begins by making a case for celebrating everyday achievements of democratic action. The micro-politics of deliberative democracy works through humble methods of everyday practice with everyday effects. While this must not be interpreted as a replacement for large scale political reform, it also suggests an appreciation for the quotidian features of political action that builds the edifice of democratic life. The chapter concludes with a re-evaluation of the role of emotions in public deliberation. It argues that emotions play an ambivalent role as far as they can draw attention to the suffering of distant others, but it also risks creating hierarchies of misery. This chapter is entitled Like a Kite in a Hurricane—a metaphor for democracy in a time of misery.

Misery rarely features in conversations about democracy. And yet, in the past decades, global audiences are increasingly confronted with spectacles of human pain. The world is more stressed, worried, and sad today than we have ever seen it, a Gallup poll finds. Does democracy stand a chance in a time of widespread suffering? Drawing on three years of field research among communities affected by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, this book offers ethnographic portraits of how collective suffering, trauma, and dispossession enlivens democratic action. It argues that emotional forms of communication create publics that assert voice and visibility at a time when attention is the scarcest resource, whilst also creating hierarchies of misery among suffering communities. Democracy in a Time of Misery investigates the ethical and political value of democracy in the most trying of times and reimagines how the virtues of deliberative practice can be valued in the context of widespread suffering.