Search

Un nombre croissant de parlements expérimentent des modèles délibératifs permettant aux citoyennes et citoyens de participer activement à la prise de décision parlementaire. Leur institutionnalisation est particulièrement visible en Belgique, où quatre parlements ont instauré de manière permanente la démocratie délibérative. Nous étudions les raisons derrière cette institutionnalisation en utilisant une méthode mixte pour établir, quantitativement d’abord, si une différence de soutien peut être observée entre les parlements ayant institutionnalisé ou non de tels dispositifs. Puis nous analysons qualitativement comment les parlementaires conçoivent ces dispositifs délibératifs et pourquoi elles et ils optent pour un modèle spécifique. Around the world, a growing number of parliaments experiment with deliberative models allowing citizens to actively participate in public decision-making. Their institutionalization is especially visible in Belgium where four Parliaments have permanently instated deliberative democracy. We investigate the reasons behind institutionalization by applying a mixed method design to quantitatively establish whether a difference in support can be observed between parliaments who have or have not institutionalized deliberative models. Then, we analyze qualitatively how parliamentarians conceive deliberative models and why they opt for a specific design.

Citizens’ assemblies (CAs) have been heralded as a potential antidote to the alleged crisis of democratic legitimacy and effectiveness. However, CAs are used in a variety of designs, on a variety of topics, and in a variety of political and institutional contexts. As the experience with CAs deepens and competing designs proliferate, demands for concrete evaluation standards and tools have risen. This chapter aims to offer a comprehensive account of central evaluation criteria for CAs, both in the input, throughput, and output phases, and it gives an overview of potential methods for evaluating CAs. Moreover, the chapter also outlines a new operational evaluation tool, the Citizen Assembly Evaluation Survey (CAES), which taps into the different dimensions.

Waar vertegenwoordigers van N-VA en Vlaams Belang de Belgische identiteit blijven verwerpen, hebben verkozenen van de niet-nationalistische Vlaamse partijen gemiddeld zelfs een sterkere Belgische dan Vlaamse identiteit.

Around the world, a rapidly increasing number of parliaments experiment with deliberative models allowing citizens to actively participate in public decision-making. Especially in Belgium, deliberative democracy appears to turn into a new form of democratic tradition. Since the innovative G1000, the country has progressed quickly on the subject. Within the last three years, the country has experienced a trend of institutionalisation as multiple parliaments within the federal system have permanently formalised deliberative mechanisms of citizen participation, namely the Parliament of the German-speaking Community, the Regional Parliament of the Brussels-Capital-Region as well as its components and the Regional Parliament of Wallonia. In this chapter we explore based on a ‘Three I approach’ why elected representatives choose to permanently cede autonomy by institutionalising deliberative citizen participation. We do so on the basis of interview data, observations and documentary data.