Deliberative democracy
Part of thePolitics series |
Democracy |
---|
![]() |
Part of thePolitics series |
Basic forms ofgovernment |
---|
List of countries by system of government |
![]() |
Deliberative democracyordiscursive democracyis a form ofdemocracyin whichdeliberationis central todecision-making.Deliberative democracy seeks quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a smaller but more representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue.[1]
It often adopts elements of bothconsensus decision-makingandmajority rule.Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratictheoryin that authentic deliberation, not merevoting,is the primary source of legitimacy for thelaw.Deliberative democracy is related toconsultative democracy,in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes. The distance between deliberative democracy and concepts likerepresentative democracyordirect democracyis debated. While some practitioners and theorists use deliberative democracy to describe elected bodies whose members propose and enact legislation,Hélène Landemoreand others increasingly use deliberative democracy to refer to decision-making byrandomly-selected lay citizenswithequal power.[2]
Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory traced back to ancient times, with an increase in academic attention in the 1990s, and growing implementations since 2010. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 workDeliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.[3]
Overview
[edit]Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting.Authentic deliberationis deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions ofunequal political power,such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.[4][5][6]
The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back toAristotleand his notion of politics; however, the German philosopherJürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.[7]
Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in bothrepresentative democraciesanddirect democracies.[8]Inelitist deliberative democracy,principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such aslegislaturesandcourts;inpopulist deliberative democracy,principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions.[5]One purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill a more authenticpublic opinionabout societal issues for other decision-makers to consider; devices such as thedeliberative opinion pollhave been designed to achieve this goal. Another purpose of populist deliberative democracy can, likedirect democracy,result directly in binding law.[5][9]If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is calledelite deliberation.[10][11]
James Fearonand Portia Pedro believe deliberative processes most often generate ideal conditions ofimpartiality,rationalityandknowledgeof the relevant facts, resulting in moremorally correctoutcomes.[12][13][14]Former diplomatCarne Rosscontends that the processes more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums if citizens know their debates will impact society.[15]Some fear the influence of a skilled orator.[16][17]John Burnheimcritiques representative democracy as requiring citizens to vote for a large package of policies and preferences bundled together, much of which a voter might not want. He argues that this does not translate voter preferences as well as deliberative groups, each of which are given the time and the ability to focus on one issue.[18]
Characteristics
[edit]Fishkin's model of deliberation
[edit]James Fishkin,who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy throughdeliberative pollingfor over 15 years in various countries,[15]describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:
- Information:The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
- Substantive balance:The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
- Diversity:The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
- Conscientiousness:The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
- Equal consideration:The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them[19]
Studies byJames Fishkinand others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy.[20][21]Desirable outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds.[10][15]Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such asJohn Stuart MillandAlexis de Tocqueville.[22][23]
Cohen's outline
[edit]Joshua Cohen,a student ofJohn Rawls,argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include:[24]
- An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
- The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
- A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
- The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
- Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.
Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":[24]
- It is free in two ways:
- The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
- The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
- Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
- Participants are equal in two ways:
- Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
- Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
- Deliberation aims at a rationally motivatedconsensus:it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible,majoritarian decision makingis used.
InDemocracy and Liberty,an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.[25]
Gutmann and Thompson's model
[edit]Amy GutmannandDennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".[26]
They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:
- Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
- Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
- Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
- Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.
Standards of good deliberation - from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018)
[edit]For Bächtiger,Dryzek,Mansbridgeand Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed:[6]
First generation | Second generation |
---|---|
Respect | Unchallenged, unrevised |
Absence of power | Unchallenged, unrevised |
Equality | Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence |
Reasons | Relevant considerations |
Aim at consensus | Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict |
Common good orientation | Orientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness |
Publicity | Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g. in negotiations when representatives can be trusted) |
Accountability | Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected |
Sincerity | Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality |
History
[edit]Early examples
[edit]Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy has been found in different degrees and variations throughout the world going back millennia.[27]The most discussed early example of deliberative democracy arose in Greece asAthenian democracyduring the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was bothdeliberativeand largelydirect:some decisions were made by representatives but most were made by "the people" directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. Even some 18th century leaders advocating forrepresentative democracymention the importance of deliberation among elected representatives.[28][29][30]
Recent scholarship
[edit]![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity-_Deliberative_Democracy_Now%21_%285130166257%29.jpg/220px-Rally_to_Restore_Sanity-_Deliberative_Democracy_Now%21_%285130166257%29.jpg)
The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the late 20th century. According to Professor Stephen Tierney, perhaps the earliest notable example of academic interest in the deliberative aspects of democracy occurred inJohn Rawls1971 workA Theory of Justice.[31]Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term "deliberative democracy" in his 1980 workDeliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government,[32][33]and went on to elaborate and defend the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). In the 1990s, deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention from political scientists.[33]According to ProfessorJohn Dryzek,early work on deliberative democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory ofdemocratic legitimacy.[34]Theorists such asCarne Rossadvocate deliberative democracy as a complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by contributors such asJames Fishkin,is that direct deliberative democracy can be complementary to traditional representative democracy. Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy includeCarlos Nino,Jon Elster,Roberto Gargarella,John Gastil,Jürgen Habermas,David Held,Joshua Cohen,Amy Gutmann,Noëlle McAfee,Rense Bos,Jane Mansbridge,Jose Luis Marti,Dennis Thompson,Benny Hjern, Hal Koch,Seyla Benhabib,Ethan Leib,Charles Sabel,Jeffrey K. Tulis,David Estlund,Mariah Zeisberg, Jeffrey L. McNairn,Iris Marion Young,Robert B. Talisse,andHélène Landemore.[citation needed]
Although political theorists took the lead in the study of deliberative democracy, political scientists have in recent years begun to investigate its processes. One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized.[35]
Drawing on the work ofHannah Arendt,Shmuel Lederman laments the fact that "deliberation andagonismhave become almost two different schools of thought "that are discussed as" mutually exclusive conceptions of politics "[36]as seen in the works ofChantal Mouffe,[37]Ernesto Laclau,andWilliam E. Connolly.Giuseppe Ballacci argues that agonism and deliberation are not only compatible but mutually dependent:[38]"a properly understood agonism requires the use of deliberative skills but also that even a strongly deliberative politics could not be completely exempt from some of the consequences of agonism".
Most recently, scholarship has focused on the emergence of a 'systemic approach' to the study of deliberation. This suggests that the deliberative capacity of a democratic system needs to be understood through the interconnection of the variety of sites of deliberation which exist, rather than any single setting.[39]Some studies have conducted experiments to examine how deliberative democracy addresses the problems of sustainability andunderrepresentation of future generations.[40]Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has been found to shift participants opinions in favour of environmental positions.[41][42][43]
Platforms and algorithms
[edit]Aviv Ovadya also argues for implementingbridging-based algorithmsin major platforms by empowering deliberative groups that are representative of the platform's users to control the design and implementation of the algorithm.[44]He argues this would reducesensationalism,political polarizationanddemocratic backsliding.[45]Jamie Susskindlikewise calls for deliberative groups to make these kind of decisions.[46]Metacommissioned a representative deliberative process in 2022 to advise the company on how to deal with climate misinformation on its platforms.[47]
Modern examples
[edit]TheOECDdocumented hundreds of examples and finds their use increasing since 2010.[48][49]For example, a representative sample of 4000 lay citizens used a 'Citizens' congress' to coalesce around a plan on how to rebuildNew OrleansafterHurricane Katrina.[50][15]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^Dryzek, John S.; Bächtiger, André; Chambers, Simone; Cohen, Joshua; Druckman, James N.; Felicetti, Andrea; Fishkin, James S.; Farrell, David M.; Fung, Archon; Gutmann, Amy; Landemore, Hélène; Mansbridge, Jane; Marien, Sofie; Neblo, Michael A.; Niemeyer, Simon; Setälä, Maija; Slothuus, Rune; Suiter, Jane; Thompson, Dennis; Warren, Mark E. (2019)."The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation".Science.363(6432): 1144–1146.Bibcode:2019Sci...363.1144D.doi:10.1126/science.aaw2694.hdl:11384/82884.PMID30872504.S2CID78092206.
- ^Landemore, Hélène(Summer 2017). "Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy".Dædalus.146(3): 51–63.
- ^Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013)."Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing"(PDF).Temple Law Review. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 23 October 2014.Retrieved23 October2014.
- ^Habermans, Jürgen(1997). Bohman, James; Rehg, William (eds.).Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics(PDF).MIT Press.p. 41.ISBN0-262-02434-9.Archived(PDF)from the original on 2015-07-01.
- ^abcLeib, Ethan (1997).Deliberative Democracy in America.p. 1.
- ^abcBächtiger, André;Dryzek, John S.;Mansbridge, Jane J.;Warren, Mark, eds. (2018).The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy(First ed.). Oxford. p. 4.ISBN978-0-19-180969-9.OCLC1057358164.
{{cite book}}
:CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - ^For a brief overview of the roots and different streams of deliberative democracy, see Ercan, S.A. (2014) 'Deliberative democracy', in: D. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.214-216http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book238016
- ^Elster 1998,Introduction (Elster offers a summary of the various common definitions that academics use for the term.).
- ^Threlkeld, Simon. "A Blueprint for Democratic Law-making: Give Citizen Juries the Final Say." Social Policy, Summer, 1998, pp 5-9.
- ^abFishkin 2011,Chapters 2 & 3.
- ^Fishkin, James S. (2009).When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation.New York: Oxford University Press. pp.70.ISBN9780199572106.
- ^Elster 1998,Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon).
- ^Nino 1996.
- ^Pedro, Portia (2010-02-01)."Note, Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required".Harvard Law Review.123(4): 970-972.
- ^abcdRoss 2011,Chapter 3.
- ^Elster 1998,p. 1.
- ^Dryzek 2010,p. 66.
- ^Burnheim, John (2006). "3".Is democracy possible? the alternative to electoral democracy.Sydney: Sydney University Press.ISBN978-1-920898-42-7.
- ^Fishkin, James S. (2009).When the People speak.Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 160f.ISBN978-0-19-957210-6.
- ^Elster 1998,Chapter 5.
- ^Susan C. Strokes in her critical essayPathologies of Deliberation(Chapter 5 of Elster 1998) concedes there that a majority of academics interested agree with this view.
- ^Fishkin 2011,p. 103.
- ^See also Chapter 5 of Fishkin (2011), which gives detailed citations to the empirical work. The specific Mill work cited isConsiderations on Representative Government(1861), and the specific Tocqueville work cited isDemocracy in America(1835).
- ^ab"Ch 2: Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy".The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State.Alan P. Hamlin, Philip Pettit. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. 1989. pp. 17–34.ISBN0-631-15804-9.OCLC18321533.
{{cite book}}
:CS1 maint: others (link) - ^Elster 1998,Chapter 8 (essay by Cohen).
- ^Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004).Why Deliberative Democracy?pp. 3-7.
- ^Priestland, David (2021-10-23)."The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation".The Guardian.ISSN0261-3077.Retrieved2023-07-10.
- ^Burke 1854,pp. 446–448.
- ^Elster 1998,Chapter 1.
- ^Elster 1998,Chapter 10.
- ^Constitutional referendums: a theoretical enquiry (2009)Archived2012-04-25 at theWayback Machineby Prof Stephen Tierney (see esp. ft note 67)
- ^Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013)."Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing"(PDF).Temple Law Review. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 23 October 2014.Retrieved23 October2014.
- ^abDryzek 2010,p. 6.
- ^Dryzek 2010,p. 21.
- ^Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,"Annual Review of Political Science11: 497-520.ISBN978-0824333119
- ^Lederman, Shmuel (September 2014). "Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt".Constellations.21(3): 335.doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12096.
- ^Mouffe, Chantal (2013).Chantal Mouffe: hegemony, radical democracy, and the political.London: Routledge.ISBN9780415825221.
- ^Ballacci, Giuseppe (1 December 2019). "Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt".Theoria.66(161): 20.doi:10.3167/th.2019.6616101.S2CID213045202.
- ^Owen, D. And Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." "Journal of Political Philosophy" 23.2: 213-234
- ^Koirala, P. Timilsina, R. R., Kotani, K. (2021). "Experiment article: Deliberative forms of democracy and intergenerational sustainability dilemma." "Sustainability" 13.13: 7377
- ^Fishkin 2011,p. x.
- ^Smith 2003,Chapter 4.
- ^"EuroPolis proves that debate does change European citizens' attitudes".EuroPolis. 2009-06-03. Archived fromthe originalon 2012-03-17.Retrieved2012-01-14.
- ^Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022)."Bridging-Based Ranking".Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.pp. 21–23.Retrieved2024-07-17.
- ^Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022)."Bridging-Based Ranking".Belfer Center atHarvard University.pp. 1–3, 7, 10.Retrieved2024-07-17.
- ^Arthur, Charles (2022-06-15)."The Digital Republic by Jamie Susskind review – how to tame big tech".The Guardian.ISSN0261-3077.Retrieved2024-07-18.
- ^Newton, Casey (2022-09-21)."Facebook is experimenting with letting users help write speech rules".The Verge.Retrieved2024-07-18.
For its experiment, Meta and BIT worked to find about 250 people who were broadly representative of the Facebook user base. They brought them together virtually across two weekends to educate them about climate issues and platform policies, and offered them access to outside experts (on both climate and speech issues) and Facebook employees. At the end of the process, Facebook offered the group a variety of possible solutions to problematic climate information, and the group deliberated and voted on their preferred outcomes.
- ^Česnulaitytė, Ieva (2020). "Chapter 3: Key Trends".Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave.OECD.ISBN9789264563186.
- ^Mejia, Mauricio (2023-12-15)."2023 Trends in Deliberative Democracy: OECD Database Update".Participo.Retrieved2024-06-12.
- ^Fishkin 2011,Preface.
Sources
[edit]- Bessette, Joseph (1980) "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government," inHow Democratic is the Constitution?,Washington, D.C., AEI Press. pp. 102–116.
- Bessette, Joseph, (1994)The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National GovernmentChicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Blattberg, C. (2003) "Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy"Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy6, no. 1, pp. 155–74. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Blattberg, C. (2009)Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy.Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
- Burke, Edmund(1854).The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke.London: Henry G. Bohn.
- Cohen, J. (1989) "Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy" (Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P. eds.),The Good Polity.Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 17–34
- Cohen, J. (1997) "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" (James Bohman & William Rehg eds.)Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. eds.).
- Dryzek, John (2010).Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance.Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-956294-7.
- Elster, Jon,ed. (1998).Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy).Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-59696-1.
- Fishkin, James (2011).When the People Speak.Oxford University Press.ISBN978-0-19-960443-2.
- Fishkin, James & Peter Laslett, eds. (2003). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Wiley-Blackwell.ISBN978-1405100434
- Fishkin, James S.;Luskin, Robert C. (September 2005). "Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion".Acta Politica.40(3): 284–298.doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121.S2CID144393786.
- Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (1996).Democracy and Disagreement.Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0674197664
- Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (2002).Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton University Press.ISBN978-0691120195
- Leib, Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
- Mansbridge, Jane J.;Parkinson, John; et al. (2012), "A systematic approach to deliberative democracy", inMansbridge, Jane J.;Parkinson, John (eds.),Deliberative systems,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26,ISBN9781107025394
- Nino, C. S. (1996).The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy.New Haven: Yale University Press.ISBN0-300-07727-0.
- Owen, D. and Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn."Journal of Political Philosophy23.2: 213-234
- Painter, Kimberly, (2013)"Deliberative Democracy in Action: Exploring the 2012 City of Austin Bond Development Process"Applied Research ProjectTexas State University.
- Ross, Carne(2011).The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century.Simon & Schuster.ISBN978-1-84737-534-6.
- Smith, Graham (2003).Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics).Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-30940-0.
- Steenhuis, Quinten. (2004) "The Deliberative Opinion Poll: Promises and Challenges". Carnegie Mellon University. Unpublished thesis. AvailableOnlineArchived2005-03-08 at theWayback Machine
- Talisse, Robert, (2004)Democracy after LiberalismPublisher: RoutledgeISBN0-415-95019-8
- Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,"Annual Review of Political Science11: 497-520.ISBN978-0824333119
- Tulis, Jeffrey K., (1988)The Rhetorical PresidencyPublisher: Princeton University Press (ISBN0-691-07751-7)
- Tulis, Jeffrey K., (2003) "Deliberation Between Institutions," inDebating Deliberative Democracy,eds. James Fishkin and Peter Laslett. Wiley-Blackwell.ISBN978-1405100434
- Uhr, J. (1998)Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament,Cambridge: Cambridge University PressISBN0-521-62465-7
Further reading
[edit]- Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times(2024) by André Bächtiger andJohn S. Dryzek.Cambridge University Press.
External links
[edit]- Websiteof Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance,University of Canberradescribes itself as "the world-leading research centre for the study of deliberative democracy"
- Websiteof the Deliberative Democracy Lab atStanford University,which focuses on researching, advising on and conductingdeliberative polling
- Websiteof Journal of Deliberative Democracy, which synthesizes the research, opinions, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in anopen-access journal
- Websiteof The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, which is a hub that connects people to each other and to thousands of resources like best-practices on public engagement and conflict resolution
- Podcast seriesby the newDemocracy Foundation on deliberative democracy among other initiatives