| What is Deliberative Democracy? |
 |
 |
 |
|
by John Dryzek and Carmel Anderson During deliberation participants need to think about the positions they hold, give reasons for the decisions they reach and listen to others respectfully. Ideally people try to make their points in terms that other participants can accept - through reference, for example, to widely shared principles on human rights, social justice, economic wellbeing or national security. Deliberative democracy tries to introduce more of this kind of communication into democratic decision-making. So we might seek better deliberation in parliaments, local councils, newspapers (opinion columns and letters), political commentary and discussion on radio and television, in internet forums, in public hearings and in political meetings. Obviously, communication in all these settings often falls far short of deliberative ideals, for example when politicians engage in personal attacks on each other or someone argues a point based on pure self-interest. How can more effective deliberation be promoted? Some advocates of deliberative democracy are interested in reforming parliament - making discussion less adversarial and more constructive. Others want to reform the media - to make it more responsible, promoting higher quality consideration of issues. Recently some deliberative democrats have turned to the design of new kinds of forums that would enable more effective deliberation. Some of these forums involve bringing together advocates of different sides of a landuse issue such as environmentalists, developers and community activists in a setting that takes them out of their usual adversarial, point-scoring interaction. Stakeholder dialogues, conflict resolution, mediation and consensus-building are important here. Other sorts of designed forums involve selecting ordinary citizens more or less at random from the entire population. The Australian Citizens' Parliament is one such design. Others include deliberative opinion polls, consensus conferences (one was held in Canberra on genetically modified foods in 1999), citizens' assemblies, and citizens' juries. Some of the most important and influential deliberative processes involving ordinary citizens have been held in Australia, for example the 'Dialogue with the City' held in Perth in 2003, which strongly influenced the West Australian Government's policy on city planning. In all these designs it is ordinary citizens who do the deliberating and make recommendations, though they can hear presentations from experts and advocates on different sides of an issue. For deliberative democrats, a decision is legitimate when people affected by, for example, a government planning decision, such as a wind farm, are given the right, capacity, and opportunity to deliberate about that decision. In these deliberative circumstances reason-giving and reflection are central. Government ought to listen to and consider the advice of the community or citizens involved in the deliberative process and provide them with a response. The Government is also required to give the citizens details as to why their decision or recommendation is accepted, in full or in part; or rejected by the government. Criticisms of deliberative democracy include its challenging adversarial party politics and majority rule; downplaying voting in favour of government by reasoned discussion, and failing to adequately address the unequal distribution of political power in society. Overall, however, deliberative democracy generally aims to increase participation in the democratic process by ordinary citizens. |
