Deliberative Democracy and Constitutional Reform

Abstract

ECPR Research Sessions 2013 Proposal Dr Jane Suiter and Prof. Min Reuchamps Short abstract Deliberative democracy has recently taken a new turn: constitutional reform where citizen involvement is crucial. Indeed, although the idea of deliberative democracy is not new – for decades theorists have argued that democracy should be based not just on votes but also on the incorporation of public debate – it is only in the last few years that we have seen a strong new wave of large-scale initiatives aimed at changing Constitutions through, at least partially, deliberative democracy. Deliberation is a central component of both the Icelandic and Irish constitutional conventions and is also a part of the debate in the Netherlands, Belgium and the European Union. The rationale for this workshop is that there is now a need for a serious and systematic inquiry into these developments that go to the heart of democracy. They call for a combined research endeavour bridging together theoretical claims and empirical validations. The aim of this research session is to bring together theoretical and empirical researchers who not only have studied but also have been involved themselves into the organization of this so-called constitutional deliberative democracy. This research session is intended to lead to a book proposal to the comparative politics series of ECPR/OUP and has the support of the ECPR Standing Group on Democratic Innovations and is complementary to the APSA Task Force on “getting to Yes in politics”. Long abstract The purpose of this research session is to explore innovations in deliberative democracy in its constitutional reform turn. Citizen engagement is becoming a core feature of current democracies. A large and growing list of scholars (notably Bruce Cain et al, Mark Warren, etc.) theorize about the ‘second transformation of democracy’, as liberal representative political systems move beyond being top-down polyarchies to new models that seek to engage in more bottom-up processes involving citizens. This transformation is especially visible in new initiatives that explicitly rely on citizen consultation (citizens' assemblies, public consultations, deliberative polling, participatory forums, citizens' juries, consensus meetings, special representation committees, citizens juries, participatory budgeting, etc.). While they have yet to share a generic name, it is possible to refer to them generally as innovations in deliberative democracy. The central tenet of deliberative democracy is that people should have a substantial say and equal opportunities to participate directly in decisions that affect them (Fung 2004; Heinelt 2010; Shawn 2007). Such forms of influence and political participation rely on additional channels outside the classic institutions of representative democracy. Although the idea of deliberative democracy is not new - for decades theorists have argued that democracy should be based not just on votes but also on the incorporation of public debate (see e.g. Goodin 2008) - it is only in the last few years that we have seen a strong new wave of initiatives aimed at realizing this theoretical claim through experimentation. New initiatives at various levels - from the local to the regional to the transnational - now try to bring the voice of the public into the decision-making process. Given recent trends in a large number of countries, a new inquiry into these innovations in deliberative democracy is timely. Such trends include: • The growing importance attached to the question of citizen engagement. This is in part reflecting demands for more critical engagement by a more informed citizenry (Dalton’s ‘critical citizens’); but it is in part too a reaction of governments to a more disengaged citizenry (as measured for instance by voter turnout). The seemingly spontaneous response of citizens is facilitated by the availability of new techniques and new digital technology that informs these citizens more rapidly of their potential to influence and of similar citizen engagements elsewhere in the world. • The citizenry not only become more informed, but also becoming more articulate. Through the rise of social media citizens have a more direct say in public debate and in the mainstream media (citizen journalism). This ability of citizens to raise their voice has also radically changed the way in which politicians mobilise. Because of social media or online forums politicians can no longer hide from sight in an area reserved for power holders; instead they have to expose themselves to as much media attention as possible and reside in the public sphere where they can be questioned critically. • Important lessons being learned from the latest waves of democratic transitions. In particular examples in Africa and in Eastern Europe show that free and fair elections alone cannot secure a well-functioning democracy. The same may be true for the established democracies. In order to maintain something more than a minimalist version of democracy, innovation is needed. There are lots of high profile real-world examples of innovations in deliberative democracy, notably: the participatory budgeting practices that originated in Brazil; the deliberative polling exercises that have been applied widely; etc. All share common features: they are based on some form of deliberation among samples of citizens; they want to foster positive and constructive thinking about solutions (they are not simply protest movements); they seek genuine debate about policy content; they seek solutions beyond adversarial politics; and they want to identify common ground. There is a cross-fertilization of existing models and techniques and a rising number of experiments that combine traditional modes of political participation with some elements of deliberation. Among these real-world experiences, some of them seek – directly or indirectly – to reform the constitutions. After the first wave of citizens’ assemblies that have occurred in Canada and The Netherlands, other forms of constitutional deliberative democracy have emerged. In Iceland, the output of a deliberative process has been presented in a referendum that confirmed the will of the population to change the constitution. In Ireland, the Irish constitutional conventional is halfway through its journey to reflect a new constitution. In Belgium, even though the G1000 was not designed to impact the constitution of the country, it is currently largely replicated in different settings. Last but not least, the European Union with notably the introduction of European citizens initiatives has paved the way to the introduction of new forms of democracy. In fact, these innovations in deliberative democracy not only take place at the level of the nation state but also increasingly occur in the context of complex, multi-layered governance structures, such as those present in Europe today (Bache and Flinders 2004; Fligstein 2010; Hooghe and Marks 2001). In recent years the European Union has encouraged the organization of moments of civic participation to explore complex issues, among them the Meeting of Minds (2006), Tomorrow's Europe (2007), EuroPolis (2009). As we have briefly reviewed in this proposal, deliberative democracy generally has been a crowded field of research. However, a great number of questions remain open for debate about constitutional deliberative democracy in particular: what are the core features of this new approach? What is the impact of these innovations? How do these innovations deal with the issues of representativeness and legitimacy? Do these innovations produce the outcome they desire? They call for a combined research endeavour bridging theoretical claims and empirical validations. The aim of this research session is to bring together researchers who not only have studied but also have been closely involved themselves into the organization of this so-called constitutional deliberative democracy. This research session is intended to lead to a book proposal to the comparative politics series of ECPR/OUP. This endeavour has an informal link with the APSA Task Force on the same topic whose ideas revolve around the renewal of our representative systems (with a specific focus on negotiations). They argue that citizen assemblies should have a prominent place in the endeavor to renew our representative systems. Put differently: citizen involvement becomes crucial when the issue is about politicians’ own rules or when issues are polarized such as in constitutional reforms. Participants The six participants in this research session are researchers who have strong records of academic publications on deliberative democracy but also have all been closely involved in the organization of deliberative initiatives dealing with constitutional reforms. André Bächtiger, is currently research professor of the Swiss National Science Foundation at the Institute of Political Science at the University of Lucerne. His research focuses on the challenges of mapping and measuring deliberation and political communication as well as understanding the preconditions and outcomes of high quality deliberation both in the context of representative institutions and minipublics. His research on deliberation and political communication has appeared in Cambridge University Press, Journal of Political Philosophy, Political Studies, Journal of Conflict Resolution, European Political Science Review, and Acta Politica. He is currently co-writing a book on "Mapping and Measuring Deliberation" (with John Parkinson), forthcoming with Oxford University Press in 2014. He is also co-editor of a book on Deliberative Minipublics (with Kimmo Grönlund and Maija Setälä), forthcoming with ECPR Press in 2014. Kimmo Grönlund, professor of political science at Åbo Akademi and director of the Social Science Research Institute (Samforsk). He is Deputy Director of the Centre of Excellence, Democracy – A Citizen Perspective (D:CE). His main research interests are participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, political knowledge, political behavior, public opinion and elections. His current research projects include 1. Deliberation Within and Across Enclaves (2011-2015), funded by the Academy of Finland 2. Democracy: A Citizen Perspective (2006-2014, funded by Åbo Akademi Foundation) Scientific conferences with a written presentation: • International Political Science Association, IPSA, World Congress 1994 (Berlin),2006(Fukuoka), 2012 (Madrid) • European Consortium for Political Research, ECPR, Joint Sessions of Workshops 2001(Grenoble), Joint Sessions of Workshops 2002 (Turin), Joint Sessions of Workshops 2004 (Uppsala), Joint Sessions of Workshops 2007 (Helsinki), General Conference 2003 (Marburg), General Conference 2005 (Budapest, panel chair), General Conference 2009 (Potsdam, panel chair), Joint Sessions of Workshops 2010 (Münster) • American Political Science Association, APSA, Annual Meeting 2004 (Chicago), 2005(Washington DC), 2007 (Chicago), 2010 (Washington DC), 2011 (Seattle, panel chair) • Canadian Political Science Association, CPSA, Annual Meeting 2008 (Vancouver). • Nordic Political Science Association, NOPSA, tri-annual conference: 1996 (Helsinki),1999 (Uppsala, Workshop co-chair), 2002 (Aalborg), 2005 (Reykjavik, Workshop co-chair), 2011 (Vasa, Workshop co-chair). • Finnish Political Science Association's annual meeting (Politiikan tutkimuksen päivät):1994 (Jyväskylä), 1997 (Helsinki), 1998 (Jyväskylä), 1999 (Turku, workshop co-chair), 2005 (Helsinki, workshop co-chair), Vasa 2007. Patrick Fournier is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Université de Montréal in Canada. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia. He currently serves as Principal Investigator for the 2011 and 2015 Canadian Election Studies. He was also co-investigator on the Canadian Election Studies of 2004, 2006, and 2008. His research interests include citizen competence, deliberation, voting behaviour, public opinion, and attitude change. With regards to deliberation, he has evaluated the potential and limits of citizens’ capacity to manage the complexity of the political world in a variety of deliberative settings, both large and small in scale. First, his study of Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform – yearlong deliberative proceeding initiated by governments in British Columbia, Ontario, and the Netherlands – has resulted in a book titled When Citizens Decide (Oxford University Press, 2011). His work on electoral deliberation seeks to unravel the reasons why citizens vote the way they do and the sources of opinion dynamics during campaigns and between elections (see notably the book Dominance & Decline, University of Toronto Press, 2012). He has also investigated how the instability of political opinions during the course of a single interview can foster enlightenment (“Deliberation from Within”, Political Psychology, 2011). Erikur Bergmann is Professor of Politics and Director of Centre for European Studies at Bifrost University in Iceland. He was also a member of Iceland’s Constitutional Council which has delivered a bill to Parliament for a new constitution. His research interests within the field of International Politics can be positioned in the intersection of European Integration Politics and International Political Economy. In that context he also focuses on Nationalism and Identity Politics. Further interest is within the field of Constitutional Politics. His primary current research is a book project for Palgrave Macmillan titled: Iceland and the International Financial Crisis: Boom, Bust & Recovery. The book is forthcoming in 2014, in Palgrave’s International Political Economy Series. The book is original in the way in which it wants to widen attention towards the Icelandic Financial Crisis and its impact on democracy. The main novelty is the use of postcolonial analysis to cast a cultural light of Iceland’s political and economic behaviour before, during and after the Crash. The key point is to relate questions over the Icelandic Financial Crisis to aspects of a financialised world and questions of nationality, finance, the economy and the European Union that are opened up in that encounter. The book of necessity takes a critical approach to the claims of the financialization advocates, and provides an approach that relates the questions of the national economy and globalisation to current trends in Europe and the World. Biographical note of convenors Min Reuchamps, professor of political science at the Université catholique de Louvain and coordinator of the methodology for the G1000 in Belgium. He graduated from the Université de Liège and Boston University. His teaching and research interests are federalism and multi-level governance, political sociology as well as participatory and deliberative methods. He has recently published L’avenir du fédéralisme en Belgique et au Canada : quand les citoyens en parlent (Peter Lang, 2011) and co-edited with Frédéric Bouhon Les systèmes électoraux de la Belgique (Bruylant, 2012) and with Julien Perrez Les relations communautaires en Belgique : Approches politiques et linguistiques (Academia-L’harmattan, 2012). He currently co-edits a special issue "The Future of Belgian federalism" with Kris Deschouwer (Regional and Federal Studies, 2013). He is also the co-secretary of the French-speaking Belgian association for political science (ABSP) and the coordinator of the cel methodology of the G1000 citizens initiative. Jane Suiter, lecturer in political science at Dublin City University and deputy research director of the Irish Constitutional Convention. Her research is centered in deliberative and participative democracy. She is deputy research director of the Irish Constitutional Convention and a member of the ECPR standing group on Democratic Innovations. She is also co-convener of the PSAI specialist group Voters, Parties and Elections and is working on an IRC funded project on the use of referendums in Europe. She was a member of the academic team for We the Citizens, an Atlantic philanthropy funded experiment on deliberation chaired by Professor David Farrell. She has recently published Deliberative Democracy in Action Irish-Style: The 2011 We The Citizens Pilot Citizens’ Assembly. (Irish Political Studies 2013 with Farrell and O’Malley). Yes, minister: The impact of decision-making rules on geographically targeted particularistic spending. (Parliamentary Affairs 2014) A Constitutional Moment: Taking Advantage of a Confluence of Events (2013 Bloomberg). The 2011 We the Citizens Pilot Citizens¿ Assembly (2012 NUIG Press with Farrell and O’Malley). Ireland in The Oxford Companion to Comparative Politics. (2012 Oxford) and Ireland’s Journey to the third way: the hi-social model? (2012 Collins Press). Jane is a frequent contributor to broadcast and print media and is a former journalist having worked as Economics Editor at The Irish Times