Beyond Adversary Democracy Redux: Participatory and Deliberative Democracy in the New England Town Meeting

In her seminal study of the New England town meeting form of government in a small town in Vermont, Jane Mansbridge (1980) was one of a group of participatory democratic theorists who explored the possibilities for more direct participation by citizens in the decisions that affect their lives (see also, e.g., Bachrach 1970, Barber 1985, and Pateman 1970). James Fishkin (1991) pointed out in his early theory of deliberative democracy, however, that there is often a trade-off between participation and deliberation, and in democratic theory, even though they do not eschew democratic participation, it is clear that deliberative theory has become the primary interest of theorists. In this study, I examine what occurs when towns consider changing from the traditional, face-to-face town meeting to a polling-place referenda to decide the town’s budget. The town meeting form of government remains a cultural symbol of democracy in New England and one of the few forms of direct, face-to-face democracy in the world. As such, it provides a unique opportunity to examine the relationship between participation and deliberation. I have already conducted in-depth interviews with Connecticut town officials and accessed surveys from all 169 Connecticut municipalities administered by the state. In addition, research assistants have analyzed public transcripts of citizen testimony regarding possible changes to their town’s form of government. What this analysis reveals is that many factors can influence what happens when people deliberate about democratic participation in the shadow of voting-based decisions. In groups of any significant size that must make a voting-based decision, there is a tension between deliberation and inclusion that affects participants’ very definition of democracy. Public officials, while often committed to deliberation, have the additional imperative of achieving a successful conclusion to the voting-based decision process. The prospect of success in the voting-based decision will often affect individual participants’ preferences on the tradeoff between participation and deliberation. These additional factors do not indicate that deliberation is impossible in the shadow of voting-based decisions, but as Mansbridge established decades ago, it does demonstrate the need for political theorists to account for the role of adversary democracy in the democratic system.