Explaining the mechanisms behind deliberative conduct, I argue for adopting a personality approach. Deliberative conduct (reason giving, open-mindedness, respect of others, etceteras), viewed from a personality approach, imply that where there are “deliberative personalities” there will be deliberation, regardless of the situational characteristics. Enhancing deliberative practices is, thus, not so much about transferring the lessons from mini-publics to the public sphere, as it is to find ways to strengthen the influence of those with a deliberative personality. This approach resembles Chambers reasoning on “deliberative rhetoric”. Chambers shows that deliberative rhetoric is not restricted to particular settings but occur anywhere, anytime in the public sphere. But Chambers does not pose the question; who chooses to deliberate, under what circumstances, and why? Neither do institutional approaches account for differences among participants. If institutional design is what counts why do not all individuals deliberate, to the same extent, in a deliberative setting? I argue that we need to address the question of who actually deliberates. Deliberative behavior is, herein, assumed to reside within personality traits. First, I translate deliberative conduct into personality trait terms (using a Big Five framework). This translation shows that deliberative conduct is not to be considered universal skills but traits, differing between individuals. Secondly, I explore the assumption of the deliberative personality, in a non-deliberative setting, by illustrating with the South African peace process, 1990-94, and the behavior by the ANC leader at the time, Nelson Mandela, and the last President of the apartheid regime, F.W. de Klerk
