Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHartz-Karp, Janette
dc.contributor.authorBriand, M.
dc.contributor.editor.
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T10:29:02Z
dc.date.available2017-01-30T10:29:02Z
dc.date.created2011-06-28T20:01:37Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.citationHartz-Karp, Janette and Briand, Michael K. 2009. Institutionalizing deliberative democracy. Journal of Public Affairs. 9 (2): pp. 125-141.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/3144
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pa.320
dc.description.abstract

In the mass democratic polities of today, the role of citizens remains confined largely to that of voting for members of elected legislatures. Beyond that, there is scant opportunity for ‘the public’ to participate in any meaningful sense in most of the tasks that make up the policy-making process. Indeed, influencing that process is typically viewed as the sole prerogative of technocratic experts, organized interests, and elected officials. This presumption is buttressed (and rationalized) by a too-ready acceptance of the platitude that citizens are generally uninformed, unskilled, and uninterested in the work of democratic self-government. We begin with a definition of ‘deliberative democracy’. We then briefly consider its connection to the concept of democracy more generally and argue that the moral authority of the former follows from that of the latter. From both the developing and the developed worlds, we draw several examples of institutionalized deliberative participation. In some, institutionalization has been sustained; in others, it has not been sustained.Reflecting on these examples, we consider the ‘lessons learned’ from these and other cases. We identify costs, difficulties and limitations associated with institutionalizing participatory public deliberation as well as the benefits and advantages thereof. Finally, we briefly outline a proposal for an Australian experiment that might serve as a learning model for subsequent efforts there and elsewhere to ‘institutionalize’ participatory citizen deliberation. Institutionalizing deliberative participation would not replace representative government, but rather would supplement it, enabling democratic governments to reflect and respond better to the values, priorities and aspirations of the people they ostensibly serve. We offer this practice-orientated paper as a discussion paper intended to introduce readers to the idea of institutionalizing participatory public deliberation and to generate constructive debate concerning it. We do not presume to provide a rigorous analysis of the concept or of any of the many issues surrounding it.

dc.publisher.
dc.titleInstitutionalizing deliberative democracy
dc.typeConference Paper
dcterms.source.titleParliament and the People: Participation, Representation and Engagement
dcterms.source.seriesParliament and the People: Participation, Representation and Engagement
dcterms.source.conferenceParliament and the People: Participation, Representation and Engagement
dcterms.source.conference-start-dateJul 10 2008
dcterms.source.conferencelocationBrisbane
dcterms.source.place.
curtin.departmentSustainable Policy Institute (CUSP)
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record