John Dryzek is Distinguished Professor and former Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow in the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. Previously he was ARC Federation Fellow and Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the Australian National University. He is a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, and former Head of the Departments of Political Science at the Universities of Oregon and Melbourne.
This position paper develops an algorithmic approach to deliberation as the basis for institution... more This position paper develops an algorithmic approach to deliberation as the basis for institutional reflexivity. We propose the idea of algorithmic reflexive governance for socio- techno-ecological systems, bringing together interdisciplinary ideas from Artificial Intelligence and Democratic Theory in systems that recognize the interactions between social, technological, and ecological actors and processes. We argue that this innovative approach to conservation and sustainability can make a significant contribution to mitigating the climate emergency.
We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecti... more We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values, and interests regarding matters of common concern. Deliberative democracy incorporates the requirements that deliberation take place in contexts of equal recognition, respect, reciprocity, and sufficiently equal power for communicative influence to function. These aspirational ideals have inspired a flourishing field, with theoretical and empirical research across many disciplines, and many democratic innovations and practices in many countries and cultures. We survey the evolution of the ideals of deliberative democracy, their numerous sites in deliberative systems, the places of these sites within broader political arenas, and the many critics, criticisms, and revisions the concept and practice of deliberative democracy have attracted.
Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades an... more Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers.
We agree with Castree that higher-quality deliberation among representatives is indeed a key elem... more We agree with Castree that higher-quality deliberation among representatives is indeed a key element for renewing our democracies. More and better deliberation in representative institutions might produce more publicly acceptable and sustainable policies. A deliberative citizenry can help achieve this goal. Empirical research of political systems in the United States and Europe ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]) shows that under appropriate conditions—namely, coalition settings, second chambers to check power, secrecy, low party discipline, low issue polarization, and the strong presence of moderate parties—genuine deliberation can be found in legislatures. This research also demonstrates that good deliberation is not easy to achieve in representative institutions that lack favorable conditions. Under normal political conditions in adversarial systems such as the United States and United Kingdom—namely, strong partisan competition and high issue polarization—high-quality deliberation is rare. Therefore, we need to think about reforms that would facilitate higher-quality deliberation in representative institutions. Given that institutional reforms in adversarial systems (for instance, in the direction of more consensual procedures) are rare, elite deliberation could greatly benefit from being exposed to more citizen deliberation. For this reason, we emphasized the idea that citizens could lead the way. As we explained in the context of the Irish example, citizen deliberation helped make interactions in the Dail (Irish parliament) more deliberative, especially on the highly divisive issue of abortion. Moreover, research has shown that direct deliberative exchanges between representatives and their constituents in the United States helped citizens rebuild political trust and helped representatives truly engage with citizens' policy views ([ 3 ][3]). Renewal of our democracies requires better deliberation among citizens, among politicians, and between them. 1. [↵][4]1. J. Bessette , The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government (University of Chicago Press, 1994). 2. [↵][5]1. J. Steiner, 2. A. Bachtiger, 3. M. Sporndli, 4. M. Steenbergen , Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse (Cambridge University Press, 2004). 3. [↵][6]1. M. A. Neblo, 2. K. M. Esterling, 3. D. M. J. Lazer , Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2018). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [6]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text"
To what extent can we hope to secure effective democratic control in environmental policy? This i... more To what extent can we hope to secure effective democratic control in environmental policy? This issue can be unpacked into two more precise questions. The first is a ‘macro’ one: can any more effective shaping of environmental policy be undertaken by democratic means in contemporary liberal capitalist societies? The second question is more ‘micro’, and contingent on some degree of affirmative answer to the first: can the choice of environmental policy instruments affect the prospects for democratic control? In keeping with the focus of this collection, I shall approach the second question through reference to regulatory and quasi-market orientations to anti-pollution policy.
European Journal of Political Theory, Feb 14, 2013
In Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice, democracy is necessary for the reconciliation of plural jus... more In Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice, democracy is necessary for the reconciliation of plural justice claims. Sen’s treatment of democracy is however incomplete and inadequate: democracy is under-specified, there are unrecognized difficulties in any context featuring deep moral disagreement or deep division and a conceptualization of public reason in the singular erodes his pluralism. These faults undermine Sen’s account of justice. Developments in the theory of deliberative democracy can be deployed to remedy these deficiencies. This deployment points to a deliberative system encompassing those affected by collective decisions, with places for non-partisan forums and discursive representatives, conditionally open to multiple forms of communication, and geared to the production of workable agreements under normative and discursive meta-consensus. Democracy does not guarantee justice, but in a plural world it is essential to the pursuit of justice.
The Australian Citizens\u27 Parliament was held in February 2009, with one participant from each ... more The Australian Citizens\u27 Parliament was held in February 2009, with one participant from each federal electorate. The main meeting was a culmination of a process involving a series of regional meetings and online development of proposals by citizen participants. Within a broad charge of \u27How can Australia\u27s political system be strengthened to serve us better?\u27 participants could develop their own proposals and so craft the agenda. The process yielded a set of recommendations for the structure and operation of government, as well as masses of social scientific data
Global climate change and governance will widely but unevenly impact people's lives around th... more Global climate change and governance will widely but unevenly impact people's lives around the world. There is thus an urgent need to ensure that the people who will be affected by climate change itself, as well as by mitigation and adaptation measures, are appropriately represented in decision making processes. In short, there is an urgent need to democratise global climate governance. But the absence of traditional liberal democratic mechanisms in the international system poses an obvious challenge to democratising global governance. A plausible alternative to the cosmopolitan ambition of importing the domestic democratic architecture to the international system is to enhance the deliberative capacity of existing governance arrangements. Deliberative governance arrangements offer perhaps the most promising opportunity for responding to the social challenges of global climate change and governance. The effective functioning of these arrangements depends crucially on vibrant pub...
This position paper develops an algorithmic approach to deliberation as the basis for institution... more This position paper develops an algorithmic approach to deliberation as the basis for institutional reflexivity. We propose the idea of algorithmic reflexive governance for socio- techno-ecological systems, bringing together interdisciplinary ideas from Artificial Intelligence and Democratic Theory in systems that recognize the interactions between social, technological, and ecological actors and processes. We argue that this innovative approach to conservation and sustainability can make a significant contribution to mitigating the climate emergency.
We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecti... more We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values, and interests regarding matters of common concern. Deliberative democracy incorporates the requirements that deliberation take place in contexts of equal recognition, respect, reciprocity, and sufficiently equal power for communicative influence to function. These aspirational ideals have inspired a flourishing field, with theoretical and empirical research across many disciplines, and many democratic innovations and practices in many countries and cultures. We survey the evolution of the ideals of deliberative democracy, their numerous sites in deliberative systems, the places of these sites within broader political arenas, and the many critics, criticisms, and revisions the concept and practice of deliberative democracy have attracted.
Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades an... more Deliberative democracy has been the main game in contemporary political theory for two decades and has grown enormously in size and importance in political science and many other disciplines, and in political practice. The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy takes stock of deliberative democracy as a research field, as well as exploring and creating links with multiple disciplines and policy practice around the globe. It provides a concise history of deliberative ideals in political thought while also discussing their philosophical origins. It locates deliberation in a political system with different spaces, publics, and venues, including parliament and courts but also governance networks, protests, mini-publics, old and new media, and everyday talk. It documents the intersections of deliberative ideals with contemporary political theory, involving epistemology, representation, constitutionalism, justice, and multiculturalism. It explores the intersections of deliberative democracy with major research fields in the social sciences and law, including social and rational choice theory, communications, psychology, sociology, international relations, framing approaches, policy analysis, planning, democratization, and methodology. It engages with practical applications, mapping deliberation as a reform movement and as a device for conflict resolution. It documents the practice and study of deliberative democracy around the world, in Asia, Latin America, Africa, Europe, and global governance. And it provides reflections on the field by pioneering thinkers.
We agree with Castree that higher-quality deliberation among representatives is indeed a key elem... more We agree with Castree that higher-quality deliberation among representatives is indeed a key element for renewing our democracies. More and better deliberation in representative institutions might produce more publicly acceptable and sustainable policies. A deliberative citizenry can help achieve this goal. Empirical research of political systems in the United States and Europe ([ 1 ][1], [ 2 ][2]) shows that under appropriate conditions—namely, coalition settings, second chambers to check power, secrecy, low party discipline, low issue polarization, and the strong presence of moderate parties—genuine deliberation can be found in legislatures. This research also demonstrates that good deliberation is not easy to achieve in representative institutions that lack favorable conditions. Under normal political conditions in adversarial systems such as the United States and United Kingdom—namely, strong partisan competition and high issue polarization—high-quality deliberation is rare. Therefore, we need to think about reforms that would facilitate higher-quality deliberation in representative institutions. Given that institutional reforms in adversarial systems (for instance, in the direction of more consensual procedures) are rare, elite deliberation could greatly benefit from being exposed to more citizen deliberation. For this reason, we emphasized the idea that citizens could lead the way. As we explained in the context of the Irish example, citizen deliberation helped make interactions in the Dail (Irish parliament) more deliberative, especially on the highly divisive issue of abortion. Moreover, research has shown that direct deliberative exchanges between representatives and their constituents in the United States helped citizens rebuild political trust and helped representatives truly engage with citizens' policy views ([ 3 ][3]). Renewal of our democracies requires better deliberation among citizens, among politicians, and between them. 1. [↵][4]1. J. Bessette , The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government (University of Chicago Press, 1994). 2. [↵][5]1. J. Steiner, 2. A. Bachtiger, 3. M. Sporndli, 4. M. Steenbergen , Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse (Cambridge University Press, 2004). 3. [↵][6]1. M. A. Neblo, 2. K. M. Esterling, 3. D. M. J. Lazer , Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy (Cambridge University Press, 2018). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [6]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text"
To what extent can we hope to secure effective democratic control in environmental policy? This i... more To what extent can we hope to secure effective democratic control in environmental policy? This issue can be unpacked into two more precise questions. The first is a ‘macro’ one: can any more effective shaping of environmental policy be undertaken by democratic means in contemporary liberal capitalist societies? The second question is more ‘micro’, and contingent on some degree of affirmative answer to the first: can the choice of environmental policy instruments affect the prospects for democratic control? In keeping with the focus of this collection, I shall approach the second question through reference to regulatory and quasi-market orientations to anti-pollution policy.
European Journal of Political Theory, Feb 14, 2013
In Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice, democracy is necessary for the reconciliation of plural jus... more In Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice, democracy is necessary for the reconciliation of plural justice claims. Sen’s treatment of democracy is however incomplete and inadequate: democracy is under-specified, there are unrecognized difficulties in any context featuring deep moral disagreement or deep division and a conceptualization of public reason in the singular erodes his pluralism. These faults undermine Sen’s account of justice. Developments in the theory of deliberative democracy can be deployed to remedy these deficiencies. This deployment points to a deliberative system encompassing those affected by collective decisions, with places for non-partisan forums and discursive representatives, conditionally open to multiple forms of communication, and geared to the production of workable agreements under normative and discursive meta-consensus. Democracy does not guarantee justice, but in a plural world it is essential to the pursuit of justice.
The Australian Citizens\u27 Parliament was held in February 2009, with one participant from each ... more The Australian Citizens\u27 Parliament was held in February 2009, with one participant from each federal electorate. The main meeting was a culmination of a process involving a series of regional meetings and online development of proposals by citizen participants. Within a broad charge of \u27How can Australia\u27s political system be strengthened to serve us better?\u27 participants could develop their own proposals and so craft the agenda. The process yielded a set of recommendations for the structure and operation of government, as well as masses of social scientific data
Global climate change and governance will widely but unevenly impact people's lives around th... more Global climate change and governance will widely but unevenly impact people's lives around the world. There is thus an urgent need to ensure that the people who will be affected by climate change itself, as well as by mitigation and adaptation measures, are appropriately represented in decision making processes. In short, there is an urgent need to democratise global climate governance. But the absence of traditional liberal democratic mechanisms in the international system poses an obvious challenge to democratising global governance. A plausible alternative to the cosmopolitan ambition of importing the domestic democratic architecture to the international system is to enhance the deliberative capacity of existing governance arrangements. Deliberative governance arrangements offer perhaps the most promising opportunity for responding to the social challenges of global climate change and governance. The effective functioning of these arrangements depends crucially on vibrant pub...
Rhetoric can facilitate movement beyond impasse on whether and how to confront climate change, en... more Rhetoric can facilitate movement beyond impasse on whether and how to confront climate change, enabling more effective public reasoning. Our evidence comes from a small deliberative group that contained climate change deniers. We show how in this setting bridging rhetoric (capable of reaching those who do not share the speaker’s perspective) managed to bring deniers and others into accepting that particular greenhouse gas mitigation measures were in the range of acceptable policy choices – even as deniers continued to dispute the existence of anthropogenic climate change. What we observed drives home the need for rhetorical bridges in broader public debates on climate change.
Global climate change is perceived to be one of the biggest challenges for international politics... more Global climate change is perceived to be one of the biggest challenges for international politics in the 21st century. This work seeks to fuse a global governance perspective together with different interpretive approaches, offering a novel way of looking at international climate politics. Equipped with a common interpretive tool-kit, the authors examine different issue-areas and excavate the contours of an overall pattern – the depoliticisation of climate governance. It is this concept which represents the overarching theme connecting the different contributions, addressing issues such as how the securitization of climate change conceals its socio-economic roots; how highly political decisions and value-judgements are couched in the terms of science; how the reframing of climate change as a matter of economic calculation and investment narrows the scope of political action; and how the prevailing concentration on technological solutions to climate change turns it into a mere administrative issue to be tackled by experts. Highlighting the depoliticisation of highly political issues provides a means to bring the political back into one of the most important issue areas of 21st century world politics. The editors have assembled a series of 14 interpretive inquiries into discourses of global climate governance which aim to flesh out an interpretive methodology, demonstrating the value it offers to those seeking to achieve a better understanding of global climate governance.
Climate change presents a large, complex and seemingly intractable set of problems that are unpre... more Climate change presents a large, complex and seemingly intractable set of problems that are unprecedented in their scope and severity. Given that climate governance is generated and experienced internationally, effective global governance is imperative; yet current modes of governance have failed to deliver. Hayley Stevenson and John Dryzek argue that effective collective action depends crucially on questions of democratic legitimacy. Spanning topics of multilateral diplomacy, networked governance, representation, accountability, protest and participation, this book charts the failures and successes of global climate governance to offer fresh proposals for a deliberative system which would enable meaningful communication, inclusion of all affected interests, accountability and effectiveness in dealing with climate change; one of the most vexing issues of our time.
This article introduces and develops the concept of 'communicative plenty' to capture the implica... more This article introduces and develops the concept of 'communicative plenty' to capture the implications of the increasing volume of communication, both online and face-to-face, in contemporary democracies. Drawing on recent systems thinking in deliberative democracy, the article argues that communicative plenty can offer a viable context for large scale public deliberation provided that: i) the spaces for voice and expression are accompanied by sufficient spaces of reflection and listening; and that ii) collective decisions involve sequencing of first expression, then listening, and then reflection. To substantiate this proposal, two cases where conventional democratic practices were modified either formally or informally to promote greater listening and reflection are subjected to close empirical analysis. The analysis reveals that designing spaces of reflection and listening is a practical means to enhance public deliberation and so democracy, particularly in contexts vulnerable to an overload of expression and the democratic pathologies of communicative plenty.
We reflect on the development of the field of deliberative democracy by discussing twelve key fin... more We reflect on the development of the field of deliberative democracy by discussing twelve key findings that capture a number of resolved issues in normative theory, conceptual clarification, and associated empirical results. We argue that these findings deserve to be more widely recognized, and viewed as a foundation for future practice and research. We draw on our own research and that of others in the field.
Uploads