scholarly journals Deliberative future visioning: utilizing the deliberative democracy theory and practice in futures research

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna-Kaisa Pernaa
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Futures Research ◽  
Democracy Theory

scholarly journals Deliberative Debates in Investors Penetration Area: A Case Study of Village Deliberation by Village Consultative Board (BPD) in Caturtunggal Village, Yogyakarta

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Husen Wijaya Abd. Hamid
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Data Gathering ◽  
Elite Capture ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Depth Interview ◽  
Qualitative Descriptive ◽  
Democracy Theory ◽  
Descriptive Method

<div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><p>This study focuses on deliberative democracy practices in Caturtunggal village, specifically in the sub-village (<em>dusun</em>) of Seturan, Karangwuni, and Ambarukmo. The study assesses the quality of deliberation in these dusun by applying the three out of  five indicators of deliberative democracy theory by Fishkin (2009), namely information, subtantantive balance, and equal consideration. This study deploys qualitative descriptive method and case-study approach with in-depth interview as the main data gathering technique. This deliberation has put Village Consultative Board (BPD) period of 2013-2019 as a mediator and to consider arguments and deliberative results. Based on the indicators which proposed by Fishkin, Seturan and Ambarukmo are categorized for having semi-ideal deliberation, meanwhile Karangwuni is categorized as not ideal. The study also finds elite capture practices in Seturan and Karangwuni, but they do not impact significantly. </p></div></div></div>

Moral Disagreement in a Democracy

1995 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Gutmann ◽  
Dennis Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Process ◽  
Moral Disagreement ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Moral Deliberation ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Prominent Feature ◽  
Adequate Response

Moral disagreement about public policies—issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and health care—is a prominent feature of contemporary American democracy. Yet it is not a central concern of the leading theories of democracy. The two dominant democratic approaches in our time—procedural democracy and constitutional democracy—fail to offer adequate responses to the problem of moral disagreement. Both suggest some elements that are necessary in any adequate response, but neither one alone nor both together are sufficient. We argue here that an adequate conception of democracy must make moral deliberation an essential part of the political process. What we call “deliberative democracy” adds an important dimension to the theory and practice of politics that the leading conceptions of democracy neglect.

Literature Analysis of the Theory of Liberative Democracy

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 108-114
Author(s):  
Hari Zamharir ◽  
Sahruddin Lubis
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
The Political ◽  
Literature Analysis ◽  
Political Liberalization ◽  
Reform Era ◽  
Democratic Practice ◽  
Democracy Theory

During the political liberalization of the reform era (1998 – present), various groups have complained about the evil practices of democratic politics. One of the shooting targets is that we have made the wrong choice, namely adopting a majoritarian or liberal democracy model. In the literature on democracy theory, one of the theories relevant to improving democratic practice is TDD (Theory of Deliberative Democracy). Although still using the principle of representation, TDD, in general, makes corrections or improvements to the procedures and substance of democracy that have been poorly practised in Indonesia today. This research is based on qualitative research using the descriptive-analytical method to provide a clear picture of the object of the problem. The conclusion of this study shows evidence that there is a model of democracy—both in substance and in procedures. They are different from the mechanism of representation initially derived from the theory of representative democracy.

Deliberative Democratic Practices in Canada: An Analysis of Institutional Empowerment in Three Cases

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 679-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Fuji Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Important Relationship ◽  
Housing Corporation ◽  
Level I ◽  
Policy Elites ◽  
Budgeting Process

Abstract. Analyzing three timely Canadian cases, this article develops an important relationship between the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSP), and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) recently held consultative initiatives appearing to seek the democratic empowerment of citizens. In each case, we see institutional features of deliberative democracy. But only the TCHC's participatory budgeting process begins to fulfill the promise of deliberative empowerment, that is, inclusive, informed, and equal public deliberation focused on a common good at the policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation stages. Why is the case of the TCHC characterized by greater deliberative empowerment than the cases of NSP and the NWMO? I explore possible explanations, all of which focus on the political context in which deliberation takes place. My overarching finding is that the motivation of policy elites within these organizations is key in the deliberative empowerment of citizens at the institutional level. I conclude by identifying factors that might account for the presence or absence of this motivation.Résumé. En analysant trois cas canadiens opportuns, cet article développe une relation importante entre la théorie et la pratique de la démocratie délibérative. La Société de gestion des déchets nucléaires (SGDN) du Canada, Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSPI) et la Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) ont récemment mis en oeuvre des initiatives consultatives qui semblent vouloir donner le pouvoir démocratique délibératif aux citoyens. Dans chaque cas, on observe des caractéristiques institutionnelles représentant les valeurs d'une démocratie délibérative. Mais le processus budgétaire participatif de la TCHC est le seul qui commence à tenir les promesses d'une prise de pouvoir délibérative, caractérisée par une délibération inclusive, informée et égalitaire, axée sur un bien commun, aux étapes de la formulation, de la mise en oeuvre et de l'évaluation d'une politique. Pourquoi le cas de la TCHC atteste-t-il d'une plus grande prise de pouvoir délibérative que ceux de NSPI et de la SGDN? J'explore des explications possibles, qui sont toutes centrées sur le contexte politique dans lequel survient la délibération. En général, je constate que la motivation des élites politiques à l'intérieur de ces organisations est primordiale pour la prise de pouvoir délibérative des citoyens au niveau institutionnel. En conclusion, j'identifie les facteurs pouvant justifier la présence ou l'absence de cette motivation.

Communicative Planning Theory Following Deliberative Democracy Theory

2015 ◽  
pp. 1288-1301
Author(s):  
Raine Mäntysalo ◽  
Karoliina Jarenko
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
First Generation ◽  
Planning Theory ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Trading Zone ◽  
Communicative Planning ◽  
Critical Pragmatism ◽  
Democracy Theory

The article reviews the development of communicative planning theory in relation to deliberative democracy theory. The latter has evolved since its “first generation” of Habermas and Rawls, to incorporate more pragmatic and contextual considerations to the theory, in response to criticisms that parallel those on communicative planning theory. The contemporary “third generation” of deliberative democracy theory has relaxed on the consensus goal, considering deliberation as legitimate even when the parties advocate their own interests in intense negotiations. The article discusses how this development has been reflected in communicative planning theory, concentrating especially on John Forester's critical pragmatism. It further examines the concept of trading zone and its linkages to this theoretical development.

Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

2010 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 511-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
GARRETT WALLACE BROWN
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Global Fund ◽  
Stakeholder Participation ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Health Priorities ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
Asymmetric Power ◽  
Do So

AbstractIt is often argued that multilateralism is no longer an effective mechanism to respond to global priorities and that more deliberative and multisectoral governance is needed. To explore this, the purpose of this article is to examine the practice of mutlisectoral deliberation within the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and to determine whether it has resulted in providing a more deliberative response to global health priorities. To do so, this article will apply various theoretical arguments for deliberative democracy to the results of a four year study on the multisectoral organisation the Global Fund. By making links between theory and practice, the article will argue that the multisectoralism practiced by the Global Fund continues to suffer from a deliberative deficit and that it has not safeguarded equal stakeholder participation, equal deliberation between stakeholders or alleviate the asymmetric power relationships which are representative of current forms of multilateral governance. Nevertheless, by locating these gaps between theory and practice, it is possible to outline deliberative safeguards that might, if constitutionally enhanced, pull the Global Fund closer to its own normative values of multisectoral deliberative decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document