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.

The Limits of Deliberative Democracy and Empowerment: Elite Motivation in Three Canadian Cases

2011 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Fuji Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Economic Interests ◽  
Policy Context ◽  
Five Factors ◽  
Housing Corporation ◽  
Société Canadienne

Abstract. In recent years, elites in the Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), Nova Scotia Power Incorporated (NSP) and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) held consultations based on principles of deliberative democracy with members of their affected publics. I explore five factors that may help us understand why some elites are inclined to empower members of their affected publics. These factors can be understood as characteristics of each policy context and include normative principle, public pressure, policy requirement, strategic management interest, and economic interest. Based on a comparative case study of a series of semi-structured interviews with a range of actors, written public submissions, and official reports, I identify these as pertinent factors and argue that the convergence of the economic interests of the organization and the deliberative empowerment of its affected public is critical. This examination serves constructively in helping us better understand a persistent gap between the theoretical aims and practical instantiations of deliberative democracy.Résumé. Au cours des dernières années, les élites dirigeantes de la Société canadienne de gestion des déchets nucléaires, de la Nova Scotia Power Inc. et de la Société de logement communautaire de Toronto ont tenu des séances de consultation fondées sur les principes de la démocratie délibérative avec les membres concernés par leurs politiques. J'examine cinq facteurs qui peuvent nous aider à mieux comprendre pourquoi certains décideurs sont enclins à reconnaître un droit de regard aux membres touchés par leurs politiques. Ces facteurs peuvent être analysés en tant que caractéristiques des contextes particuliers de chaque politique concernée et incluent les dimensions liées aux principes normatifs, aux pressions publiques, au contenu des politiques, à la gestion stratégique des intérêts et aux enjeux économiques. À l'aide d'une étude comparative de cas comprenant des entretiens semi-dirigés avec divers acteurs, des soumissions publiques écrites et des rapports officiels, je présente ces dimensions à titre de facteurs pertinents et soutiens que la convergence des intérêts économiques des organisations et le pouvoir de délibération accordé au public concerné revêtent une importance cruciale. Cet examen se révèle constructif et nous aide à mieux comprendre le fossé persistant entre les finalités théoriques et la mise en pratique de la démocratie délibérative.

scholarly journals Negotiating the Political Ecology of Aboriginal Resource Management: How Mi'kmaq Manage Their Moose and Lobster Harvest in Unama'ki, Nova Scotia, Canada

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bernard Huber
Keyword(s):  
Resource Management ◽  
Nova Scotia ◽  
Political Ecology ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
The Political ◽  
Ecological Knowledge ◽  
Cultural Communication ◽  
Cross Cultural Communication

<p>Since the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the fishing and hunting rights of the Mi'kmaq nation in 1985 and 1990, the government has failed to accommodate these in appropriate and effective resource management frameworks. In Unama'ki/Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, the subsistence harvest of lobster and moose by Mi'kmaq has therefore caused cross-cultural conflict and ecological concerns. Since 2006, the Lobster Management Plan (Unama'kik Jakejue'ka'timk) and the Moose Management Plan are being developed under Mi'kmaq leadership to manage the Mi'kmaq harvest communally. These innovative management initiatives will serve as case studies for this thesis to explore how Mi'kmaq negotiate the political ecology of co-management in Nova Scotia and effectively assert Mi'kmaq rights to resource harvest and selfgovernance. Most notably, the management plans employ cultural principles of sustainability and pro-active approaches to cross-cultural communication. This research shows how Mi'kmaq communities have developed resource management capacities and frameworks that can also inspire the self-government aspirations of other aboriginal nations in Canada. Mi'kmaq strategies and experience suggests that aboriginal leadership and cultural principles are integral to the meaningful implementation of aboriginal resource rights. Semi-structured interviews with Mi'kmaq and governmental resource managers illustrated diverse discourses of aboriginal resource rights, ecological knowledge and sustainability. Aiming to represent research insights appropriately, this thesis follows the decolonization agenda of aboriginal methodologies and features reflective discussions of the author's positionality within the Mi'kmaq research community. This also allows for a review of how the author came to terms with conflicting discourses and aboriginal ontologies of ecological knowledge, as well as the requirements for decolonizing research. Supporting reflective insights, a framework of anthropological political ecology and poststructuralist arguments for ontological diversity explain the validity of aboriginal perspectives on ecological knowledge and resource rights, which is the premise of decolonization paradigms. A review of engaging with aboriginal culture both in theory and practice concludes that the practical experience is essential for an appreciation of aboriginal perspectives and thus integral to cross-cultural communication and co-management relationships.</p>

scholarly journals Learning from Leibniz: Navigating the Twin Labyrinths of Academia and Practice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank H. Weiner ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Common Good ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Word Knowledge ◽  
Conference Theme ◽  
Divine Justice ◽  
Back Ground ◽  
Frame Work ◽  
The Common ◽  
Final Causes ◽  
Good And Evil

This essay is prompted by a single phrase embedded in the call for papers – “…the best of all available knowledge…” It would be easy to overlook the significance of this brief extracted fragment by taking for granted we know and understand what is indeed the best in the context of the education of an architect. Within the overall frame-work of the conference such considerations could be seen as offering a relevant dialectical antithesis to the main thesis of the conference. It is important to consider how questions of the ‘best’ in relation to knowledge have come to be seen by some as being of lesser importance in our conversations about education. If we do not strive for what is the best then we may loose an overall sense of telos or purposiveness in our various endeavors. The best is the highest good (both in theory and practice). So the best is at least a double condition rather than a singular condition. In Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics there are no less than three philosophical meanings of the word “best”. First there is best as the Idea of the good (here Idea in a Platonic sense and the good are synonymous), secondly the best as the common good and thirdly the best in a practical sense. There is then a noble best and a practical best.The viability of the conference theme on “The Practice of Teaching and the Teaching of Practice: The Teacher’s Hunch” may actually rely upon establishing a foundation for determining what the best of all available knowledge consists of towards our common pursuits. Here one might propose the word ‘available’ be replaced by the word ‘possible’ so the fragment would now read – the best of all possible knowledge. The distinction between availability and possibility although seemingly minor becomes a crucial one. Availability has to do with use and acquisition in the sense that something or someone is either available or is not available. The notion of availability lacks the gravitas of possibility that can lead to actuality. With the idea of possibility emerges the transcendental question of the freedom for good and evil adjudicated under a form of divine justice. Invoking possibility over availability is an acknowledgment of the perennial importance of the ancient Aristotelian dyad of potency/act in the deeper back-ground of our theories and practices. In a world of crass availabilities, “need is so many bananas”. In what follows the word “knowledge” is understood in Aristotelian sense of the fourfold of causation giving us the possibility to bring forth what we know, what Heidegger poeticized as modes of occasioning – the material, formal, efficient and final causes.

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.

Big Data Dilemmas

2015 ◽  
pp. 10-34
Author(s):  
Debashis “Deb” Aikat
Keyword(s):  
Data Mining ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Ethical Values ◽  
Big Data Mining ◽  
Socio Economic Development ◽  
Ethical Role

This chapter delineates the theory and practice of ethical big data mining for socio-economic development in four parts. The first part enunciates the ethical role of big data mining for socio-economic development by theorizing big data as a 20th Century phenomenon and its surging significance in the 21st Century digital era. The second part elucidates ethical values relating to big data mining with particular emphasis on the interplay of theory and practice. The third part connects classical theories of ethics to propose a code of conduct that relates to core ethical values such as privacy, confidentiality, objectivity, transparency, conflict of interest, and common good. The fourth and final part identifies privacy as a major challenge of ethical big data mining and postulates needed research directions. This chapter also features a list of additional reading and big data terms with concise definitions explicating their relevance to big data mining for socio-economic development.

Democratic Deliberations, Equality of Influence, and Pragmatism

1998 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 253-272
Author(s):  
Judith Baker
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Current Program ◽  
The Common ◽  
To Come ◽  
Ideal Framework ◽  
The Ideal

Democracy is committed to procedures of decision-making which express the values of both political equality and truth. One current program, that of strong or deliberative democracy, explicitly defends institutions which reflect the dual commitments to truth and equality. Like many other political theorists, however, deliberative democrats do not address the issue of a minority group which always loses the vote. The presumption is that free and equal deliberation by agents who think in terms of the common good is sufficient for political equality. I will argue, however, that the proposed deliberative procedures do not preclude persistent failure for a minority, and that this problem should lead us to acknowledge that power relations can underpin decision-making arrangements even within the ideal framework of deliberative democracy. Political equality and effective political equality seem to come apart.In order to come closer to the idea of effective political equality, this paper will look at the notion of equality of influence. It may seem tautological, and so redundant, to argue that political egalitarians and particularly deliberative democrats need to recognize equality of influence.

scholarly journals Partycypacja obywatelska w demokracji deliberacyjnej ku dobru wspólnemu

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-171
Author(s):  
Stanisław Leszek Stadniczeńko
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Interpersonal Relationships ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Civic Participation ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
The State ◽  
Communication Process ◽  
Dominant Type

The author draws attention to the consideration of the complexity of civil participation in deliberative democracy, indicating that the legislator assumed that dialogue is to be a way of existence, and thus the basis of any social situation in the state. State authorities appointed to serve the people and the common good have to ask citizens about their position in the case, not in order to obtain the desired response, thus emphasizing the departure from the monologue culture in favor of dialogue and communication with the public. The author claims that the normative foundations of the community state are linked by the conviction that public values and purposes are established in the communication process. In this approach, it is important to achieve public purposes and the quality of their achievement, its constructive features are: network, multi-level management, conciliation, participation. The basic mechanisms of action of this type of state are: deliberation, compromise and arrangements are made in the social networks – the dominant type of management of public affairs in this model is co-management. Solicitude of the state as a common good obliges not only a citizen, but means that a citizen has the right to expect that public authority will act so that the Republic of Poland can be considered a common good by citizens. Referring to literature, the author notes that deliberative democracy and its concept put more emphasis on the importance of conversation, discussion and debate on democratic practice than on the importance of voting. Its supporters argue that the debate improves the quality of collective decisions and increases the chances of their acceptance. Varieties of deliberative democracy range from accentuating local representation to reinforcing the debate within representative legislative bodies. The article points out the differences between discourse and deliberation. Moreover, the forms of civic participation and civic participation techniques used in Poland are presented. We have come to live in times when communication, both traditional and with the help of modern media, plays a significant role in shaping societies. It is important to understand the basic laws guiding communication, the ability to properly form interpersonal relationships, cognize the factors affecting the quality of messages transmitted, the technique of freedom of expression, the skill of persuasion and argumentation. The correct perception of the essence of dialogue in a deliberative democracy is its foundation, especially when it concerns institutions aimed at turning natural and legal persons to public decision-making process. Considering the literature, it was found that new participative solutions, primarily the ability to dialogue, could prevent a democratic deficit and also indicated that that civic participation impacts on the creation of deliberative democracy.

scholarly journals Contemporary Nigeria and the Deficit of Deliberative Democracy: Exploring the Indigenous Value of Àgbájọ ọwọ́ as Collegiality

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Ronald Olufemi Badru
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
The Political ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Democratic Practice ◽  
The Common

The paper advances three groups of interrelated claims. First, a fundamental deficit of democratic practice in contemporary Nigeria is that electoral choices/candidates are largely disconnected from the spirit of vibrant deliberation/consideration by the Nigerian demos. Second, candidates that emerge tend to be more parochially disposed to serving the interests of the political sponsors, rather than working towards the promotion of the common good. Third, to address the problem of the research, it is argued that well-meaning, democratically conscious Nigerians should practically embrace the indigenous value of àgbájọ ọwọ́as collegiality to resist electoral choices/candidates of the noted politically influential elites. As one of the socio-moral values of an ideal Yoruba persona, or ọmọlúwàbí, àgbájọ ọwọ́ underscores the critical point that the realty of the common good properly derives from a rational collaboration of the members of a political collectivity. Ultimately, this understanding of collegiality helps in the promotion of deliberative democracy and its benefits in Nigeria.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document