Building bridges across political divides: experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium

Abstract

In recent years, deliberative democracy has moved from a philosophical ideal into an empirical theory with numerous experiments testing the theoretical assumptions. Despite the wealth of evidence on the potential for deliberation, scholars have remained hesitant to test the theoretical premises under rather more adverse circumstances. This article, in contrast, tries to push deliberative scholarship to its edge by focusing on the viability of citizen deliberation in deeply divided societies. Our research questions are whether contact between citizens of competing segments undermines the potential for deliberation, and under which institutional conditions this is so. Based on a deliberative experiment in Belgium, in which we varied the group composition and the decision-making rule, we argue that decision rules are strong predictors of deliberative quality, but more importantly that the confrontation between citizens from both sides of the divide does not undermine the quality of deliberation. On the contrary even, our results indicate that the quality of intergroup deliberation is higher than that of intragroup deliberation, no matter what the rule.

Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project

“…Crucial determinants of the quality of participation are therefore the style of moderation (active involvement of the moderator can increase equal participation), the setting (hot deliberative settings are more confrontational than cold ones and therefore scare more people off), the size of the groups (large and diverse groups are more difficult to manage and have exclusionary tendencies) and other inhibiting factors such as the use of multiple languages (Caluwaerts and Deschouwer, 2013;Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, 2014).…”

Constructing democratic participation in welfare transitions: An analysis of narrative interactions

“…In their analysis, the so‐called do‐democracy is rather a disguise for top‐down management of responsibilities in care. In addition to do‐democracy, welfare reforms were accompanied by experiments with ‘deliberative democracy’, in which random or focused selections of citizens are invited to deliberate about public issues . Scholars like Fraser and Polletta, however, point out that the specific types of discourse in deliberative democracy may also exclude the experiences and perspectives of people in marginal positions who have other ways of expressing themselves and have difficulties convincing other ‘deliberators’ .…”

“…Other experiments with democratic renewal during welfare reforms worked with deliberative forms of democracy. In ‘citizen summits’ or ‘mini publics’, citizens were selected based on random or purposeful selection and invited to deliberate about public issues . In well‐organized conversational settings supporting respect and listening, citizens deliberate and may form and alter their opinions without the pressures of the media and electorate faced by elected representatives.…”

Beyond linguistic and party homogeneity

“…This is the so-called 'contact hypothesis' in ethnic relations: 'intergroup contact tends to produce better intergroup attitudes and relations' (Amir, 1969: 319). Political psychologists have furthermore demonstrated that moderation appears on high stake issues through a better inclusion of arguments and views in heterogeneous rather than in homogeneous groups (Caluwaerts and Deschouwer, 2014;Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, 2014b). In the former case, individuals are more open and respectful towards other's views.…”