Can the claim to foster broad participation hinder deliberation?

Mendonça, Ricardo Fabrino; Cunha, Eleonora Schettini Martins

doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.843468

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The Minas Gerais State Legislature (Brazil) implemented several participatory institutions since the 1990s. One of these institutions is the Legislative Seminar, involving several meetings throughout the state, before a final meeting where proposals were actually discussed and voted (Mendonça and Cunha 2014). In this final meeting, wealthier institutions and institutions from the capital city were often over-represented, and this affected the decisions taken.…”

Section: The Systemic Turn On Deliberative Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating systemic dangers: the role of connectivity inducers in a deliberative system

Mendonça

2016

Critical Policy Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Systemic Turn On Deliberative Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating systemic dangers: the role of connectivity inducers in a deliberative system

Mendonça

2016

Critical Policy Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some favor participation of as many stakeholders as possible, while others advocate in-depth deliberation for and against suggested courses of action before reaching a decision. Following others, I will label these two approaches: participatory and deliberative, respectively (Chambers, 2009;Floridia, 2017;Mendonça & Cunha, 2014;Mutz, 2006).…”

Section: Deliberation and Participation In Online Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarization of Deliberative and Participatory Activists on Social Media

Lev‐On

2022

MaC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article demonstrates how social media activism polarizes and clusters into distinct deliberative and participatory arenas, using the case study of online activism for justice for Roman Zadorov in Israel. Zadorov was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Still, an overwhelming majority of Israelis think he is innocent, with the social media obstruction-of-justice campaign in his support having raised overwhelming exposure and engagement. Theorists distinguish between participatory and deliberative public processes. Supporters of participatory processes advocate for the participation of multiple stakeholders in addressing public concerns. Supporters of deliberative processes advocate for a thorough evaluation of arguments for and against any course of action before decision-making. This study demonstrates how people congregate online and polarize into deliberative and participatory clusters. The “deliberative” cluster is characteristic of groups led by admins who advocate reaching the truth through exposing relevant information and conducting fact-based deliberation. The “participatory” cluster is characteristic of groups led by admins who believe that their activities should aim exclusively at generating more attention and engagement with the general public.

show abstract

“…If the systemic approach makes deliberative democracy more practical and easier to achieve (through the division of labour between parts; the acceptance that all the norms of deliberative democracy will not be enacted in one place; the contention that some parts do not need to embody any elements of deliberation; the suggestion that processes that are detrimental to deliberative quality can still be essential features of the system, and the overall loosening of the criteria of what counts as deliberation) it is also important to keep in mind that deliberative democracy is a regulative ideal (Ercan and Dryzek 2015). It should, hence, be employed to critique practice, as Mendonça and Cunha (2014) have claimed.…”

Section: The Systemic Turn and The Fourth Generation Of Deliberative Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%