Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy

O'Flynn, Ian

doi:10.1017/s0007123407000397

Cited by 50 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Respect toward minority demands, for instance, is surely favored by specific institutional settings, but can hardly be prescribed by them. In the ongoing debate on the deliberative contours and related conflict-solving capacities of consociational institutions O'Flynn, 2007;O'Flynn, 2010), both our model and the results from the Swiss case indicate that classic consociationalism with its stress on actor willingness for successful cleavage management may not be as outdated as some have speculated (see, e.g. Horowitz, 2002).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Pedrini

Bächtiger

Steenbergen

2012

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions. We present a model of deliberative inclusion, focusing on reciprocity in the interaction between structural minorities/disadvantaged groups and majorities/privileged groups. Our model, however, comes with a 'friendly amendment': we have put the 'burden of reciprocity' mainly on majorities and privileged groups. It is mainly their obligation to seriously listen and respond to the demands and arguments of minorities and disadvantaged groups and show a willingness to respect and accommodate these interests. Empirically, we apply our model to the interaction of linguistic groups in the Swiss parliament. We find a highly egalitarian, sometimes even minority-favoring mode of interaction between the German-speaking majority and linguistic minorities. The German-speaking majority seems to be willing to take the 'burden of reciprocity' when linguistic minorities' vital interests are concerned. Conversely, linguistic minorities are slightly more self-referential and adversarial under such conditions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 65%

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Pedrini

Bächtiger

Steenbergen

2012

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deliberative democratic theory can enable us to rethink the relation between inclusion and moderation and, correspondingly, to reframe the debate over which kind of institutions are most appropriate for divided societies (O'Flynn 2007). From the theoretical literature, this paper stretches out the false sense of representation inherent in the usage of the word 'the people' with often 'bogus claims' that are advanced by the political elite on behalf of their constituency.…”

Section: Conceptual Thinking: Political Elite and Deliberative Democrmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The citizens' councils can also assist the state to drive development through co-designing policies and participation in regulatory frameworks to bench mark progress and to mitigate poverty and inequality in communities. Although, it is generally agreed that the best way to increase stability in divided societies is to create democratic institutions that enable conflicting groups to share power, there is much less agreement when it comes to deciding what those institutions should actually look like in practice (O'Flynn 2007).…”

Section: Devolving Down Governance and Filtering Citizen Concernsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimating Social Inequality: Political Elites, Ethnic Peddling and Dislocated Constituencies

Fonchingong

2016

ESJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political cronyism has been flagged up as a trigger for state dysfunction in post-independence Africa, resulting in escalating social inequality. This paper lays out elite (mostly elderly) dislocation of political space; polarizing communities with constituents feeling distant from governmental machinery with constituency representation under siege. Using case studies, backed up with documentary analysis, framed in conjunction with the conceptual thinking of deliberative democracy; this study engages with the elements of dislocation. Constituency misrepresentation is laid out through a triangulation of case study material drawn from newspaper reports, discourses and counter narratives, amplified by process tracing and inferential analysis. Elite manipulation of political spaces exacerbates social inequality, creates fractured communities; undermines democratic mandate, social advancement and broad citizen consensus. From media coverage of glib slogans, elite pledge generic support for the regime in place whilst constituents are giving false expectations that seldom materialize into concrete development. There are no clear-cut manifestos that reflect the voices of constituents against bogus claims to state institutions with the political elite purportedly speaking on behalf of their constituents -'the people'. The ensuing inertia creates a false sense of representative governance as projects promised are rarely delivered. Slogans should usefully channel the development needs of constituents, permitting government to calibrate a robust development portfolio and citizen assemblies factored into policy design and service delivery. Developing a stakeholder approach and building the capability of social development professionals, in order to filter through pressing concerns with measurable outcomes, bolstering youth employment and fostering social protection would remove the lock jams in constituencies. Strategic spending in public services and essential infrastructure such as health, roads, transport, water, power supply and education are crucial in reducing inequality.

show abstract

“…I have described elsewhere what a consociation might look like if one were to start normatively from either a liberal democratic or deliberative democratic perspective (e.g., O'Flynn 2003O'Flynn , 2007O'Flynn , 2010. Here, however, my aim is to offer a much more general, metatheoretical argument about the role of democratic theory in informing our thinking about democratic politics in deeply divided societies.…”

Section: From Theory To Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Democratic Theory and Practice in Deeply Divided Societies

O'Flynn¹

2010

Representation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy

Cited by 50 publications

References 8 publications

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Deliberative inclusion of minorities: patterns of reciprocity among linguistic groups in Switzerland

Legitimating Social Inequality: Political Elites, Ethnic Peddling and Dislocated Constituencies

Democratic Theory and Practice in Deeply Divided Societies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About