Turning up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation

Abstract

Two forum types have featured prominently in deliberative practice: (1) forums involving partisans (such as key ‘stakeholders’) and (2) forums involving non‐partisans (such as ‘lay citizens’). Drawing on deliberative theory and cases from Germany, we explore the relative merits of these forum types in terms of deliberative capacity, legitimacy and political impact. The two types offer deliberative governance something different. Non‐partisan forums such as citizens' juries or consensus conferences rate favorably in deliberative capacity, but can fall short when it comes to external legitimacy and policy impact. Contrary to expectations, partisan forums can also encounter substantial legitimation and impact problems. How can designed forums contribute to deliberative democratization, given that partisanship is an inevitable fact of politics? We offer some suggestions about how deliberative theory and practice might better accommodate the reality of partisanship, while securing benefits revealed in non‐partisan forums.

G1000: ervaringen met burgertoppen

“…En, omdat ieder individu een gelijke stem heeft en over de mogelijkheid beschikt om de anderen te overtuigen, geeft dat de kans aan minderheden en aan individuen om zich te laten horen. Daar komt bij dat theoretici van de deliberatieve school ervan overtuigd zijn dat deliberatie bijdraagt aan de legitimiteit van beslissingen (Hendriks et al, 2007).…”

Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers

“…Given the importance of input from diverse stakeholders, both in informing analysis of technology in context and in assessing values and concerns, participation is critically important. Participation should be characterised by: (a) inclusiveness of as many relevant voices as possible, including marginalised ones; (b) deliberation through dialogue involving reasoning and openness to opinion change (Rosenberg 2007;Hendriks et al 2007); (c) engagement of participants through provision of adequate information, skills and opportunities to contribute; and (d) transparency of the process and how participants influenced the outcomes (Rowe and Frewer 2000). Participation processes with these features give the assessment legitimacy, 2 that is, the participants accept the process and its outcomes.…”

Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: Mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures

“…Some writers (e.g. Hendriks et al, 2007) underline the importance of deliberative processes being open and diverse and do not put as much attention to the outcome. Understanding the importance of legitimacy we see the process as crucial, but aiming for goals such as minimized climate change both the content and the impact of the output is also critical.…”

“…However, even though scenario generating is often creative processes with a range of participants demanding change, trust are built and ideas exchanged, these processes are seldom analyzed as deliberative processes. Deliberation takes places in communicative processes where participants with 1) diverse opinions, 2) but open to preference shifts, 3) are seen as equal (see Hendriks et al 2007). Process values as learning and mutual understanding are created in addition to outputs such as policies.…”