Search Results

< Back Public support for citizens' assemblies selected through sortition: Survey and experimental evidence from 15 countries Jean-Benoit Pilet (Universite libre de Bruxelles) and Damien Bol (King's College London) Tue 16 March 2021 8:00pm-9:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract As representative democracies are increasingly criticized, a new institution is becoming popular in academic circles and real-life politics: asking a group of citizens selected by lot to deliberate and formulate policy recommendations on some contentious issues. Although there is much research on the functioning of such citizens’ assemblies, there are only few about how the population perceives them. We explore the sources of citizens’ attitudes towards this institution using a unique representative survey from 15 European countries. We find that those who are less educated, as well as those with a low sense of political competence and an anti-elite sentiment, are more supportive of it. Support thus comes from the ‘enraged’, rather than the ‘engaged’. Further, we use a survey experiment to show that support for citizens’ assemblies increases when respondents know that their fellow citizens share the same opinion than them on some issues. About the speakers Jean-Benoit Pilet is professor of political science at Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB, Belgium). He is coordinating the project POLITICIZE. Non-elected politics. Cure or Curse for Representative Democracy? (ERC Consolidator Grant). Within this project, he has worked on public support for deliberative and direct democracy, as well as on technocratic attitudes. He has recently published two articles (with Camille Bedock) on public support for sortition in France and in Belgium: Enraged, engaged, or both? A study of the determinants of support for consultative vs. binding mini-publics (Representation, 2020) and Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens (Government & Opposition, 2020). Damien Bol is an Associate Professor and Director of the Quantitative Political Economy Research Group in King’s College London. His research lies at the intersection of comparative politics, political behavior, and political economy with a focus on elections. He tries to understand people's experience of representative democracy across countries and political systems. Previous Next

< Back CENTRE MEETS CENTRE: PARTICIPEDIA AND CDDGG WITH BONNY IBHAWOH Participedia is a global network working on public participation and democratic innovations. About this event Participedia is a global network of researchers, educators, practitioners, and policymakers working on public participation and democratic innovations. The network communicates knowledge of democratic innovations to defend, expand and deepen civic inclusion and democratic governance. It comprises 63 researchers from 22 universities and 21 organizations across 16 countries. Participedia.net has documented over 3,000 cases, methods and organizations on public participation and democratic innovation in 137 countries. Bonny Ibhawoh (M.A. Ibadan; Ph.D Dalhousie) teaches Global Human Rights History and African History in the Department of History and the Centre for Peace Studies. He also teaches in the McMaster Arts & Science Program and the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. He is the Director of the McMaster Centre for Human Rights and Restorative Justice. He is the Project Director of Participedia and the Confronting Atrocity Project. He has taught in universities in Africa, Europe and North America. Previously, he was professor at Brock University, Canada; professor in the Department of Political Science at University of North Carolina at Asheville; Human Rights Fellow at the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs, New York; Research Fellow at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Copenhagen and Associate Member of the Centre for African Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. He was Visiting Professor of Human Rights at The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice, University of Texas at Austin. He has also taught at Ambrose Alli University, Covenant University, and the University of Lagos. Dr Ibhawoh currently chairs the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development. His research interests are global human rights, peace/conflict studies, legal and imperial history. His articles on these themes have appeared in historical and interdisciplinary journals – Human Rights Quarterly, Journal of Human Rights Practice, The Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, the Journal of Global History, and Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology (Journal of the American Psychological Association). He is the author of Human Rights in Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2018); Imperial Justice (Oxford University Press, 2013) and Imperialism and Human Rights (SUNY Press, 2007) [named Choice Outstanding Academic Title]. Dr. Ibhawoh is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, a recipient of the McMaster Student Union Teaching Award and the Nelson Mandela Distinguished Africanist Award. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Jensen Sass Postdoctoral Research Fellow About Jensen works at the intersection of normative political theory and the empirical study of corporations, technology, and the public sphere. He is also interested in corporate power and democratic politics, in particular the regulation of new technologies that promise to transform previously settled norms and institutions.

< Back Research report: Towards a coherent energy transition: expanding renewable energy and reducing inequalities in Australia Investigator(s): Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye In this report, Jonathan Pickering and Pierrick Chalaye explore the synergies and tensions between the expansion of renewable energy and efforts to reduce inequalities in Australia . Read and download the report here: Energy transition report (Dec 2023)

< Back Ferdinand Sanchez Research Assistant About Ferdinand Sanchez II is a research assistant at the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra. He recently completed his bachelor's degree in Sociology at the University of the Philippines Diliman in 2022.

< Back Duterte Reader: Critical Essays on Rodrigo Duterte’s Early Presidency. Nicole Curato 2017 , Ithaca: Cornell University Press/Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ​ Summary Read more Previous Next

< Back Moral Disagreements: Philosophical and Practical Implications Investigator(s): Richard Rowland, Selen Ercan, David Killoren, and Lucy J Parry Funded by the Australian Catholic University, Project Team includes: Richard Rowland Selen Ercan David Killoren Lucy J Parry Project Description Widespread disagreement about moral issues is a salient feature of moral thought and discourse in contemporary pluralistic societies. This project explores the metaphysical, epistemological, and practical implications of moral disagreement and whether deep and fundamental moral disagreements can be overcome. The project involves the world’s first deliberative poll on a fundamental moral issue. In deliberative polls a large number – at least 200 – people with different views on political and policy issues come together to deliberate about a particular policy issue (such as, for instance, whether we should focus on responses to crime other than imprisonment). Participants are given information about the issue in question that has been rigorously vetted to ensure its neutrality. They deliberate with one another in small and larger groups about the issue in question for 1-2 days. Before the deliberation participants are anonymously polled about the issue that they will subsequently deliberate about. They are then anonymously polled again after the deliberation. Over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted on different policy issues in 24 different countries. And significantly more convergence in the relevant views of participants has been found after the two days of deliberation than before the two days of deliberation. Although over 70 deliberative polls have been conducted there has yet to be one on fundamental moral issues; all the polls thus far have concerned issues of policy and the probable consequences of various policies rather than the moral desirability, or rightness or wrongness of particular outcomes. In collaboration with members of Stanford University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Canberra University’s Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance this project will conduct the first deliberative polls on fundamental moral issues. These polls will shed light on whether deliberation can help to overcome deep moral disagreement.

< Back George Vasilev Associate About George Vasilev's research explores the application of deliberative democracy in the fields of conflict resolution, multiculturalism and transnational activism. He also does work on Balkan politics and Europeanisation. He is author of the book Solidarity across Divides: Promoting the Moral Point of View (Edinburgh University Press, 2015).

< Back Systemic representation: The democratic legitimacy of self-appointed representatives Jonathan Kuyper, Stockholm University Tue 15 July 2014 11:00am – 12:00pm Fishbowl, Building 24, University of Canberra Abstract Deliberative democracy has taken a systemic turn. Underlying this research agenda is the core idea that democratic deliberation is, and should be, dispersed throughout an interconnected system. Because no single institution can perfectly uphold deliberative ideals, we should take a holistic view and seek to understand how a variety of sites operate in conjunction with one another. In this article I probe how different types of representatives fit within a deliberative system. The core argument is that representatives can act democratically in very different ways depending upon their role within a wider system. I employ this argument to evaluate the democratic legitimacy of 'self-appointed representatives’. Drawing upon Dryzek's notion of deliberative capacity, I argue that self-appointed representatives should be assessed by whether they have a role in the empowered space within a system or rather act as part of the transmission belt from the public space. About the speaker Jonathan Kuyper is a postdoctoral researcher at Stockholm University working on the Transaccess research project (headed by Professor Jonas Tallberg). He completed his PhD at the Australian National University in 2012, during which time he was a visiting student at the European University Institute and Princeton University. His work has been published or is forthcoming in Global Constitutionalism, Journal of Public Deliberation, European Journal of International Relations, Ethics and Global Politics and other outlets. Previous Next

< Back Marina Lindell Associate About Marina Lindell's research has focused on citizen deliberation, opinion formation, minorities, political participation, democratic innovations, inter-temporal choices and long-term decision-making, and the role of personality in deliberation. She is a Research Fellow at the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University.

< Back DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND ISSUE POLARISATION: CITIZENS' DEBATES ON ABORTION, RACIAL QUOTAS AND SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN BRAZIL FROM 2021-2019 The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades. About this event Digital platforms have become the main mediators of public debate: it is where citizens, social movements, activists, journalists, experts and political representatives discuss topics of common interest. The relationship between digital platforms and political polarisation has gained priority attention from scholars in the last two decades, but the empirical evidence is complex and ambiguous: while some research shows, for example, how specific characteristics of digital platforms lead to fragmentation of the public, other research shows that the use of platforms actually helps people to have contact and dialogue with diverse opinions. This is an important topic in Brazil today because in the last decade we began (returned?) to face a specific type of polarisation: one in which divergent groups face an absence of common ground and they see each other as deep-seated enemies. Two events mark this process: the huge protests of June 2013 (where protesters were located in different parts of the political spectrum), and the election of Jair Bolsonaro in 2018 (where we saw the prominence of conservative groups, which were away from the public scene since the Military Dictatorship). Bolsonaro explicitly opposes dialogue between different positions, saying, for example, that "minorities must bow to the majority". In this presentation, I show how abortion, racial quotas and homosexual marriage were discussed by citizens on Facebook from 2012 to 2019. These are typically controversial topics, and they play a leading role in disputes between progressives and conservatives in Brazilian political conflicts over the last decade. Tariq Choucair is a PhD candidate in the Communication Graduation Program at the Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil). Tariq studies reciprocity and polarisation in online debates on controversial issues. He has been a member of the Media and Public Sphere Research Group for 9 years, working with the group on research projects such as “Deliberative System and Social Conflicts” and “The potential of deliberation in divided societies”. Tariq's work is published in Political Studies, Political Research Exchange and E-COMPOS. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Arguing for deliberation without ultimate justification: Why we should decide to be deliberative democrats Dannica Fleuss, Helmut-Schmidt University Tue 14 August 2018 11:00am - 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract A starting point of post-structuralist political theory is the assumption that all social and political norms are contingent. From this angle, Oliver Marchart (2007, 2015) challenges „foundationalist“ deliberative theory for attempting to give an ultimate justification for political norms. This seminar explores ways to respond to this challenge from the perspective of deliberative democracy: Accepting the claim that all social and political norms are contingent does not necessitate rejecting deliberative theory. Rather, contemporary deliberative theory can provide a valid theoretical perspective even though it is unable to give an ultimate justification for its own principles. Instead of providing a “foundational” justification for deliberative theory’s basic premises, I suggest that deliberative theorists should decide to accept them and discuss ways to demonstrate the value of this decision. About the speaker Dannica is a visiting research scholar at the Centre for Deliberative and Democracy and Global Governance. She completed her PhD on proceduralist democratic theory at the University of Heidelberg in 2016. Currently, she works as a Postdoctoral Researcher at Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. In her postdoctoral project she is doing research on democratic theory and the measurement of democratic deliberation at the macro level by applying a systemic framework. Dannica's research interests include the systemic approach to deliberation, measurements of democratic performance, political cultural studies and the theoretical debate between deliberative democratic theory and poststructuralist approaches. Previous Next

< Back Why am I engaged? Walden Bello, State University of New York in Binghamton Tue 26 November 2019 11:00am – 12:00pm The Dryzek Room, Building 22, University of Canberra Abstract Reflecting on his trajectory as an academic and an activist, the speaker will trace his personal evolution as an activist/academic, focusing on the key junctures in this process, and discuss the tension between theory and action, the relationship between methodology and the process of uncovering the real dynamics of power, and the often tragic Orwellian tension between being an intellectual and being a member of a political organization. About the speaker Walden Bello is a Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York in Binghamton. He is the author of more than 20 books including Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy, Capitalism's Last Stand: Deglobalization in the Age of Austerity, and, most recently, Counterrevolutions: The Global Rise of the Far Right and Paper Dragons: China and the Next Crash. The International Studies Association named him the Most Outstanding Public Scholar in 2008. Previous Next

< Back NATIVE TITLE AS A DELIBERATIVE SPACE FOR INDIGENOUS SELF-DETERMINATION About this event In 1992, the High Court of Australia delivered its historic Mabo v Queensland (No 2) decision, declaring Australian law could now recognise the pre-colonial rights (‘native title’) of Indigenous people to their traditional lands under their own laws. However, under Australian settler-colonial law, native title is constructed as a domestic property right and not as a set of political, cultural or sovereign rights’. Consequently, Indigenous peoples claims to self-determination has attained a prominent place in contemporary political and public debates on Indigenous-state relations in Australia. With Australia continuing to reject Indigenous self-determination, Aboriginal people must engage pragmatically and innovatively with state policies and institutions. In this presentation McCaul discusses examples of democratic innovation within Australia’s native title system as practiced by Aboriginal people focusing on comprehensive settlement agreements between Indigenous groups and the state; participatory governance in relation to the environmental management of Indigenous lands; and efforts to re-build Indigenous nationhood and traditional institutions of governance. McCaul argues native title has created space for public deliberation on self-determination and efforts to decolonise relations, governance, and policymaking between Indigenous polities and the settler colonial state. Justin McCaul is a descendent of the Mbarbarum Traditional Owners of far north Queensland. He joined ANU College of Law as an Associate Lecturer/PhD Candidate in February 2019. He has many years of experience working in native title and Indigenous policy in Australia for several non-government organisations including Oxfam Australia. He also worked in Cambodia on rural development and biodiversity conservation projects with Indigenous groups in northeast Cambodia. Before joining ANU he worked at the National Native Title Council researching the challenges Indigenous organisations face utilising their native title rights. His PhD uses deliberative democracy theory to discuss how Indigenous groups use their native title rights to assert self-determination claims and engage in public policy. Seminar series convenors Hans Asenbaum and Sahana Sehgal . Please register via Eventbrite . Previous Next

< Back Ricardo Mendonca Associate About Ricardo Mendonça studies democratic theory, contentious politics and political communication and is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, Federal University of Minas Gerais.

< Back Great Barrier Reef Futures Citizens’ Jury Investigator(s): Claudia Benham, Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman Funded through James Cook University, the Project Team includes: Claudia Benham Simon Niemeyer Hannah Barrowman Project Description Simon Niemeyer and Hannah Barrowman are collaborating with Claudia Benham (James Cook University) in a project trialling deliberative engagement on the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The three-day Citizens’ Jury examines issues of reef management and regional economic development in the context of climate change.

< Back Representing the disadvantaged? Conceptions of representation in a citizens' jury in Switzerland Alexander Geisler, University of Geneva Tue 18 February 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Crackenback, NSW Abstract While referendums and initiatives are part and parcel of Swiss direct democracy, democratic innovations based on random selection remain underexplored. One such example are Citizens’ Juries assessing popular votes and informing fellow voters via a summary statement, as in the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR). Fishkin (2018, 2013) has suggested that citizens bring mostly their own interests to the table in larger types of such deliberative gatherings. Challenging this finding, evidence collected from a Swiss pilot CIR in the municipality of Sion involving twenty randomly selected voters’ points to more complex perceptions of whom panelists perceive to represent. The participants reported that they had also represented disadvantaged groups inside and outside their political jurisdiction when discussing an upcoming popular initiative on affordable housing. This suggests that conceptions of representation on part of the panelists in a minipublic and particularly in the CIR may be more complex than previously assumed. Crucially, panelists taking stances of other groups may affect existing shortcomings of inclusion and representation occurring in minipublics of small size. About the speaker Since November 2018, Alexander worked as a PhD candidate at the University of Geneva in the project “A non-populist theory of direct democracy”, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under supervision of Professor Nenad Stojanovic. The project involves conducting two CIR-like mini-public pilots in Switzerland. He earned his Master of Arts in Empirical Political and Social Research (2018) at the University of Stuttgart. After graduation, he worked at the Institute of Social Sciences at the University of Stuttgart as a research and teaching assistant. During this period, he was involved in two projects: creating a database to track participatory processes in the municipalities of South-West Germany and managing an online network of universities that engage in research on civic participation. His research interests are in the fields of deliberative democracy, political behaviour, the theory and practice of democratic innovations, and social cognition. Previous Next

< Back Deliberation and media policy studies: Towards a deliberative policy ecology approach Preeti Raghunath, The Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India Tue 20 October 2020 11:00am - 12:00pm Virtual seminar Abstract The study of deliberative democracy has received great impetus in Political Science and associated fields of Political Philosophy and Environmental Policy Studies. My engagement with literature on deliberative democracy comes from my grounding in Critical Media Policy Studies and Habermasian thought. Drawing on theoretical literature and empirical ethnographic fieldwork conducted in four countries of South Asia, and through the use of Grounded Theory, I present the building of the Deliberative Policy Ecology (DPE) Approach to the study of media policies and policymaking in South Asia. About the speaker Preeti Raghunath is an Assistant Professor at the Symbiosis Institute of Media and Communication (SIMC), Pune, India. Her research and praxis are in the realm of critical media policy studies in South Asia. She is particularly interested in pushing the epistemological contours of the area from the Global South. She is the author of 'Community Radio Policies in South Asia: A Deliberative Policy Ecology Approach', published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2020. She serves as a Vice-Chair of the Global Media Policy Working Group of the International Association of Media and Communication Research (IAMCR). Previous Next