CM21-interrogating audiences special issue

Theory and Society, 2002

What qualities should the public sphere have to nurture and sustain a vigorous democratic public life? 1 More speci¢cally, who should be participating and on what occasions? What should be the form and content of their contributions to public discourse? How should the actors communicate with each other? What are the desirable outcomes if the process is working as it should? These are normative questions that have been important issues in political theory for many years. Classical theorists such as Rousseau, Locke, and Mill provide certain broad parameters in which answers can be sought; contemporary political theory develops the answers in more detail. There is a close link between theories of the public sphere and democratic theory more generally. Democratic theory focuses on accountability and responsiveness in the decision-making process; theories of the public sphere focus on the role of public communication in facilitating or hindering this process.

2007

Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

2007

At the core of democratic theory is a commitment to a system of governing that values and makes possible the participation of all citizens in matters that concern them. However, as the title of one article suggests, “Democracy: Optimal Illusions and Grim Realities” (Mueller 1999), while the goal may be clear, how to achieve this in practice has consistently proven to be more elusive and fraught with difficulties. A quick survey of the different contexts in which democracy is being hailed as the ideal form of government, where talk abounds about the importance of returning voice and power to the people, it is curious to note that in the inner workings of these “democratic” systems of governance and decision-making, the public of ordinary citizens or “we the people” to a large extent continue to remain absent and invisible. A critical look at current initiatives to develop and strengthen democratic culture and systems of governance suggest a significant gap between the “espoused theories” that articulate a clear need and commitment to promote and develop civic engagement and the “theories-in-use” (Argyris 1999) that become manifest in practices that often continue to marginalize and render invisible the public . In the first part of this paper I will illustrate one way in which well-intentioned efforts to become more inclusive in democratic practice can end up sustaining a system in which the people served continue to feel excluded, alienated and disengaged. In the second section, I discuss the concepts and practices of dialogue and deliberation as mechanisms which allow ordinary citizens to exercise their power and regain a sense of agency in matters that concern them. Finally, in the third section, I address some important theoretical and practical issues with which proponents of deliberation must continue to wrestle as the search for innovative ways of developing and strengthening democratic practice continue.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW-WASHINGTON …, 2006

Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance 7The multifaceted challenges of contemporary governance demand a complex account of the ways in which those who are subject to laws and policies should participate in making them. ?his article develops a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation. Mechanisms ofparticipation vary along three important dimensions: who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. These three dimensions constitute a space in which any particular mechanism of participation can be located. Different regions of this institutional design space are more and less suited to addressing important problems of democratic governance such as legitimacy, justice, and effective administration. How much and what kind of direct public participation should there be in contemporary democracy? The multiplex conditions of modern governance demand a theory and institutions of public participation that are appropriately complex in at least three ways. First, unlike the small New England town or even the Athenian city-state, there is no canonical form of direct participation in modern democratic governance; modes of contemporary participation are, and should be, legion. Second, public participation advances multiple purposes and values in contemporary governance. Master principles such as equal influence over collective decisions and respect for individual autonomy are too abstract to offer useful guidance regarding the aims and character of citizen participation. It is more fruitful to examine the

Social Science Computer Review

Equality within groups is ordinarily taken for granted when technology for e-democracy is conceived and developed. However, inequality in online communication is just as common as in other social contexts. Therefore, we have developed a groupware with the express purpose of illuminating imbalance of power. Inequalities are measured and made visible to users of the system, and they change dynamically as actions are taken by users. The system is based on democratic meeting techniques and is reminiscent of a strategy game based on social media. Each participant's score within the game is dynamically calculated and reflects that user's activity, others' reactions to that activity and reactions to others' activities. The calculations and weighing mechanisms are open to inspection and change by the users, and hierarchical roles reflecting game levels may be attached to system rights belonging to individual users and user groups. The prototype we present stems from the question of how to conceive of groupware based on diversity and is the result of combining social theory with algorithms for modelling and visualising user hierarchy and status. Empirical user tests suggest improvements to the prototype's interface, which will be implemented and further evaluated by embedding the algorithms in a system for eparticipation.

Paper prepared for delivery at the Joint Sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research Workshop “Professionalization and Individualized Collective Action: Analyzing New ‘Participatory’ Dimensions in Civil Society”, 2009

Public Sphere Reconsidered: Theories and Practices, 2011