Political Theory

H03 - Deliberation: Prospects

Date: May 30 | Time: 10:30am to 12:00pm | Location: Classroom - CL 410 Room ID:15706

Chair/Président/Présidente : Hailey Murphy (York University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Darielle Talarico (University of British Columbia)

Can Deliberation Strengthen Multiculturalism?: Afsoun Afsahi (Goethe Universität & Freie Universität Berlin)
Abstract: Inevitable pluralism is a source of conflict in many liberal multicultural societies requiring normatively more positive, inclusive, and dialogical approaches for learning how to live together in face of deep diversity. This need has been a driving force behind an enthusiastic deliberative turn in multiculturalism which sees deliberative democracy as a helpful lens for studying, promoting, and fulfilling the promises of multiculturalism. However, this enthusiasm is not shared universally. Skeptics argue that the contentious nature of the topic and the diversity of the participants can undermine the process of deliberation and fail to deliver the normatively desirable outcomes associated with deliberation. I disagree with contention. I argue, instead, that deliberative engagements have the capacity to respond to the main democratic deficit in multicultural democracies: shortage of cross-cultural and religious dialogue; and by doing so, deliver on the main goals of deliberation. I will illustrate this theoretical claim by using original data, in the form of pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires, from an empirical case study of a deliberative democratic engagement on the topic of allowing religious arbitration in British Columbia. This case will be contrasted with the failure of the “Sharia law debate” in Ontario which also dealt with the issue of religious arbitration.

The Democratic Potential of Discursive Practices: Edana Beauvais (McGill University)
Abstract: Increasingly, deliberative democracy scholars are adopting a “deliberative systems” approach, judging all political practices by how they achieve the normative aims of deliberation. However, deliberative systems approaches suffer drawbacks: extending the concept of “deliberation” to include any practice risks concept-stretching, contributing to confusion in empirical applications of deliberative theory. The way forward is to keep the systems-level thinking but return to a broader interest in democratic theory. My paper shows how a problem-based approach to democratic theory is productively applied to the study of discursive practices in democratic systems. I propose a typology for distinguishing three ideal-type discursive practices – deliberation, political communication, and profane communication – and I identify their separate contributions to democratic systems. The normative importance of deliberation lies in the well-theorized relationship between reciprocal reason-giving about collective issues and the goods of justice and democratic legitimacy. The normative importance of other discursive practices – political communication and profane talk – are undertheorized in democratic theory. Addressing this gap, I explain how political communication, or communication oriented to collective issues not characterized by reciprocal reason-giving, is an important practice for mobilizing partisans or calling people to arms. In political systems where asymmetrical power relations block deliberation, non-deliberative political communication – shouting slogans and making statements – can incentivize inclusions. Profane communication, or communication oriented to private concerns, is essential for achieving moral inclusion and supporting the illocutionary aspects of discursive conflict resolution.

Deliberative Systems and the Obligation to Engage: Anna Drake (University of Waterloo)
Abstract: In recent years, deliberative democrats extended participation to activists through inclusion in a broader “deliberative system.” The aim of these “non-deliberative” components—embracing messier, democratic values rather than (more restrictive) deliberative norms—is to improve the overall health of a deliberative system by paying greater attention to its “messier” democratic components. As the overall deliberative health is a product of the deliberative system’s components it is important to examine how the process, and evaluation of deliberative success, unfolds. Here, deliberative systems run into problems arising from power asymmetries as traditionally deliberative and decision-making components ultimately draw from other (non-deliberative) components in order to improve deliberative outcomes and the system’s capacity for inclusion. The problem with this approach lies in the erasure of active deliberation; as deliberative democrats think about the contributions of messier, sometimes “unreasonable” democratic components we sustain the power asymmetries deliberative democracy (in principle) tries to eliminate. As I examine this problem and set out the expectations for component interaction I ask whether there is an obligation for deliberants and decision-makers to engage—in a sustained and substantive way—with these messier democratic components (rather than looking to them for input) and, if not, how we might build this into the system. I also examine whether the deliberative system’s inclusion framework can discharge this obligation and argue it cannot. I then look to ways the deliberative system can engage with activists beyond the system in order to challenge these power asymmetries.