Political Theory

H05 - Deliberation: Challenges

Date: May 30 | Time: 01:30pm to 03:00pm | Location: Classroom - CL 410 Room ID:15706

Chair/Président/Présidente : Edana Beauvais (McGill University)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Afsoun Afsahi (Goethe Universität & Freie Universität Berlin)

Demagoguery and Democracy: Anti-Intellectualism in the Rise of the Masses: Hailey Murphy (York University)
Abstract: This paper explores the trend of anti-intellectualism and anti-expert sentiment as a strategic tool used to persuade voters to reject the views of experts and academics. It presents a philosophical inquiry using Plato’s Gorgias and Aristotle’s Rhetoric to describe the methods used by certain political figures to persuade people, often times, to act against their own interests. Within these texts questions regarding the skill of rhetoric, its uses, aims and moral character provide a clear warning to be critical and suspect of rhetoricians and sophists. Through an analysis of Gorgias and The Rhetoric one can easily see the parallels between Plato and Aristotle’s arguments and the events prior to the UK referendum on the EU and the presidency of Donald Trump. Political leaders in the UK and US paved the path to populism with their strong use of anti-intellectual and anti-expert rhetoric. Ceremonial rhetoric asks citizens to reject the claims of experts asserting that expert knowledge is overrated and that a shift of power is necessary to expel out of touch intellectuals from the political realm. While such claims may contain kernels of validity when discussed and investigated – this was never the intention of this political strategy. Instead, this paper argues that rhetoric used by the Leave campaign in the UK and President Trump are clear instance of demagoguery wherein the ethos of democracy was used against itself to have citizens feel empowered by their vote yet be further marginalized as a result.

Deliberative Democracy's Epistemic Gap Problem: Darielle Talarico (University of British Columbia)
Abstract: Deliberative influences have manifested themselves throughout public governance potentially creating an epistemic gap between those that are involved and those that are not. This gap may even be contributing to a rise in populism where some participation methods are seen as an elitist undertaking. In a digital age not only is it becoming expected but it is also an opportunity to engage mass participation in public policy issues. The challenge is how to facilitate mass participation to deliberative standards where the weighing of perspectives is systematic and respectful so that epistemic transformation is an equal opportunity. To address this deliberative democracy problem, I review citizen forums that have resulted in a referendum. In the case of the 2004 British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform deliberations led to recommendations put to referendums that failed twice. Interestingly, almost ten years later another electoral reform referendum is scheduled for British Columbia. This presents a new opportunity to find a deliberative method to engage the majority of British Columbians on the electoral system’s pros and cons prior to voting. Towards this end, I review the possible platforms that might allow for mass digital deliberative participation and assess their potential to meet the procedural requirements arising from both empirical and normative deliberative democracy theory.

Measuring the Inclusiveness of Deliberation: An Addition to the Discourse Quality Index: Patricia Mockler (Queen's University)
Abstract: Empirical measures of deliberation are beneficial for assessing the extent to which real cases of deliberation approximate the ideals found in deliberative theory; this is particularly important in light of the growth of democratic innovations guided by the principles of deliberative democracy. The most well-known empirical measure of deliberation is Steiner et al’s 2004 Discourse Quality Index (DQI) which provides guidance for classifying the quality of speeches by participants in deliberation or debate. While of significant merit, the DQI is silent about the inclusion of a diverse group in deliberative exercises. This raises questions about the power dynamics at play in deliberation and their implications for the inclusiveness of deliberation (Sanders 1997, Young 2000, Bohman 1996). These are not accounted for in existing empirical measures of deliberation. This paper addresses some of the limitations of existing measures of deliberative quality. It introduces an addition to the Discourse Quality Index, which I have called ‘deliberative uptake,’ that allows for an empirical measure of the extent to which participants are “granted hearing” for their ideas in a deliberative setting (Bohman 1996). This addition will contribute to assessments of the inclusiveness of a deliberative exercise, thus addressing significant normative concerns from deliberative theory and allowing for a comparison between deliberative settings. In this paper, I outline the basics of the addition to the DQI and provide a brief example of its use, describing its application to Ireland’s Convention on the Constitution.