Deliberative mini-publics: institutional design and the quality of democracy

Publication Type:
Thesis
Issue Date:
2023
Full metadata record
Scholars, advocates and practitioners often assess democratic innovations in terms of how well they achieve the goals of the theory or model of democracy from which they arise – for example, deliberative democracy, direct democracy, and participatory democracy – rather than in terms of the innovation’s contribution to the system of democracy. This thesis goes beyond evaluating adherence to a specific normative democratic model, with the objective of determining whether deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) can improve the quality of democracy and address democratic deficits. This objective is addressed by establishing an analytical framework combining democratic functions and institutionalism. The democratic functions evaluated in this research are inclusion, collective agenda-setting, collective will-formation, collective decision-making, and accountability, which are operationalised to guide the assessment of deliberative mini-publics. The institutional lens allows consideration of the design of DMPs beyond simply 'practices' and uses the concept of institutional modes of constraint (rules, practices, and narratives). These two theoretical lenses are combined to address the following research questions: 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative mini-publics in fulfilling democratic functions? 2. What aspects of the institutional design of deliberative mini-publics contribute to these strengths and weaknesses? 3. What role do decision-makers and designers of deliberative processes play in enhancing or reducing the ability of deliberative mini-publics to improve the quality of democracy? and 4. How could the institutional design of deliberative mini-publics be improved to strengthen their contribution to democratic functions? For each of the jurisdictional case studies that form part of this thesis, the institutional modes of constraint are used to describe how the DMPs conducted in those jurisdictions address the five democratic functions and to identify their strengths and weaknesses. This thesis demonstrates the value of formally applying an institutional lens to the study of participatory democratic institutions such as DMPs. The narratives of decision-makers and change agents can have a significant impact, often unintentionally, on the ability of DMPs to fulfil democratic functions, despite the existence of solid practices. This approach to studying DMPs combining institutionalism and democratic functions opens up a new research area for scholars interested in understanding the impact of participatory democratic institutions. It also guides governments, advocates and practitioners when designing and implementing DMPs. Finally, this research suggests an additional democratic function of legitimacy, to allow explicit consideration of the support particular institutions have – or don’t have – with decision-makers and citizens.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: