Direct and Deliberative Democracy (DDD)

In 2010 a working group “Direct and deliberative democracy” (DDD) was established which worked on instrument such as referendum and initiatives as well as on new dialogical instruments as well as combinations (“hybrid democracy”). It analyses the mix of online and offline participation (blended democracy). The relation to representative democratic institutions is a special interest. Furthermore the focus on the quality and the integrity of direct and deliberative democracy. Here a Direct Democratic Integrity Index is generated in 2017.

We had meetings in Stellenbosch (2011) and at conferences in Montreal (2014); Madrid (2012), Bordeaux (2013) Poznan (2016) and Brisbane (2018) where we further developed the idea. The structure, sequencing, timing, the formalization, supporting actors (parties, ngos) as well as the role of new information and communication technologies became important aspects. DDD was extended analyzing its nexus to representative democracy (political parties) and demonstrative democracy (new social movements). It encompasses theoretical as well as empirical studies. What is the role of political parties and social movements in these processes? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments? Can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter?

Contact: norbert.kersting(at)uni-muenster.de

Konferenzen

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Brisbane 2018 - How to Measure Integrity?

    The DDD research grou focused on inegriy of direct and deliberative democracy. Included an elevation of the Turkish referedum by Max Grömping and Norbert Kersting. The new research instrument direct ad deliberative democracy index (DDI) was tested.
    A systemaical framework analyzed processual integrity. Furthermore a comparative study on global citien initiatives and global referendums. Other comparative studies analyzed Mexican cities and Barcelona.

    Chair: Max Grömping
    Discussant: Jensen Sass

    Papers: The Comparative Research on the Global citizens Initiatives & Referendums of the Direct Democracy
    Chang-Lin Li

    Direct Democracy Integrity and Constititional referendum in Turkey in 2017. A new research instrument
    Norbert Kersting, Max Grömping

    Social and Political Innovation: The Case of the Metropolitan Are of Guadalajara in Constrast to that of Barcelona
    Carlos Alberta Navarrete Ulloam

    Measuring the Procedural Integrity of Democrativ Innovations with a Systemic Framework
    Dannica Fleuß, Gary Schaal

    For further information on the panel and presented papers see the IPSA WC site.

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Poznań 2016 - The Question of Legitimacy

    Referendums are en vogue. With the deliberative turn new „Dialogical deliberative instruments” were implemented in a number of countries. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). Some countries focus more on referendums and initiatives others seem to prefer participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. Both democratic channels (and a combination of both) are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies.

    In a number of cases, decisions deriving from referendums and deliberative democratic instruments were accepted by the parliaments and executive and different interest groups seem to be satisfied. In other cases executive and legislative institutions reject the results (see for example Icelandic constitutional review). Some direct and deliberative participatory instruments are not able to channel growing political protest. What instruments are more successful? What is the opinion of elected politicians political administrators as well as citizen regarding the legitimacy of participatory instruments? What is the context for the success? What kind of actors are involved?

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Co-Chair: Prof. Maija Setälä

    Discussants: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Abstracts:

    Overcoming political indirectness: populism as radical democracy
    Dr. Enrique Peruzzotti
    Can an unconstitutional referendum be legit? The case of Spain - Catalonia
    Ms. Mariana Lopes Alves
    Democratic Innovations of EMU? Direct and Deliberative Participatory Experiments under Hard Constraints
    Prof. Ulrike Liebert
    Hybrid Participatory Budgeting: the Challenges of a Multi-channel Participation
    Mr. Michelangelo Secchi
    Unequally Succesful Participatory Instruments?: How Institutional Design Affects The Fate Of Policy Proposals
    Mr. Pau Alarcón Pérez, Prof. Graham Smith, Mrs. Carolina Galais, Mr. Joan Font

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Montreal2014 - Direct and Deliberative Democracy. How to combine both?

    With the new wave of democratization "Direct democratic instruments” such as referendums and initiatives became popular. With the deliberative turn new „Dialogical deliberative instruments” are en vogue in a number of countries. Some countries focus more on referendums and initiatives others seem to prefer participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. Both democratic channels are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies. Are these instruments enhancing legitimacy and are they able to channel growing political protest. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). The idea is to bridge these two fields of direct and deliberative democracy research (hybrid democracy). Its combination is rare (see e.g. British Colombia, Iceland). Is it useful to combine dialogical and direct democracy? If yes, how can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter? How can this be institutionalized? What is the role of political parties and social movements in these processes? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments?

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Abstracts:

    A CONSTITUTION BY THE PEOPLE? Deliberative and Direct Democracy in the Romanian 2013 Reform
    Dr. Sergiu Gherghina, Prof. Sergiu Miscoiu
    Democratic Participation and Deliberation in Crowdsourced Legislative Processes: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland
    Dr. Helene Landemore/Tanja Aitamurto
    The Icelandic Democratic Project
    Prof. Stefania Oskarsdottir, Prof. Jon Olafsson
    The Role of Redundancy and Diversification In Multi-Channel Democratic Innovations
    Dr. Paolo Spada, Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

  • ECPR General Conference: Bordeaux 2013 - Revisiting Theories, Concepts and Methods

    Four Decades of Democratic Innovation Research: Revisiting Theories, Concepts and Methods

    Direct democratic instruments such as referendums and initiatives as well as new "Dialogical deliberative instruments” such as participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. are en vogue in a number of countries. Both democratic channels are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies. Are these instruments enhancing legitimacy and are they able to channel growing political protest. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). The idea is to bridge these two fields of direct and deliberative democracy research (hybrid democracy). Its combination is rare (see e.g. British Colombia). Is it useful to combine dialogical and direct democracy? If yes, how can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter? How can this be institutionalised? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments?

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Prof. Maija Setälä

    Discussants: Matt Qvortrup

    Abstracts:

    Beyond the Citizen Initiative? Participatory and Deliberative Agenda Setting in the UK Sustainable Communities Act (2007)
    Adrian Bua

    Combining Citizens’ Initiatives and Deliberation – The Case of Avoin Ministeriö
    Presenter: Laura Nurminen, authors: Maija Jäske, Henrik Serup Christensen

    The Cherry on Top or Too Much Salt in the Soup? Participatory Innovations in Swiss Local Direct Democracy
    Philippe Koch (presenter), Nico van der Heiden, Daniel Kübler

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Madrid 2012 - Direcht and Deliberative Democracy. Theory and Practices

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Discussants: Prof. Roland Roth

    Prof. Eduardo Alsonso

    Mr. Juan Cristóbal Portales

    Prof. Gary Schaal

    Ms. Claudi Ritzi

    Dr. Maija Setälä

    Dr. Enrique Peruzotti

    Ms. Ana Claudia Teixeira

    Miss Paula Pompeu Fiuza Lima

  • DDD at Stellbosch 2011 - From innovative deliberation to binding referendum.

    Mittwoch 9.-12. March  2011,  Stellenbosch: STIAS

    Direct and deliberative democracy. From innovative deliberation to binding referendum-
    Mittwoch 9.-12. March 2011, Stellenbosch: STIAS
    Kommen die Caravellen zurück? Während man in den 1970 er Jahren vor allem von einem Demokratieexport in die Dritte Welt sprach, hat sich dieser Trend anscheinend umgekehrt. In Latein¬amerika wird eine Vielzahl von Referenden implementiert (s. Uruguay). Neue deliberative Beteiligungsinstrumente wie z.B. der Bürgerhaushalt wurde im globalen Süden (Porto Alegre) entwickelt und haben in den letzten Jahren in den alten Demokratien Europas an¬gerei¬chert durch neue Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien großen Anklang gefunden.
    Ein zentrales Problem ist dabei die Verstetigung und Institutionalsierung der neuen delibera¬tiven Verfahren. Ein weiteren zukünftiges Themenfeld ist die Verknüpfung deliberativer Verfahren mit numerischen direktdemokratischen Verfahren Referenden und Initiativen.
    Neben Brasilien und anderen lateinamerikanischen Laendern finden sich „best practices“ im Bereich Bürgerbeteiligung auch in Asien (Indien, Kerala). Auch Südafrika hat in der Verfassung, in der Kommunalgesetzgebung wie auch durch die Rechtsprechung des Verfassungsgerichts zu den soziooekonomischen Rechten -die oft Beteiligungsverfahren ein¬fordert- einzigartige rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für Partrizipation. Die Verfassung Südafrikas sieht in allen politischen „Sphären“ die Nutzung moderner Beteiligungsin¬stru¬mente vor. Die white und green paper zur Local Governenmet benennen derartige Instrumente.
    Sind neue Beteiligungsinstrumente (Citizen Jurys, Participatory budgeting, Forums, Referenden, Deliberative polls etc.) die Lösung zur Kanalisierung des Protests der sozialen Bewegungen? Kann man deliberative Verfahren institutionalisieren? Wie lassen sich Referenden und deliberative Verfahren verknüpfen? Um gegenseitige Lernprozesse zu ermoeglichen wird der Vergleich zwischen Europa, Asien ( Indien) und Lateinamerika (Brasilien) gesucht.