In this section you may find all the information for Working Group 1, including its overview and various activities.
Constitutional reform is increasingly understood as needing civic engagement of some form in order to be legitimate. In this, the participatory dimension of constitutional democracy is being stressed as crucial in the process of re-writing the foundational rules of a political community. One particularly prominent way of engaging citizens is by means of public deliberative gatherings in which fundamental values of
the constitution as well as concrete topics for reform are discussed. Beyond deliberative practices in constitutional reform procedures, constitutional reform can also in substance institutionalize deliberative
instruments. In theoretical and normative terms, however, different issues arise with the deliberative engagement of citizens in constitutional reform, relating to the knowledge involved, the procedures to be followed, and the forms of representation and legitimation that deliberation entails.
Regarding the knowledge involved in processes of constitutional reform, distinctive ways of perceiving constitutionalism indicate specific theories of democracy and value different forms of knowledge as relevant. In general, constitutional law proposes a legal understanding of constitutions, in which there is a strong separation between law and politics, and law and society more in general. In contrast, a deliberative democratic view tends to presuppose critical capacities of ordinary citizens in terms of engaging with constitutional issues. In terms of procedures, citizen involvement in deliberative constitutional reform is perceived with different degrees of intensity (consultative, decisive), inclusion (exclusively citizen-based, pluralistic), and temporality (ex ante, parallel, ex post). Regarding representation and legitimation, diverging views are put forward regarding the representative nature of those involved in deliberative fora (with regard to society as a whole) as well as the forms and significance of the legitimatory thrust of deliberation (knowledge input, results of deliberation, sociological legitimacy).
Regarding the knowledge involved in processes of constitutional reform, distinctive ways of perceiving constitutionalism indicate specific theories of democracy and value different forms of knowledge as relevant. In general, constitutional law proposes a legal understanding of constitutions, in which there is a strong separation between law and politics, and law and society more in general. In contrast, a deliberative democratic view tends to presuppose critical capacities of ordinary citizens in terms of engaging with constitutional issues. In terms of procedures, citizen involvement in deliberative constitutional reform is perceived with different degrees of intensity (consultative, decisive), inclusion (exclusively citizen-based, pluralistic), and temporality (ex ante, parallel, ex post). Regarding representation and legitimation, diverging views are put forward regarding the representative nature of those involved in deliberative fora (with regard to society as a whole) as well as the forms and significance of the legitimatory thrust of deliberation (knowledge input, results of deliberation, sociological legitimacy).
Objectives
Discuss and study the theoretical, normative, and conceptual complexities involved in deliberative constitutional reform and in constitutional reform institutionalizing deliberation as democratic practice. The multi-partner discussion will be related to and informed by actual experiences of constitutional reform involving deliberative practices. A specific attention will be paid to lesser known cases (e.g. Italy, Romania). The aim is to include early career scholars who study these processes in-depth.
Milestones
– Creating a theoretical-normative grid of different theories, concepts, approaches, and designs of deliberative constitutionalism.
– Developing a pluralistic and inclusive deliberative conceptual framework for constitutional reform and fleshing out a set of ideal-types of distinctive deliberative constitutional reform.
– Finalizing the framework and producing a significant publication.
The Leaders of Working Group 1 are Dr. Paul Blokker and Dr. Clodagh Harris. For a full list of members, please visit the Action’s members section here.