In this section you may find all the information for Working Group 2, including its overview and various activities.
The essence of constitutional deliberative democracy is to account for the opinions of all community members in the process rewriting the basic rules of that community. Particular efforts are required to facilitate the inclusion of marginalized groups in the process of deliberation. All minorities should have an opportunity to bring their particular interests and preferences onto the political agenda and to influence the form of the basic rules. Since deliberation is built on consensus and avoids self-interested arguments the outcome will often be different from the aggregation of individual preferences.
In spite of the established importance of deliberative inclusion in theoretical terms, a series of issues arises with the methodological approach. First, it is unclear the mechanism through which a deliberative model including minorities can be implemented. Possibilities include representatives from all groups in society (several mini-publics), local level deliberative bodies that can ensure the involvement of as many citizens as possible, or coordinated actions through civil society. Second, what form does the constitutional deliberation take to ensure the effective presence of minorities? Third, what are the
appropriate deliberative settings to accommodate the identity of minorities? It is relevant to know the procedures involved to ensure a consensus regarding the issues of interest for minorities. While this is often discussed for offline deliberation, the online environment will also be take into account through the following WG.
A similar number of dilemmas occur in empirical terms. The first is related to the type of legitimacy pursued by constitutional deliberative bodies that include minorities. In this sense, a comparison between the ex-ante design and ex-post procedures and outcomes will be useful to understand the dynamic of constitutional deliberation. Second, it is important to know the extent to which an inclusive deliberative engagement of citizens in constitutional reforms is related to a lower level of conflict between minorities and majority. Deliberative processes rely on dialogue and reason, while the absence of dialogue and high levels of emotionality often generate conflicts between groups. Under these circumstances, it is likely to have a negative relationship between the inclusion of minorities in deliberation and conflict in society.
Milestones
– Thorough methodological assessment.
– Empirical investigation of the deliberative processes.
– Applying these insights into new deliberative processes on the ground.
The Leaders of Working Group 2 are Dr. Sergiu Gherghina, Dr. Monika Mokre, and Prof. Sergiu Miscoiu. For a full list of members, please visit the Action’s members section here.