Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation
Building on prior thinking about political representation in democratic deliberation, we argue for four ideals of inclusion, each of which is most appropriate to a different situation. These principles of inclusion depend not only on the goals of a deliberation, but also on its level of empowerment...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Westminster Press
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Deliberative Democracy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/527/ |
| _version_ | 1811309559928586240 |
|---|---|
| author | Chad Raphael Christopher F. Karpowitz |
| author_facet | Chad Raphael Christopher F. Karpowitz |
| author_sort | Chad Raphael |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Building on prior thinking about political representation in democratic deliberation, we argue for four ideals of inclusion, each of which is most appropriate to a different situation. These principles of inclusion depend not only on the goals of a deliberation, but also on its level of empowerment in the political system, and its openness to all who want to participate. Holistic and open deliberations can most legitimately incorporate and decide for the people as a whole if they are open to all who want to participate and affirmatively recruit perspectives that would be underrepresented otherwise. Chicago Community Policing beat meetings offer an example. Holistic and restricted forums (such as the latter stages of some participatory budgeting processes) should recruit stratified random samples of the demos, but must also ensure that problems of tokenism are overcome by including a critical mass of the least powerful perspectives, so that their views can be aired and heard more fully and effectively. Forums that aim to improve relations between social sectors and peoples should provide open access for all who are affected by the issues (relational and open), if possible, or recruit a stratified random sample of all affected, when necessary (relational and restricted). In either case, proportional representation of the least advantaged perspectives is necessary. However, when deliberation focuses on relations between a disempowered group and the rest of society, or between unequal peoples, it is often most legitimate to over-sample the least powerful and even to create opportunities for the disempowered to deliberate among themselves so that their perspectives can be adequately represented in small and large group discussions. We illustrate this discussion with examples of atypical Deliberative Polls on Australia’s reconciliation with its indigenous community and the Roma ethnic minority in Europe. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T09:44:04Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b5c42acbf5b64f328b3e7b0c90f59602 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2634-0488 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T09:44:04Z |
| publishDate | 2016-10-01 |
| publisher | University of Westminster Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Deliberative Democracy |
| spelling | doaj.art-b5c42acbf5b64f328b3e7b0c90f596022022-12-22T02:51:49ZengUniversity of Westminster PressJournal of Deliberative Democracy2634-04882016-10-0112210.16997/jdd.255Ideals of Inclusion in DeliberationChad Raphael0Christopher F. Karpowitz1 Building on prior thinking about political representation in democratic deliberation, we argue for four ideals of inclusion, each of which is most appropriate to a different situation. These principles of inclusion depend not only on the goals of a deliberation, but also on its level of empowerment in the political system, and its openness to all who want to participate. Holistic and open deliberations can most legitimately incorporate and decide for the people as a whole if they are open to all who want to participate and affirmatively recruit perspectives that would be underrepresented otherwise. Chicago Community Policing beat meetings offer an example. Holistic and restricted forums (such as the latter stages of some participatory budgeting processes) should recruit stratified random samples of the demos, but must also ensure that problems of tokenism are overcome by including a critical mass of the least powerful perspectives, so that their views can be aired and heard more fully and effectively. Forums that aim to improve relations between social sectors and peoples should provide open access for all who are affected by the issues (relational and open), if possible, or recruit a stratified random sample of all affected, when necessary (relational and restricted). In either case, proportional representation of the least advantaged perspectives is necessary. However, when deliberation focuses on relations between a disempowered group and the rest of society, or between unequal peoples, it is often most legitimate to over-sample the least powerful and even to create opportunities for the disempowered to deliberate among themselves so that their perspectives can be adequately represented in small and large group discussions. We illustrate this discussion with examples of atypical Deliberative Polls on Australia’s reconciliation with its indigenous community and the Roma ethnic minority in Europe.https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/527/equalityequityrepresentationinclusion |
| spellingShingle | Chad Raphael Christopher F. Karpowitz Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation Journal of Deliberative Democracy equality equity representation inclusion |
| title | Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation |
| title_full | Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation |
| title_fullStr | Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation |
| title_short | Ideals of Inclusion in Deliberation |
| title_sort | ideals of inclusion in deliberation |
| topic | equality equity representation inclusion |
| url | https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/527/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT chadraphael idealsofinclusionindeliberation AT christopherfkarpowitz idealsofinclusionindeliberation |