I’m come to learn that there are a lot of things that people call “deliberative democracy“. So this paper focuses on a particular kind of deliberative democracy: “empowered participatory governance”.

practical orientation

Deliberative democracy should focus on “concrete concerns”. eg: One of my issues with the Transition Town movement is that it’s too abstract to accomplish much.

bottom-up participation

Diversity and local knowledge is more useful than expert training. eg: Degrowth was off the table in Victoria’s community planning session because it was inconceivable to the economist chairing the discussion.

debate

Better decisions will come out of giving reasons for things and debating rather than just voting or negotiating. To encourage dissent, of course.

devolution of power

The state must give power to the deliberative mechanism. Without power, it’s just a study group (another issue with Transition Towns).

centralized supervision and coordination

The state should guide and support deliberation by developing structure, training participants in skills like budgeting, and possibly setting limits to protect human rights. Without centralization, it’s just anarchy.

transformation of state institutions

Don’t fight the power but also don’t try to survive by carving out a niche that the powerful ignore. The whole point of this is to make the state work better, not to overthrow it or check out of society.

I’d suggest for any civic engagement or movement you come across, compare it against those criteria. If it doesn’t measure up, make sure you’re not falling for the appearance of engagement or wasting your time.