Deliberative democracy

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. Deliberative democracy seeks quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a smaller but more representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue. ^[1]

It often adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law. Deliberative democracy is related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes. The distance between deliberative democracy and concepts like representative democracy or direct democracy is debated. While some practitioners and theorists use deliberative democracy to describe elected bodies whose members propose and enact legislation, Hélène Landemore and others increasingly use deliberative democracy to refer to decision-making by randomly-selected lay citizens with equal power. ^[2]

Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory traced back to ancient times, with an increase in academic attention in the 1990s, and growing implementations since 2010. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government. ^[3]

Overview

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups. ^{[4] [5] [6]}

The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics; however, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area. ^[7]

Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies. ^[8] In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such as legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions. ^[5] One purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill a more authentic public opinion about societal issues for other decision-makers to consider; devices such as the deliberative opinion poll have been designed to achieve this goal. Another purpose of populist deliberative democracy can, like direct democracy, result directly in binding law. ^{[5] [9]} If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called elite deliberation. ^{[10] [11]}

James Fearon and Portia Pedro believe deliberative processes most often generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts, resulting in more morally correct outcomes. ^{[12] [13] [14]} Former diplomat Carne Ross contends that the processes more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums if citizens know their debates will impact society. ^[15] Some fear the influence of a skilled orator. ^{[16] [17]} John Burnheim critiques representative democracy as requiring citizens to vote for a large package of policies and preferences bundled together, much of which a voter might not want. He argues that this does not translate voter preferences as well as deliberative groups, each of which are given the time and the ability to focus on one issue. ^[18]

Characteristics

Fishkin's model of deliberation

James Fishkin, who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy through deliberative polling for over 15 years in various countries, ^[15] describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:

• Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
• Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
• Diversity: The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
• Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
• Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them ^[19]

Studies by James Fishkin and others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy. ^{[20] [21]} Desirable outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds. ^{[10] [15]} Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville. ^{[22] [23]}

Cohen's outline

Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include: ^[24]

1. An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
2. The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
3. A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
4. The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
5. Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.

Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation": ^[24]

1. It is free in two ways:
   1. The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
   2. The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
2. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
3. Participants are equal in two ways:
   1. Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
   2. Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
4. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

In Democracy and Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all. ^[25]

Gutmann and Thompson's model

Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future". ^[26]

They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:

1. Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
2. Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
3. Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
4. Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.

Standards of good deliberation - from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018)

For Bächtiger, Dryzek, Mansbridge and Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed: ^[6]

Standards for "good deliberation" ^[6]

First generation	Second generation
Respect	Unchallenged, unrevised
Absence of power	Unchallenged, unrevised
Equality	Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence
Reasons	Relevant considerations
Aim at consensus	Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
Common good orientation	Orientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
Publicity	Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g. in negotiations when representatives can be trusted)
Accountability	Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
Sincerity	Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality

History

Early examples

Main article: Sortition

Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy has been found in different degrees and variations throughout the world going back millennia. ^[27] The most discussed early example of deliberative democracy arose in Greece as Athenian democracy during the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was both deliberative and largely direct: some decisions were made by representatives but most were made by "the people" directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. Even some 18th century leaders advocating for representative democracy mention the importance of deliberation among elected representatives. ^{[28] [29] [30]}

Recent scholarship

Call for the establishment of deliberative democracy seen at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the late 20th century. According to Professor Stephen Tierney, perhaps the earliest notable example of academic interest in the deliberative aspects of democracy occurred in John Rawls 1971 work A Theory of Justice . ^[31] Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term "deliberative democracy" in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government, ^{[32] [33]} and went on to elaborate and defend the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). In the 1990s, deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention from political scientists. ^[33] According to Professor John Dryzek, early work on deliberative democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory of democratic legitimacy. ^[34] Theorists such as Carne Ross advocate deliberative democracy as a complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by contributors such as James Fishkin, is that direct deliberative democracy can be complementary to traditional representative democracy. Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy include Carlos Nino, Jon Elster, Roberto Gargarella, John Gastil, Jürgen Habermas, David Held, Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann, Noëlle McAfee, Rense Bos, Jane Mansbridge, Jose Luis Marti, Dennis Thompson, Benny Hjern, Hal Koch, Seyla Benhabib, Ethan Leib, Charles Sabel, Jeffrey K. Tulis, David Estlund, Mariah Zeisberg, Jeffrey L. McNairn, Iris Marion Young, Robert B. Talisse, and Hélène Landemore.^{[ citation needed ]}

Although political theorists took the lead in the study of deliberative democracy, political scientists have in recent years begun to investigate its processes. One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized. ^[35]

Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt, Shmuel Lederman laments the fact that "deliberation and agonism have become almost two different schools of thought" that are discussed as "mutually exclusive conceptions of politics" ^[36] as seen in the works of Chantal Mouffe, ^[37] Ernesto Laclau, and William E. Connolly. Giuseppe Ballacci argues that agonism and deliberation are not only compatible but mutually dependent: ^[38] "a properly understood agonism requires the use of deliberative skills but also that even a strongly deliberative politics could not be completely exempt from some of the consequences of agonism".

Most recently, scholarship has focused on the emergence of a 'systemic approach' to the study of deliberation. This suggests that the deliberative capacity of a democratic system needs to be understood through the interconnection of the variety of sites of deliberation which exist, rather than any single setting. ^[39] Some studies have conducted experiments to examine how deliberative democracy addresses the problems of sustainability and underrepresentation of future generations. ^[40] Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has been found to shift participants opinions in favour of environmental positions. ^{[41] [42] [43]}

Platforms and algorithms

Aviv Ovadya also argues for implementing bridging-based algorithms in major platforms by empowering deliberative groups that are representative of the platform's users to control the design and implementation of the algorithm. ^[44] He argues this would reduce sensationalism, political polarization and democratic backsliding. ^[45] Jamie Susskind likewise calls for deliberative groups to make these kind of decisions. ^[46] Meta commissioned a representative deliberative process in 2022 to advise the company on how to deal with climate misinformation on its platforms. ^[47]

Modern examples

Main article: Citizens'_assembly § Modern_examples

The OECD documented hundreds of examples and finds their use increasing since 2010. ^{[48] [49]} For example, a representative sample of 4000 lay citizens used a 'Citizens' congress' to coalesce around a plan on how to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. ^{[50] [15]}

See also

• Deliberative assembly
• Deliberative referendum
• Group decision making
• Jury
• Informed consent
• Liquid democracy
• Mediated deliberation
• Open source governance
• Participatory democracy
• Political equality
• Public reason

References

1. Dryzek, John S.; Bächtiger, André; Chambers, Simone; Cohen, Joshua; Druckman, James N.; Felicetti, Andrea; Fishkin, James S.; Farrell, David M.; Fung, Archon; Gutmann, Amy; Landemore, Hélène; Mansbridge, Jane; Marien, Sofie; Neblo, Michael A.; Niemeyer, Simon; Setälä, Maija; Slothuus, Rune; Suiter, Jane; Thompson, Dennis; Warren, Mark E. (2019). "The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation". Science . 363 (6432): 1144–1146. Bibcode:2019Sci...363.1144D. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2694. hdl: 11384/82884 . PMID   30872504. S2CID   78092206.
2. Landemore, Hélène (Summer 2017). "Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy". Dædalus . 146 (3): 51–63.
3. Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013). "Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing" (PDF). Temple Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 October 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
4. Habermans, Jürgen (1997). Bohman, James; Rehg, William (eds.). Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics (PDF). MIT Press. p. 41. ISBN   0-262-02434-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-07-01.
5. Leib, Ethan (1997). Deliberative Democracy in America. p. 1.
6. Bächtiger, André; Dryzek, John S.; Mansbridge, Jane J.; Warren, Mark, eds. (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (First ed.). Oxford. p. 4. ISBN   978-0-19-180969-9. OCLC   1057358164.
7. For a brief overview of the roots and different streams of deliberative democracy, see Ercan, S.A. (2014) 'Deliberative democracy', in: D. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.214-216 http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book238016
8. Elster 1998, Introduction (Elster offers a summary of the various common definitions that academics use for the term.).
9. Threlkeld, Simon. "A Blueprint for Democratic Law-making: Give Citizen Juries the Final Say." Social Policy, Summer, 1998, pp 5-9.
10. Fishkin 2011, Chapters 2 & 3.
11. Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.  70. ISBN   9780199572106.
12. Elster 1998, Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon).
13. Nino 1996.
14. Pedro, Portia (2010-02-01). "Note, Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required". Harvard Law Review. 123 (4): 970-972.
15. Ross 2011, Chapter 3.
16. Elster 1998, p. 1.
17. Dryzek 2010, p. 66.
18. Burnheim, John (2006). "3". Is democracy possible? the alternative to electoral democracy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN   978-1-920898-42-7.
19. Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People speak . Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 160f. ISBN   978-0-19-957210-6.
20. Elster 1998, Chapter 5.
21. Susan C. Strokes in her critical essay Pathologies of Deliberation (Chapter 5 of Elster 1998) concedes there that a majority of academics interested agree with this view.
22. Fishkin 2011, p. 103.
23. See also Chapter 5 of Fishkin (2011), which gives detailed citations to the empirical work. The specific Mill work cited is Considerations on Representative Government (1861), and the specific Tocqueville work cited is Democracy in America (1835).
24. "Ch 2: Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy". The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Alan P. Hamlin, Philip Pettit. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. 1989. pp. 17–34. ISBN   0-631-15804-9. OCLC   18321533.
25. Elster 1998, Chapter 8 (essay by Cohen).
26. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.
27. Priestland, David (2021-10-23). "The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2023-07-10.
28. Burke 1854, pp. 446–448.
29. Elster 1998, Chapter 1.
30. Elster 1998, Chapter 10.
31. Constitutional referendums: a theoretical enquiry (2009) Archived 2012-04-25 at the Wayback Machine by Prof Stephen Tierney (see esp. ft note 67)
32. Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013). "Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing" (PDF). Temple Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 October 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
33. Dryzek 2010, p. 6.
34. Dryzek 2010, p. 21.
35. Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science," Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520. ISBN   978-0824333119
36. Lederman, Shmuel (September 2014). "Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt". Constellations. 21 (3): 335. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12096.
37. Mouffe, Chantal (2013). Chantal Mouffe: hegemony, radical democracy, and the political. London: Routledge. ISBN   9780415825221.
38. Ballacci, Giuseppe (1 December 2019). "Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt". Theoria. 66 (161): 20. doi:10.3167/th.2019.6616101. S2CID   213045202.
39. Owen, D. And Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." "Journal of Political Philosophy" 23.2: 213-234
40. Koirala, P. Timilsina, R. R., Kotani, K. (2021). "Experiment article: Deliberative forms of democracy and intergenerational sustainability dilemma." "Sustainability" 13.13: 7377
41. Fishkin 2011, p. x.
42. Smith 2003, Chapter 4.
43. "EuroPolis proves that debate does change European citizens' attitudes". EuroPolis. 2009-06-03. Archived from the original on 2012-03-17. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
44. Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. pp. 21–23. Retrieved 2024-07-17.
45. Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center at Harvard University . pp. 1–3, 7, 10. Retrieved 2024-07-17.
46. Arthur, Charles (2022-06-15). "The Digital Republic by Jamie Susskind review – how to tame big tech". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-07-18.
47. Newton, Casey (2022-09-21). "Facebook is experimenting with letting users help write speech rules". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-07-18. For its experiment, Meta and BIT worked to find about 250 people who were broadly representative of the Facebook user base. They brought them together virtually across two weekends to educate them about climate issues and platform policies, and offered them access to outside experts (on both climate and speech issues) and Facebook employees. At the end of the process, Facebook offered the group a variety of possible solutions to problematic climate information, and the group deliberated and voted on their preferred outcomes.
48. Česnulaitytė, Ieva (2020). "Chapter 3: Key Trends". Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD. ISBN   9789264563186.
49. Mejia, Mauricio (2023-12-15). "2023 Trends in Deliberative Democracy: OECD Database Update". Participo. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
50. Fishkin 2011, Preface.

Sources

• Bessette, Joseph (1980) "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government," in How Democratic is the Constitution?, Washington, D.C., AEI Press. pp. 102–116.
• Bessette, Joseph, (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Blattberg, C. (2003) "Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy" Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6, no. 1, pp. 155–74. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Blattberg, C. (2009) Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
• Burke, Edmund (1854). The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. London: Henry G. Bohn.
• Cohen, J. (1989) "Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy" (Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P. eds.), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 17–34
• Cohen, J. (1997) "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" (James Bohman & William Rehg eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. eds.).
• Dryzek, John (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-956294-7.
• Elster, Jon, ed. (1998). Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Cambridge University Press. ISBN   978-0-521-59696-1.
• Fishkin, James (2011). When the People Speak. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-960443-2.
• Fishkin, James & Peter Laslett, eds. (2003). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1405100434
• Fishkin, James S.; Luskin, Robert C. (September 2005). "Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion". Acta Politica . 40 (3): 284–298. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121. S2CID   144393786.
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0674197664
• Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (2002). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press. ISBN   978-0691120195
• Leib, Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
• Mansbridge, Jane J.; Parkinson, John; et al. (2012), "A systematic approach to deliberative democracy", in Mansbridge, Jane J.; Parkinson, John (eds.), Deliberative systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26, ISBN   9781107025394
• Nino, C. S. (1996). The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN   0-300-07727-0.
• Owen, D. and Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." Journal of Political Philosophy 23.2: 213-234
• Painter, Kimberly, (2013) "Deliberative Democracy in Action: Exploring the 2012 City of Austin Bond Development Process" Applied Research Project Texas State University.
• Ross, Carne (2011). The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century. Simon & Schuster. ISBN   978-1-84737-534-6.
• Smith, Graham (2003). Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics). Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-30940-0.
• Steenhuis, Quinten. (2004) "The Deliberative Opinion Poll: Promises and Challenges". Carnegie Mellon University. Unpublished thesis. Available Online Archived 2005-03-08 at the Wayback Machine
• Talisse, Robert, (2004) Democracy after Liberalism Publisher: Routledge ISBN   0-415-95019-8
• Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science," Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520. ISBN   978-0824333119
• Tulis, Jeffrey K., (1988) The Rhetorical Presidency Publisher: Princeton University Press ( ISBN   0-691-07751-7)
• Tulis, Jeffrey K., (2003) "Deliberation Between Institutions," in Debating Deliberative Democracy, eds. James Fishkin and Peter Laslett. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1405100434
• Uhr, J. (1998) Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN   0-521-62465-7

Further reading

• Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times (2024) by André Bächtiger and John S. Dryzek. Cambridge University Press.

External links

• Website of Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, University of Canberra describes itself as "the world-leading research centre for the study of deliberative democracy"
• Website of the Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University, which focuses on researching, advising on and conducting deliberative polling
• Website of Journal of Deliberative Democracy, which synthesizes the research, opinions, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in an open-access journal
• Website of The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation, which is a hub that connects people to each other and to thousands of resources like best-practices on public engagement and conflict resolution
• Podcast series by the newDemocracy Foundation on deliberative democracy among other initiatives