No description available.

No description available.

Theories of deliberative democracy, which emphasize open-mindedness and cooperative dialogue, confront serious challenges in deeply divided political populations constituted by polarized citizens unwilling to work together on issues they collectively face. The case of mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia makes this clear. In my thesis, I argue that such empirical challenges are serious, yet do not compromise the normative desirability of deliberative democracy because communicative mechanisms can help transform adversarial perspectives into workable, deliberative ones. To realize this potential in divided societies, mechanisms must focus on healing and reconciliation, a point under-theorized by deliberativists who do not take seriously enough the feminist critique of public-private dualisms that illuminates political dimensions of such embodied processes. Ultimately, only a distinctly two-stage process of public deliberation in divided populations, beginning with mechanisms for healing and trust building, will give rise to the self-transformation necessary for second-stage deliberation aimed at collectively binding decisions.

Saudi Arabia is being challenged by increasing demands for democratic reform. Although many Saudi citizens desire such change, in order to maintain stability, dramatic and rapid reform is not considered prudent. Nor is the adoption of a Western model of democracy seen as a way forward. Indeed, such a shift would be counterproductive for most Islamic nations. A more measured approach, introducing reforms that build on traditional Islamic democratic ideals, would help to maintain stability and legitimacy for the various stakeholders involved. Consequently, attention has been turned to the ‘Majlis Al Shura’ or the Al-Shura Council, an Islamic Advisory Council that ensures policies and laws follow the principles of Islam. Shura, developed from the Holy Quran, is an ancient practice that has profound significance in Arab culture and history. It provides a framework which ensures scholars and experts from a variety of backgrounds are consulted on issues related to governance. Currently, the role the members play in governance of the Saudi State is decided by the King, who appoints individuals to the Council according to their perceived suitability. However, the Saudi Arabian Al-Shura Council is a highly respected institution. Allowing citizens to elect members, rather than having the King holding the authority to appoint them, would not only be well received, but would create a more effective check on governmental power, help satisfy the demand for more citizen input into public affairs, and pave the way for future, more substantial reform, if desired by Saudi society.

Over recent years, there has been an intense and polarised debate about the extent of democratisation in Turkey, although this has tended to be defined in institutional terms (for example, in the supposed reduction in military tutelage of the political system and the institutional recognition of minority rights). This study seeks to widen the terms of reference by examining the current challenges confronted by the Turkish media within the media-democracy relationship and, using the Kurdish question as a case study, examines the extent to which mainstream Turkish Media are contributing to deliberative democracy. It also seeks to identify where the Turkish media should be most appropriately located within competing models of media and democracy. This analysis of the challenges confronted in achieving and protecting media freedoms in Turkey is based on three empirical exercises. Semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with representatives from most of the mainstream media organisations in the country. Interviews were also conducted with political party representatives, NGO members and academics to ascertain their opinions of the media s democratic performance and credentials and also explore the extent to which they engage with journalists and news organisations routinely in their work. Finally, a content analysis of the coverage/content of two specific events related to the Kurdish Issue (the launch of the Kurdish language TV Channel TRT6 and Uludere Airstrike) in five mainstream Turkish newspapers was conducted. The interviews reveal sharply contrasting views about the extent to which democratisation processes are progressing in Turkey, and identify a range of barriers that continue to inhibit the democratic performance of the mainstream media (e.g. commercialization, state censorship, and other forms of political pressure). The detrimental impact of these factors is to a large degree confirmed by the content analysis of coverage of the Kurdish issue, but the analysis also shows that news output does contain a degree of diversity and difference. For this reason, it is not appropriate to conceive of the Turkish media as acting entirely as a closed message system for political elites.

The aim of this study is tos to make visible if and how teachers integrate democratic abilities in social studies education. I also want to examine what teachers experience enable or hinder the teaching of democratic abilities. The study is based on the following questions: Does deliberative and participatory democratic abilities apply in teaching and if so, how is this done in the actual teaching? What opportunities and challenges do teachers find in conversations-and participatory democratic abilities? The study examines how teachers teach deliberative and participatory democracy. This study is qualitative and based on interviews and observations offour teachers working in grade 3. The theoretical frame of the study is founded on the deliberative democracy model of Tomas Englund and Åsa Forsberg which is used to study how deliberative abilities take place in teaching. Furthermore, the theory formed by Roger Hart, called Ladder of participation,is used to study whether teachers invite studentsto participateand influencetheir own education. I also used Ljungberg and Unemar Öst theory about teacher's communicative strategies in connection with the controversy handling to give an understanding about how teachers handle controversy, but also how they in connection with controversy encourages deliberative conversations.The results of the study showed that the students did apply and practice conversations democratic abilities.Despite this, some deliberative democratic abilities were more prominent than others.On the other handthe application of participatory abilities were not as common as training deliberativ democractic abilites.

The minority rights paradox is articulated at the level of political theory, is deployed by liberal democratic institutions, and can be observed in the political discourse of mass communications. Minority groups, it is argued, are paradoxically claiming purported rights that are unsupported by the values upon which the claimants base their claim. On the one hand, minority claims are made on the basis of rights secured by a liberal democracy; on the other hand, the claims undermine the legitimacy of liberal reasoning—the same reasoning that legitimizes the rights on which the claims are made. The self-referential implications of this paradox are as follows: Either the minority claim negates its own justification or the underlying justification renders the claim moot. In either case, the charge of paradox effectively puts an end to the conversation by dismissing minority rights claims before they are properly understood. My aim is to first, come to terms with political dialogues in which the charge of paradox occurs and second, to overcome the stultifying effects of the minority rights paradox through a deliberative approach to negotiating the concept and content of minority rights claims. Evaluating the claims of minorities, I will argue, requires a dialogue that can adapt to the participants in the dialogue—an inclusive deliberative process that gives formal, procedural and substantive recognition to the worldviews of minority cultures in political decision-making.

Doctor of Philosophy / Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work / Robert K. Schaeffer / In deliberative democracy, attempts to reconcile questions of gender and civil society are deadlocked over fundamental assumptions concerning the role of deliberation and the possibility that exclusion and inequality are inherent in democracy. Normative theories of deliberation - encouraging free, equal and impartial participation by citizens are fueled by the power of reason. Reason giving is associated with dominant groups – namely white, middle-class men; passionate, emotive and particularized speech is associated with politically disadvantaged groups such as women, minorities and poor. Limited empirical findings indicate rational models of deliberation do not affirm theorized inequalities. In this case, female participants neither experience unequal access or treatment within deliberation. This dissertation seeks to provide a framework for resolving the debate posed by difference democrats over whether deliberative democracy remedies the problem of inequality by examining fourteen National Issues Forums public deliberations. One set of deliberations feature an equal mix of male and female participants, another set with more male than female and a third with more female than male participants. I examine the types of talk women and men use in deliberations and whether affective claims negatively affect deliberation. Ultimately, I find that inequality based on gender exists in most of the deliberative forums I surveyed. I argue that the type of inequality plaguing deliberative democracy exists a priori – before participants enter the forums – and then manifests itself inside the forum as well. The normative structure of deliberation that is supposed to screen or bracket out inequality and the strong influences of the economic and political elites just does not happen to the degree deliberative democracy needs in order to continue the claim that it is net beneficial over the status quo.

Fsculty of Science School of Animal,Plant And Enviromental Sciences Msc 9201098j tsherwill@yahoo.com / South Africa’s new water policy and law have introduced the requirement for public participation in all aspects of resource management and decision-making. This policy change is in recognition of the potential benefits of participation in generating more informed, acceptable, equitable and sustainable management of the nation’s water resources. However the new water law does not prescribe the form this participation should take, or offer criteria for evaluating the success of participatory processes. The term ‘public participation’, in its contemporary usage worldwide, is poorly or broadly defined and may thus encompass a range of processes, which differ in the roles and influence afforded to their stakeholder participants, and in their ability to deliver desired outcomes and benefits to government or the public. This study aimed to investigate the influence of this procedural variation on public and stakeholder participation in the implementation of the National Water Act (Act no. 36 of 1998) in South Africa, and thereby recommend a preferred approach to conducting and facilitating these processes in the future. Use was made of a qualitative and primarily inductive research approach. This was designed to gather perspectives of the various role-players (stakeholders, specialists and government) for a desired process and outcome of participation, and to link process and outcome by means of two case studies of the current implementation of participatory processes for water resource management decision-making. Both case studies illustrated the over-riding negative influence of a product-oriented and ‘specialist-centred’ approach to participation, focused on the development of specific statutory products or decisions required by the National Water Act. This approach in turn is being driven by the current fragmentation of participation around these different products and stages of the overall resource management process. A recommended alternative is a more process-oriented, ‘stakeholder-centred’ approach to participatory events, within an integrative, ongoing participatory process. This must be based on mutual learning by all role-players, and an emphasis on inter-sectoral interaction and relationships. A key constraint identified to the achievement of more integrative participatory processes that offer influence to, and generate ownership by, stakeholder participants, is the lack of clarity within government and the South African water sector as to the intent of participation within the new water policy, and thus the process by which this participation should take place. In particular, the role of stakeholders, and how much influence or power they should be afforded in decision-making processes, is subject to individual interpretation. The recommendation from this research is that, given the ideals of equity, sustainability and citizen empowerment aspired to by the Constitution and the new water policy, government should strive to fully engage stakeholders in processes that both offer influence and inspire action. Ideally, linkages should be created to extend this influence to the broader political process.

Em discussões recentes, algumas teóricas feministas (Iris Young, Nancy Fraser e Seyla Benhabib) têm posto em evidência as pretensões de reconhecimento das identidades de grupos culturais, étnicos, “raciais", sexuais, etários, assim por diante. Essas pretensões têm revelado a existência de sociedades multiculturais e também implicado uma crescente demanda por políticas e direitos de afirmação das diferenças por parte dos movimentos sociais. Retomando a vertente crítica dessas teorias, o presente trabalho procura mostrar em que medida é possível mediar tais pretensões por reconhecimento no âmbito do Estado democrático de direito. Nesse sentido, parece promissora a idéia de uma esfera política pública que é capaz de dar vazão a esses movimentos e, ao mesmo tempo, oferecer um critério democrático de legitimidade política. / In recent discussions, some feminist theorists (Iris Young, Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib) have focused on claims for recognition of identity-based groups (cultural, ethnic, “racial", sexual, aged, and so forth). These claims have showed the existence of multicultural societies and have also given rise to an increasingly demand for affirmative policies and rights by social movements. This work will review those feminist critical theorists in order to show how it is possible to mediate such claims for recognition within democratic constitutional states. In this sense, a political public sphere seems to be a promising idea, which is able to give an outlet for social movements at the same time it gives a democratic criterion of political legitimacy.