Alice Siu

Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China

Talk of democratic reform sometimes focuses on talk. The aspiration of ‘deliberative democracy’ is for the mass public to influence policy making through public discussion. The common presumption is that this is an advanced version of democracy, possible only in established democracies. Even there, there are doubts. Some contend that ordinary citizens cannot deal with complex policy issues, others that their deliberations will be distorted by gender or class inequalities, and yet others that they will be ineluctably polarizing. In less fully democratic societies like China’s, the prospects may seem slimmer.

Public consultation through deliberation in China : The first chinese deliberative poll

Throughout the world, policymakers who wish to consult the public appear to face a persistent dilemma. On the one hand, if they consult mass opinion directly, they will get views that are largely uninformed. Most citizens, most of the time, in most political systems, know little about the details of policy options or public policy. Even in systems with active electoral competition, each citizen can easily conclude that his or her individual opinion is unlikely to make much difference. Anthony Downs coined a term for this phenomenon: “rational ignorance” (Downs 1997). On the other hand, if policymakers do not attempt to consult the mass public directly, but leave it to policy elites and organized interests to speak for the people, those elites may have different interests. They may be out of touch with mass concerns. We seem to face a forced choice between politically equal but relatively incompetent masses and politically unequal but relatively more competent elites.

Deliberative Agenda Setting: Piloting Reform of Direct Democracy in California

Can the people deliberate to set the agenda for direct democracy in large scale states? How might such an institution work? The 2011 California Deliberative Poll piloted a solution to this problem helping to produce proposals that went to the ballot and also to the legislature. The paper reports on how this pilot worked and what it suggests about a possible institution to solve the deliberative agenda setting problem. The legislative proposal passed the legislature but the ballot proposition (Prop 31) failed. However, we show that the proposals actually deliberated on by the people might well have passed if not encumbered by additional elements not deliberated on by the public that drew opposition. The paper ends with an outline of how the process of deliberative agenda setting for the initiative might work, vetting proposals once every two years that could get on the ballot for a greatly reduced cost in signature collections. Adding deliberation to the agenda setting process would allow for a thoughtful and informed public will formation to determine the agenda for direct democracy.

Deliberative polling for multistakeholder internet governance: considered judgments on access for the next billion

ABSTRACT Multistakeholder Internet governance aspires to fulfill democratic values in a process of dialogue producing results that can be considered for possible action. How can these goals be accomplished when the participants in these processes come from entities as varied as corporations, governments, civil society and academia drawn from countries all over the world? How can such a multistakeholder process embody democratic values? How can it be based on dialogue? What kinds of results can it produce? This article applies Deliberative Polling as a possible solution to this problem by using a stratified random sample of netizens, citizens of the Internet, drawn from all the relevant stakeholders of the Internet Governance Forum, engaged together in dialogue and with opinions collected in confidential questionnaires before and after deliberation. This pilot application focused on the topic of Internet access ‒ policy proposals to increase access for the next billion users. We believe it demonstrates the possibility that deliberators drawn from all these sectors can participate in substantive dialogue weighing the merits of issues and coming to specific conclusions. The pilot was limited in its duration and scale but produced, nevertheless, results that strongly support the conclusion that this approach to multistakeholder Internet governance is promising.

Applying Deliberative Democracy in Africa: Uganda's First Deliberative Polls

Practical experiments with deliberative democracy, instituted with random samples of the public, have had success in many countries. But this approach has never before been tried in Sub-Saharan Africa. Reflecting on the first two applications in Uganda, we apply the same criteria for success commonly used for such projects in the most advanced countries. Can this approach work successfully with samples of a public low in literacy and education? Can it work on some of the critical policy choices faced by the public in rural Uganda? This essay reflects on quantitative and qualitative results from Ugandas first Deliberative Polls. We find that the projects were representative in both attitudes and demographics. They produced substantial opinion change supported by identifiable reasons. They avoided distortions from inequality and polarization. They produced actionable results that can be expected to influence policy on difficult choices.

Deliberative Democracy in China: Connecting a Deliberative Poll with the Local People's Congress

The issue of how best to consult the public vexes policymakers and the public around the world. There are limitations to elections, self selected town public meetings, public opinion polls and every known method. Recently there has been a resurgence of interest in microcosms of the population, selected by random sampling, who also are given a chance to seriously deliberate about policy alternatives. How might such efforts connect with government institutions, including elected representatives? In China a series of Deliberative Polls have had a direct impact on policy at the local level. This paper reports on one of these projects which also attempted to explicitly connect with the official decision making by the Local Peoples Congress. In February 2008, the local government of Zeguo Township in Wenling City, China conducted its third Deliberative Poll. Zeguo Township began conducting Deliberative Polls in 2005, when the local government sought to consult the public about 30 infrastructure, sewage and environmental projects. The most recent DP was the most ambitious and transparent project this Township has conducted. The local officials randomly selected 197 citizens of Zeguo to deliberate on the Township’s 2008 financial budget allocation. The participants of this DP received balanced briefing materials and a detailed report of the Township’s 2008 budget. This was the first time the local government had released its budget report to the public. As a direct result of this DP project, the Local People’s Congress (LPC) revised items of its 2008 budget to reflect the voice of the people. The participants experienced significant knowledge gains and policy preference changes, but, most significantly is the impact of this project on local governance. Over 60 deputies from the Local People’s Congress observed the DP event and subsequently, the LPC approved the results generated from this DP event. The local government needed a method of public consultation for citizens to engage in deliberation, interact with policymakers and experts, and at the same time, increase transparency. Through Deliberative Polling, the local officials gathered a microcosm of their Township and most importantly, discovered and revised their Township’s budgetary preferences based on voices from informed citizens. This paper analyzes the public opinion data in the DP and assesses it against criticisms about representativeness and the quality of the process.