Peter McLaverty

Civil society and democracy

There has been much interest in the concept and idea of ‘civil society’ among academics in ‘the west’, in recent years. During the past quarter century a plethora of books and articles have been published on the definition, history, purpose and future of civil society. The interest in civil society has both promoted and reflected ‘political’ interest in the concept in the former ‘actually existing socialist societies’ of central and eastern Europe and in many advanced capitalist societies. Many of the works on civil society, while outlining what they see as the historical development and use of the term, have been overtly normative and/or prescriptive in approach. Such writers have been committed advocates of ‘civil society’ and have told us as much about how they would like ‘civil society’ to be, as about how it actually is, in any society. A number of authors have directly considered the relationship between ‘civil society’ and developments in democracy. In doing so, writers have sometimes related the concept of civil society to the notion of the ‘public sphere’ and the relationship of the ‘public sphere’ to democracy. Certain other writers have been either critical or sceptical about the part civil society can play either in central and eastern European societies or in advanced capitalist societies. Despite the extensive recent literature on civil society, I will argue that the task of defining the relationship between the reality of ‘civil society’ and the prospects for the enhancement of democracy has not been satisfactorily explored. Therefore, in this article, I will look critically at recent definitions and uses of the concepts of civil society and the public sphere and their relationship to the theory and practice of democracy. In particular, I will argue that the two concepts of ‘civil society’ and ‘public sphere’ need to be kept analytically distinct. I will contend that while there is a need for a vigorous public sphere or public spheres, if democracy is to be enhanced, those public spheres will often need to be as much an ‘artificial’ creation as something that springs ‘organically’ from the existence of ‘civil society’.

Deliberative Drift: The Emergence of Deliberation in the Policy Process

This article explores the issue of what we call “deliberative drift”: the emergence of deliberation in a non-deliberative setting. The literature on deliberative democracy has tended to focus upon practices taking place in specifically deliberative settings. We ask whether deliberation cannot logically occur elsewhere in the policy process, or, more specifically, can politics based on bargaining and aggregation be transformed (or drift) toward deliberative practice? In pondering this question, Habermass argument that a communicative rationality underpins deliberation is useful, as it demarcates deliberative from other practices by a willingness of participants to cast aside fixed preferences. While procedures and institutional designs are inflexible, the orientations or rationalities of individuals may be much more malleable. We explore one empirical case in which what started as negotiating and instrumental processes drifted toward a deliberative practice. We speculate that the rationalities that participants bring to their interaction, and the ways in which those rationalities change with the development of trust between participants, are as important in determining whether deliberation occurs as is the setting within which the interaction takes place.

Committee Hearings of the Scottish Parliament: Evidence Giving and Policy Learning

The Scottish Parliaments committees were designed to provide both an alternative policy agenda to government and a venue for debate and policy learning among a broad cross-section of organised interests and citizens. Work to date suggests the former has not materialised, but what about the latter? This article reports fresh data on the contribution of committee ‘hearings’ to (i) broadening the scope of ‘interests’ heard by Parliament, and (ii) facilitating policy learning among organised interests. Despite the Parliaments founding vision advocating a move away from ‘the usual suspects’, the evidence shows that hearings across issues and committees feature a recurrent core of organisations which exemplify the ‘usual suspects’ label, alongside a large number of ‘policy niche’ specialists. In relation to policy learning, the evidence shows that respondents view committee hearings favourably, with low levels of process dissatisfaction and a considerable minority of respondents shifting views as a result of participation.

Legitimating INGO Advocacy: The Case of Internal Democracies

While significant debate exists with respect to the historical novelty of contemporary processes of internationalisation and globalisation (cf. Held and McGrew, 2002; Scholte, 2005), there is a general consensus that circumstances have fundamentally altered the way governance is enacted beyond the nation state.1 And, regardless of one’s normative view, the argument that many contemporary issues necessitate coordinated action across national borders is persuasive. Trade relations and human rights issues, for example, can benefit from coordinated action among nation states. Increasing attention is being paid to the way in which the everyday lives and opportunities of the world’s citizens are being shaped by the decisions and deliberations of International Governmental Organisations (IGOs). As such, concerns are being raised about the poor level of democratic accountability of such institutions to those who are affected. One does not have to be a convicted normative cosmopolitan to accept that as key decisions are increasingly hammered out in such global institutions, those same institutions need to demonstrate forms of democratic accountability to the citizens affected.

Civic Participation in the Scottish Parliament Committees

We assess how far the committees of the Scottish Parliament have succeeded in engaging the public in their work, in line with the parliaments founding principles. We suggest that progress has been made, but argue that factors such as party politics and continuing support for traditional representative democratic norms have limited moves towards more participatory democracy. Evidence also suggests that engagement with politically marginalized groups has been limited and that, for this to change, issues of social inequality must be addressed.