La prossima democrazia. Dialogo, deliberazione, decisione.

La democrazia rappresentativa soffre di una seria crisi di legittimazione, e non solo in Italia; i suoi canali di partecipazione politica portanti \u2013 elezioni e partiti - sono in serio affanno. Il nostro sistema politico rischia di perdere l\u2019essenza e il senso della democrazia, conservandone solo l\u2019involucro esterno, rappresentato quotidianamente nello spettacolo mediatico. Se vogliamo non solo proteggere, ma valorizzare i beni normativi della democrazia \u2013 inclusione, controllo popolare, accountability, responsiveness, trasparenza, efficacia, libert\ue0 individuali, diritti politici, cittadinanza - la strada \ue8 \u2018pi\uf9 democrazia\u2019. Ma come? La \u2018partecipazione\u2019 istituzionale \ue8 tipicamente solo informazione/consultazione degli interessi organizzati (una pratica pi\uf9 corporativa che democratica) o dei cittadini, in questa caso spesso in modo molto superficiale e poco influente. I movimenti sociali per parte loro intendono invece la partecipazione come democrazia diretta, declinata come assemblearismo, ma che \ue8 in realt\ue0 una forma di mobilitazione, forse anche poco democratica. In ogni caso, queste forme di coinvolgimento sono poco rappresentative della societ\ue0 nel suo insieme. E\u2019 possibile un\u2019altra forma di coinvolgimento dei cittadini che sia dialogica, rappresentativa, informata, efficace? Decine di esperienze in corso da decenni in molti paesi (Italia compresa) e una robusta elaborazione teorica suggeriscono come la partecipazione dialogico-deliberativa possa contribuire alla rivitalizzazione della democrazia integrando le istituzioni rappresentative. La partecipazione deliberativa mobilita energie e intelligenze collettive mirando a generare scelte condivise che incorporano saperi esperti e comuni, e che creano ponti tra valori, opinioni, preferenze ed interessi diversi ed anche in conflitto. Per questo la partecipazione deliberativa appare appropriata ad una societ\ue0 plurale e complessa come quella in cui viviamo. Inoltre, si tratta di una proposta realistica perch\ue9 tiene conto della limitata disponibilit\ue0 di molti cittadini comuni a partecipare: \u2018ripescando\u2019 idee democratiche di altre epoche, valorizza il sorteggio e la turnazione fra cittadini comuni, consentendo loro di dare un contributo significativo alle scelte pubbliche che li riguardano. Il volume presenta questo approccio innovativo, illustrandolo con numerosi esempi concreti sia in Italia che in altri paesi. Il volume vuole essere un contributo alla diffusione della partecipazione deliberativa in Italia ed \ue9 scaricabile gratuitamente, previa registrazione, dal sito www.laprossimademocrazia.com (oppure una copia cartacea pu\uf2 essere acquistata on demand da LULU

Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy: the 'Tuscany laboratory'

Although deliberative theory has attracted increasing attention from many quarters, a relevant question that has not yet received adequate consideration is whether it should be institutionalized (Fung et al. 2005), and how that might be done. Although there have been many successful \u2018one shot\u2019 experiences of deliberative participation, there are few examples of institutionalization as a routine practice. This raises several issues including the relationship of deliberative processes with representative institutions and processes. Compared with other developed nations, Italy has not traditionally been a leader in the application of public participation practices. However, several regional administrations have ventured into this field in recent years. At the end of 2007 the Region of Tuscany passed Law no. 69 defining Rules on the Promotion of Participation in the Formulation of Regional and Local Policies, an innovative legal provision explicitly aimed at pro-actively promoting citizen engagement in local and regional decision making. This law, by incorporating features explicitly derived from deliberative theory, institutionalizes citizen participation; that is, the involvement through group dialogue of citizens and stakeholders in decision-making about issues or problems of public interest. Tuscany has become a remarkable \u2018laboratory\u2019 for empirically testing the validity of deliberative participation in the real world, for verifying the effects and possible benefits of its institutionalization, and for applying a specific model which enables representative government and mini-publics to co-exist (and to become complementary and mutually reinforcing). The results from this laboratory will be of relevance to scholars, practitioners and politicians who are interested in such democratic innovations. Law no. 69/07 might well inform the uptake of citizen engagement well beyond Tuscan borders, both in Italy and internationally. An analysis of the approach adopted by the Law offers an opportunity to reflect on how authorities might go about actively promoting and institutionalizing citizen participation. This paper examines the impetus for the Law and the participatory process through which the Law itself was designed; it illustrates the goals of the Law and how these have been operationalized into legal provisions, with specific attention to the role of the administrations (including an ad hoc independent Authority) who were entrusted with the implementation of the Law; it highlights the deliberative features of the Law; and finally it offers a preliminary discussion of the outcomes of the Law \u2013 both successful and less so \u2013 during its first three years of existence

Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy: the ‘Tuscany laboratory’

Although deliberative theory has attracted increasing attention from many quarters, a relevant question that has not yet received adequate consideration is whether it should be institutionalized (Fung et al. 2005), and how that might be done. Although there have been many successful ‘one shot’ experiences of deliberative participation, there are few examples of institutionalization as a routine practice. This raises several issues including the relationship of deliberative processes with representative institutions and processes. Compared with other developed nations, Italy has not traditionally been a leader in the application of public participation practices. However, several regional administrations have ventured into this field in recent years. At the end of 2007 the Region of Tuscany passed Law no. 69 defining Rules on the Promotion of Participation in the Formulation of Regional and Local Policies, an innovative legal provision explicitly aimed at pro-actively promoting citizen engagement in local and regional decision making. This law, by incorporating features explicitly derived from deliberative theory, institutionalizes citizen participation; that is, the involvement through group dialogue of citizens and stakeholders in decision-making about issues or problems of public interest. Tuscany has become a remarkable ‘laboratory’ for empirically testing the validity of deliberative participation in the real world, for verifying the effects and possible benefits of its institutionalization, and for applying a specific model which enables representative government and mini-publics to co-exist (and to become complementary and mutually reinforcing). The results from this laboratory will be of relevance to scholars, practitioners and politicians who are interested in such democratic innovations. Law no. 69/07 might well inform the uptake of citizen engagement well beyond Tuscan borders, both in Italy and internationally. An analysis of the approach adopted by the Law offers an opportunity to reflect on how authorities might go about actively promoting and institutionalizing citizen participation. This paper examines the impetus for the Law and the participatory process through which the Law itself was designed; it illustrates the goals of the Law and how these have been operationalized into legal provisions, with specific attention to the role of the administrations (including an ad hoc independent Authority) who were entrusted with the implementation of the Law; it highlights the deliberative features of the Law; and finally it offers a preliminary discussion of the outcomes of the Law – both successful and less so – during its first three years of existence

Deliberative Participation: Bringing the Citizens Back In

Social regeneration is tightly interconnected with political regeneration and revitalisation of democratic regimes. The situation of representative democracy in the contemporary world appears somewhat paradoxical: on one hand, since the late ’80s, it has apparently become hegemonic, winning the competition with other forms of political regimes; at the same time, it is affected by a deep legitimation crisis. Even more importantly, the locus of decisions has shifted away from the political and public sphere to arenas over which the (supposedly sovereign) people exert no influence or control at all. Assuming that democracy ensures its members’ values that are normatively desirable (such as political rights and protection against arbitrary exercise of coercion), what can be done to tackle its present difficulties? Perhaps the answer lies “simply” in the root of the word and meaning of democracy: bringing the people back into the processes by which collective decisions are made and giving some of the power (kratos) back to the demos, i.e. “participation”. The problem is that citizen participation, as it is usually practiced, is hardly meaningful or credible; furthermore, even the two fundamental channels of citizen engagement within representative democracy—voting and parties—have lost much of their appeal. Over the last half decade, an innovative form of citizen engagement has been developed and put into practice in many parts of the world: deliberative participation. After discussing the malaise affecting contemporary representative democracy, this chapter singles out and examines six distinctive features of deliberative participation that distinguish it from other more traditional forms of engagement: inclusion; information; dialogue and deliberation; consensus; empowerment. It then proceeds to answer the question of what can be the added value for society generated by such deliberative processes, focusing in particular on its capability to contribute to better decision-making and to social capital regeneration. Finally, it briefly addresses another critical issue, i.e. whether deliberative participation should be institutionalised, and how that might be done. Though the chapter focuses on the polity, similar considerations can apply also to the public and collective sphere more broadly, including the varied forms of aggregations of society, that could use this approach in their internal decision-making, as well as promoting this form of involvement in public decision-making in their respective fields of action