Can deliberative mini‐publics contribute to deepening the democratic dimensions of electoral democracies? The question is framed in this article using a problem‐based approach to democratic theory–to count as democratic, political systems must accomplish three basic functions related to inclusion, communication and deliberation, and decision making. This approach is elaborated with an analysis of a real‐world case: a deliberative mini‐public with a citizens’ assembly design, focused on urban planning convened in Vancouver, Canada. This example was chosen because the context was one in which the city's legacy institutions of representative democracy had significant democratic deficits in all three areas, and the mini‐public was a direct response to these deficits. It was found that Vancouver's deliberative mini‐public helped policy makers, activists and affected residents move a stalemated planning process forward, and did do so in ways that improved the democratic performance of the political system. Depending on when and how they are sequenced into democratic processes, deliberative mini‐publics can supplement existing legacy institutions and practices to deepen their democratic performance.

Political systems are democratic to the extent that people are empowered to participate in political practices—such as voting, representing, deliberating, and resisting—that contribute to self-and collective-rule. There is a close relationship between equality and democracy, as equality distributes symmetrical empowerments that enable people affected by collective endeavors to participate in political practices that contribute to self- and collective-rule. This chapter elucidates the relationship between equality, inclusion, and deliberative practices in democratic systems. It describes two distinguishable values of equality required for distributing empowerments that enable deliberation: the value of universal moral equality, and the value of equity. The chapter then outlines different institutional arrangements that promote the values of universal moral equality and equity in deliberative practices.

Deliberation must be immunized against coercive power by a baseline of equality. But what does the requirement of equality mean, in practice, for organizers designing deliberative events and forums? This question is complicated by the fact that equality is fundamentally about two-at times contradictory-values. On the one hand, the value of universal moral equality, which requires abstracting from social circumstances. On the other hand, the value of equity, which requires attending to social circumstances. Deliberative institutions vary in their capacity to promote one value over the other, or in their capacity to compromise between the two. We argue that negotiating between these twin values should be done with reference to the different goals of the deliberative process (generating legitimate decisions, producing more informed opinions, promoting mutual respect, enabling accommodation, and so on), and with an eye to the trade-offs that achieving particular goals might require. Focusing on civic forums, we review existing research related to three important aspects of design-participant recruitment, the nature of the interaction, and decision-making-and discuss how different designs impact deliberation's different normative goals. We argue against a totalizing view of deliberation, where unitary institutions try to achieve all of deliberation's goals at once, and instead discuss how the trade-offs between deliberation's different functions can be resolved at the system level. We conclude by arguing that practitioners should not try to realize all deliberative goals-including equality and equity-at once, but rather should prioritize the goals they want to achieve, and select institutional rules and practices that optimally achieve these goals. Author Biography Edana Beauvais is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of British Columbia. Her research interests include deliberative democratic theory, political communication, and political psychology. Her dissertation, "Discursive Equality," considers how cognitive biases (such as stereotypes) can contribute to the internal exclusion of disempowered speakers, and theorizes potential solutions to this problem. Edana is involved in the Participedia project, trying to leverage the potentials of information technology to gain insight into citizen participation in democratic innovations.

No abstract

In today’s democracies, disempowered group members are no longer formally barred from the political arena. However, there is a concern that the historical memory of political inequality and exclusion remains as internalized cognitive dispositions, shaping behavior even after laws are changed. Focusing on the legacy of women’s political exclusion from the public sphere, I consider whether internal exclusions undermine women’s ability to influence political discourse even under conditions of formal political equality. All else being equal, do women and men in Western democracies have the same discursive influence? Are women particularly sensitive to men’s discursive authority? I help answer these questions using an experimental research design. The results of my study offer evidence that people are more willing to revise their opinions after hearing a man’s counterargument than after hearing a woman’s identical counterargument. This pattern appears to be driven by the way women respond to a man’s counterclaim. I discuss how gendered discursive inequities reinforce existing patriarchal structures, and the role that women inadvertently play in their own subjugation. I conclude by offering suggestions for better approximating the ideal of discursive gender equality.