Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy: Perspectives from Below

Abstract

In this paper I provide a decolonial critique of received knowledge about deliberative democracy. Legacies of colonialism have generally been overlooked in theories of democracy. These omissions challenge several key assumptions of deliberative democracy. I argue that deliberative democracy does not travel well outside Western sites and its key assumptions begin to unravel in the ‘developing’ regions of the world. The context for a decolonial critique of deliberative democracy is the ongoing violent conflicts over resource extraction in the former colonies of Africa, Asia and Latin America. I argue that deliberative democracy cannot take into account the needs of marginalized stakeholders who are defending their lands and livelihoods. The paper contributes to the literature by (1) offering a critique of hegemonic models of democracy that cannot address issues of inequality and colonial difference and (2) offering possibilities to imagine counterhegemonic alternatives for a democratization of democracy from below.

The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

“…Yet, MSIs, because they involve corporate actors, will always be critiqued in their regulatory role (Hussain & Moriarty, 2018). Even though our conceptualization can help alleviate some of these concerns, for instance, around bringing more local and "on-the-ground" solutions for governing global business activities (Banerjee, 2021), the intractability of some underlying worldviews will always result in dissensus and contestation around MSIs' role (Fougère & Solitander, 2020). Yet, working to improve the parts, such as MSIs, of the overall transnational governance system, as we have done, will, we hope, help deal with the social and environmental problems generated by transnational business activities.…”

“…In the context of MSIs, however, and as heavily emphasized in the research critical of them (e.g., Banerjee, 2018;MSI Integrity, 2020), actors other than for-profits are often sidelined in decision-making processes. Some actors may also refuse altogether to participate in such deliberations in the first place because of intractable differences, such as some Indigenous communities' emphasis on self-determination (Banerjee, 2021). Yet, apart from intractable differences, being excluded from MSIs should, in general, be sufficient motivation for marginalized groups to participate in DMPs that would be able to influence MSI processes and decisions and make them less marginalizing.…”

The Political Ontology of Corporate Social Responsibility: Obscuring the Pluriverse in Place

“…Third, scholars have examined the politics of CSR as legitimation discourse and form of propaganda (Hanlon & Fleming, 2009 ), supporting the interests of (extractive) corporations while obscuring colonial processes of dispossession in the Global South (Banerjee, 2000 , 2018 ; Alcadipani & de Oliveira Medeiros 2020 ; Blowfield & Frynas, 2005 ; Özkazanç-Pan, 2018) . These scholars see CSR as a tool for greenwashing (Lee et al, 2018 ; Mahoney et al, 2013 ; Siano et al, 2017 ), hiding colonial violence (Banerjee, 2000 , 2008 , 2018 , 2021 ; Ehrnström-Fuentes, 2016 ) while disregarding other logics, perspectives and lived realities in the Global South (Alcadipani & de Oliveira Medeiros 2020 ; Maher, Monciardini, et al, 2021 ). These are meaningful and important critiques of CSR and its impacts on marginalized and often land-based communities.…”

“…The possibility for local populations to influence the certification procedures is very limited, as they are settled in multi-stakeholder networks to which local communities are not granted access (Banerjee, 2018(Banerjee, , 2021. Although public hearings or stakeholder dialogues (Ehrnström-Fuentes and Kröger, 2017) do often take place, the legitimacy of local communities' demands still depends on whether they can be scientifically evidenced by 'expert' knowledges that fit the modern parameters of what is considered 'reasonable' (Blaser, 2013b).…”

“…Business ethics scholars have long developed critical perspectives of CSR, understanding its political and power dimensions (Banerjee, 2018 , 2021 ; Böhm et al, 2008 ; Whelan, 2012 ; Fleming & Jones, 2012 ; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011 ; Vallentin & Murillo, 2012 ). While territory and land have been identified as vital by some CSR scholars (Banerjee, 2000 ; Ehrnström-Fuentes, 2016 , 2022b ), there has been a general lack of consideration of the struggles over place (Ehrnström-Fuentes, 2022a ).…”