Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals

Dryzek, John S.; Niemeyer, Simon

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00206.x

Cited by 272 publications

(194 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

187

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of striving for simple consensus, deliberative processes should look for a more productive relationship across diverse values, judgments, preferences, and discourses. Meta-consensus refers to agreement on the legitimacy of disputed values, the credibility of disputed beliefs, the nature of disputed choices (including the range of acceptable options), and the acceptable range of contested discourses (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2006). Meta-consensus cannot be achieved without a degree of scrutiny by participants of their own positions as well as the positions held by others.…”

Section: Deliberative Reconciliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance

Dryzek

Pickering

2017

Ecological Economics

Self Cite

131

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Deliberative Reconciliationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance

Dryzek

Pickering

2017

Ecological Economics

Self Cite

131

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dryzek 2000;Smith 2001;Dryzek and Niemeyer 2006), a specific kind of dialogue-deliberation-among parties/individuals concerned with a particular topic is widely proposed and used in natural resource management (Birnbaum et al 2015;Parkins and Mitchell 2005). The presumed capacity of deliberation to create joint problem understandings and, thus, legitimacy explains its popularity when designing management settings for contested policy areas such as water management (e.g.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…lectures) to increase participants' understanding (Black 2008;Dryzek 2000). The reason for this presupposition is that deliberative talk can increase the participants' understanding of the other actors' experience and points of view (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2006;Smith 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of short-term knowledge communication on Baltic Sea marine genetic biodiversity to public managers

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of two forms of short-term knowledge communication-lectures and group deliberations-on public managers' policy beliefs regarding genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea. Genetic biodiversity is a key component of biological variation, but despite scientific knowledge and far-reaching political goals, genetic biodiversity remains neglected in marine management. Previous research highlights lack of knowledge among managers as one explanation to the implementation deficit. This multidisciplinary study builds on the identified need for an improved knowledge transfer between science and ongoing management. A basic knowledge package on genetic biodiversity in the Baltic Sea was presented as either a lecture or a deliberative group discussion to two separate samples of public managers who are involved in Baltic Sea and other biodiversity management at the regional level in Sweden. The empirical findings show that the communicated information has an impact on the public managers' beliefs on genetic biodiversity of the Baltic Sea. Lectures seem more efficient to transfer knowledge on this theme. Those who received information through a lecture strengthen their confidence in area protection as a management tool to conserve genetic diversity. They were also more convinced of the obligation of authorities at national and regional level to take on larger responsibility for genetic conservation than those managers who participated in a deliberative discussion.

show abstract

“…For clarifying the logics of (consensual) joint decision-making and discussing the legitimacy of tacit consent outcomes, this analysis also draws on studies on decision rules and deliberation (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2006;Manin 1987;Moore and O'Doherty 2014;Novak 2014;Offe 1983;Rae 1975;Romme 2004;Sadurski 2008) as well as works on conflict resolution, collective decision-making and communication (cf. e.g.…”

Section: State Of the Art And Approach Of The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Myth of Effective Veto Power under the Rule of Consensus. Dynamics and Democratic Legitimacy of Collective Decision-Making by “Tacit Consent”

Krick¹

2017

Négociations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study challenges the widespread assumption that the decision rule of 'consensus', whereby decisions are made by 'tacit consent', i.e. without voting and through the absence of open dissent, attributes veto power to each decision-maker. It addresses this assumption from a conceptual, an analytical and an empirical point of view and reassesses the democratic value of this decision rule and its empirical applicability in this light.The main argument of the study is that veto options are restricted in so many ways under the rule of consensus that this general assumption is misleading. It is shown that the power to veto collective decisions under consensus rule is severely limited by various social mechanisms and norms, that it is furthermore asymmetrically distributed amongst decision-makers and additionally de-activated in a large share of empirical cases by an effective 'shadow of majority voting'.A comprehensive assessment of input-and output-related dimensions of democratic legitimacy shows how the equality of participation and of influence and the norms of transparency and accountability are violated by the restricted veto options and by the ambiguous preference order that follows from the peculiar logic of this decision rule, while the rule's efficiency is striking and group commitment is typically not lower than under voting rules. Considering strengths and weaknesses of the decision rule, its suitability in various political contexts is discussed.Key words : consensus, collective decision-making, tacit consent, veto power, democratic legitimacy.Cette étude discute l'hypothèse courante selon laquelle la règle de décision par consensus, par laquelle les décisions sont prises par « consentement tacite », c'est-à-dire sans vote et en absence d'une dissidence ouverte, attribue un pouvoir de veto à chaque décideur. IntroductionCollective decisions are very often generated by use of a decision rule that differs substantially from the unanimity rule of full, active group consent: with all kinds of empirical variations, political organisations as diverse as intergovernmental organs (e.g. This contribution challenges the assumption of individual and effective veto power under consensus rule and reassesses the rule's democratic value in this light. It argues that veto options under consensus rule are generally de-activated in "the shadow of majority voting", that the power to effectively veto is furthermore unequally distributed and that its use is generally restricted in various ways through social norms that serve to stabilise efficient consensus arenas (section 3). These arguments are embedded into an analysis of the logics of rule enforcement that provide the background for understanding social dynamics of consensual decision-making (section 2) and a discussion of the normative effects of restricted veto powers from a perspective of democratic legitimacy (section 4). In the conclusion, the findings' implications are discussed. To start with, I provide some background on the mode of consensual decision-making t...

show abstract

Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals

Cited by 272 publications

References 22 publications

Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance

Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance

Effectiveness of short-term knowledge communication on Baltic Sea marine genetic biodiversity to public managers

The Myth of Effective Veto Power under the Rule of Consensus. Dynamics and Democratic Legitimacy of Collective Decision-Making by “Tacit Consent”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About