Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies:

From Conflict to Common Ground

E. Ugarriza, D. Caluwaerts, E. Ugarriza, D. Caluwaerts

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137357809
• eBook ISBN: 9781137357816
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Comparative Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Through case-analysis and cross-sectional assessment of eleven countries this collection explores the most deeply divided societies in the world in order to highlight what deliberative democracy looks like in a deeply divided society and to understand the conditions that deliberative democracies could realistically emerge in difficult circumstances

1

Deliberation in Contexts of Conflict: An Introduction

Juan E. Ugarriza and Didier Caluwaerts

Is there any fundamental difference between ideal forms of deliberative democracy in deeply divided societies and those relatively stable societies where this idea first took root? Deliberative practices are supposed to invigorate contemporary political systems hindered by problems such as citizen apathy and legitimacy challenges. But the deliberative recipe is still in need of further specification in order to make it a feasible and tangible option in the case of stable democracies. And if we rather speak of a context of a profound societal division in terms of ideology, class, ethnicity, language or religion, then grounding efforts might seem even more daunting.

This book reflects on the promises and pitfalls of a deliberative democracy in divided societies. Some of these conflict-ridden societies have long suffered from the weaknesses inherent in contemporary democracy. Some others even drag a history of political violence, which might indicate that they are unsuitable for aspiring to the highest standards of a deliberative democracy. But is this really so?

The comparative failure of certain countries to develop as a cohesive political community, based around the idea of providing institutions, coupled with repetitive cycles of division and/or violence, may in fact be two sides of the same coin. While conflict hinders political stability, it is the very lack of a profound democratic system what creates conditions for violent means. Following this same logic, while a defective democracy and the existence of a number of violent agents conspire against a context which favors deliberative processes, it is precisely by exploring deliberative possibilities that the political and social environment may be potentially improved.

Many of the reasons why the potential for democratic deliberation in divided societies is a worth exploring topic are sometimes endorsed by deliberative scholars who have more stable scenarios in mind. Generally speaking, promoters of deliberative democracy maintain that normative debate has reached such a level of conceptual maturity that it is no longer possible to think of democracy in the twenty-first century without considering the deliberative component (Steiner, 2012). However, whether deliberation is either feasible or desirable is an issue that remains to be resolved. Thus, what would we learn if people coming from extreme endpoints in a deeply divided society were to accept the challenge of participating in a shared forum where the aim is to exchange political ideas? Could a successful experience be viewed as a valid piece of evidence indicating that deliberation might be possible, even under the least favorable conditions? Would this serve as an acid test of whether deliberation is actually possible beyond the most naïve expectations?

In general terms, the core question that guides all the chapters of this volume is this: ‘What does a deliberative democracy look like in a divided society?’ Optimistic accounts have suggested how deliberation may result in greater cohesion at both cultural and institutional levels in divided societies (Barnett, 2006; Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, forthcoming; Fishkin, 2009; McCarthy, 2011; O’Flynn, 2006; Steiner, 2012). Works with micro- and group-level emphases usually contend that deliberative practices might foster an acceptance and recognition of the other, by directing adversarial attitudes toward the promotion of democratic and nonviolent channels (Azmanova, 2010; Erman, 2009; Schwarzmantel, 2010). Macro-institutional approaches, in turn, typically discuss the relevance of deliberation as an institutional design solution for effecting a democratic overhaul where deficient power-sharing or other accommodating arrangements have been put into place (Drake and McCulloch, 2011; Dryzek, 2005; O’Flynn, 2010).

However, these positive prescriptions are in marked contrast to various somber predictions about how individuals will behave in polarized contexts (Caluwaerts and Deschouwer, 2013). A significant body of empirical evidence suggests that dialogue only exacerbates existing conflicts, thus making it an undesirable practice in deeply divided contexts. Political discussions seem to reinforce opinions expressed or decisions made prior to the exchange of information, and this could have particularly negative consequences in contexts where deep divisions exist (Nenkov and Gollwitzer, 2012). According to the most pessimistic accounts, ‘deliberation can bring differences to the surface, widening the political divisions rather than narrowing them’ (Shapiro, 1999, p. 31). And there exists empirical evidence which seemingly supports this view. Debates in general, even the most deliberative ones, stir up rather than appease existing conflicts and lead participants to agree on bad decisions. According to this interpretation, dialogue between political contradictors neither diminishes conflict nor improves people’s understanding of the situation, but rather exacerbates attitudes and emotions in an unproductive way and drives factions further apart (Gastil et al., 2008; Hansen, 2007; Hibbing and Theiss-Morse, 2002; Mendelberg and Oleske, 2000; Mutz, 2006; Wojcieszak and Price, 2010).

Does all this constitute evidence that polarization turns deliberation into a conflict-stimulating procedure? Not necessarily: Counter-factual evidence indicates that polarization does not always occur, and might actually move in a totally opposite direction (Fishkin, 2009; Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; Hamlett and Cobb, 2006; Schneiderhan and Khan, 2008). How do we make sense of this contradictory evidence? One partial answer could lie in more finely tuned explanations of how formal procedures or malleable cognitive conditions can contribute to preventing or dissipating negative polarization and/or its negative effects (Rosenberg, 2004; Ryfe, 2005; Sunstein, 2003). In absence of clarifying evidence, contradictory prediction at the normative level will persist.

The increasing volume of literature devoted to reflecting on the possibilities of transforming divided and conflictive societies into deliberative ones needs to temper its assumptions, through closer, on-the-ground examination. This is why lessons learned from the case studies in this book should serve both to determine what can realistically be expected of deliberation, and to challenge the most skeptical views on the chances of transforming conflictive societies into truly deliberative ones.

* * *

This book brings together a series of case studies from deeply divided societies, wherein the authors, experts in their fields, assess the local deliberation capacity at institutional and citizen levels. Their assessments are accompanied by supporting references to recent empirical research. While the emphasis varies over the 13-country analyses, they are all guided by a series of cross-sectional questions designed to ensure readability right through the book. As a result, each chapter describes obstacles to promoting a deliberative democracy at citizen and institutional levels, opportunities or favorable conditions, positive and negative past experiences and empirical lessons, and preliminary expert assessments.

Our second chapter describes the dual complexity inherent in introducing the concept of democratic deliberation in situations where political antagonisms have violently shattered the social fabric of a plural society. Katy Hayward shows how the original peace accords in Northern Ireland led to new opportunities for democratic political confrontation and dialogue, while – paradoxically – consolidating identity cleavages as an incentive for power politics. The growing strength of citizen engagement in public deliberation, she states, means that an institutional reform is required that will allow for a truly deliberative overhaul of the country’s political life.

The same kind of centrifugal forces that render the peace process in Northern Ireland more difficult are also threatening to destabilize another textbook example of consociational political system, namely, Belgium. In the third chapter, Didier Caluwaerts and Min Reuchamps argue that, despite the absence of physical violence, it is proving increasingly hard to manage the ethno-linguistic divides in the country. Nevertheless, they offer some hope that a deliberative solution could help to prevent Belgium from being partitioned. After all, a combination of innovative citizen engagement and institutional reform has recently proven to be able to instill new life into a semi-paralyzed system and set a precedent for other societies that are in need of such invigoration.

In the fourth chapter, Sanjay Jeram and Daniele Conversi offer insights from the Basque Country. They describe the correlation between the protracted conflict in the region and the reluctance on the part of the elites to foster public debate at any level. Even more interesting, however, is their finding that it is precisely the forms of the postconflict arrangement that have created new incentives for promoting a radically different kind of politics.

Next, we turn to Colombia, a country still embroiled in the process of ending a war and engaging in postconflict reconstruction. According to authors Margarita M. Orozco and Juan E. Ugarriza, Colombia exemplifies the innate contradiction in aspiring to the highest standards of deliberation while facing the reality of ideological polarization and a social divide. Whereas interpersonal trust has suffered extensive damage as a result of decades of armed conflict, and even though politicians are contributing to the state of antagonism, court rulings and citizen forum initiatives alike suggest the extent to which deliberation might really be possible in the country, albeit under the proper conditions. Whether postconflict actors and institutions decide to unleash their full deliberative potential remains to be seen.

In her chapter on Ukraine, Anastasiya Salnykova describes how cultural cleavages and psychological barriers conspire against the possibility of deliberation. Engaging different groups in such a divided country comes up against the stumbling block of a widespread failure to appreciate the fact that diversity is a political value. Salnykova argues that deliberative practices stand a chance in Ukraine, as long as they can effectively accommodate differing views and perspectives in a legitimate way, by emphasizing deliberative features rather than direct rational confrontation.

In contrast to the previous chapter’s cultural and psychological approach to deliberation in divided societies, Olabanji Akinola emphasizes the importance of linking deliberation to the wider institutional setting. In the chapter he explores the ways in which deliberation could contribute to the much-needed reform of Nigeria’s federalist system, and argues that a decentralized form of public participation and debate is required, given the context of cultural and political fragmentation. The proposed structuring of a coherent, federalist, deliberative democracy is in line with a difficult change of role for traditional consociational elites.

The next case expands on the types of deliberative dilemma faced in Turkey. Kivanç Ulusoy’s chapter illustrates the tensions between democratic demands in Turkey and the state’s sovereign prerogative to determine whether to openly engage in political dialogue with minorities, and if so, then how to go about this. Neither the European Union’s expectations with respect to democratic liberties, nor the Alevis’s ambition of political empowerment are satisfied by the Turkish government’s own version of what political openness should be like. The way the country eventually deals with apparently incompatible projects will determine whether a more deliberative democracy might come into being, and how.

Moving to the Middle East, Aviad Rubin presents a novel perspective on the protracted issue of accommodating the Arab community within the Israeli state. Here, the fact that it has proved impossible to establish meaningful deliberation between the two sides is reinforced by a lack of symmetry in structural information, due to the absence of a language-sensitive policy. Rather than advocating difficult political concessions, the author argues that there is a need to effectively promote collective linguistic rights, which might enable a more balanced discursive interaction to take place.

This volume includes one final case of interest, namely, Iran, which, it might be argued, falls outside the relatively coherent group of divided societies presented so far. This anomaly nevertheless allows us the opportunity to illustrate a more extreme contrast between traditional Western deliberative prescriptions and citizen demands in a polarized political environment. While labeling this country a ‘divided’ one might sound excessive, its institutionalized political polarization perfectly illustrates the type of dialogue that deliberative theory might reasonably establish with political cultures that are not fully democratic. If any analysis of purely democratic criteria is ignored, the author Sahar Aurore Saeidnia argues, neighborhood councils can be viewed as experimental settings for participatory practices and a context-bound form of deliberation.

The two final chapters are devoted to the drawing of conclusions. The first is an original analysis of the state of the art, in normative terms, on how deliberation can be conceived in divided societies. Based on an analysis of evidence gathered from different regions around the world, Sarah Maddison provocatively suggests that rather than promoting unrealizable deliberative ideals, political systems in divided societies will be viable if they openly accept existing cleavages and realistically embrace antagonistic confrontation. Comparing the cases of Australia, South Africa and Northern Ireland, she argues that living with irreconcilable conflicts will avoid the negative effects of artificial consensus that more deliberative approaches might generate.

The last chapter undertakes a cross-sectional analysis, and offers a systematic comparative examination, which sets out to draw conclusions about the questions posed earlier in this introduction. It looks once again at the main obstacles to, and opportunities for, deliberation that are referred to throughout the case studies in the book. By means of a qualitative cross-sectional analysis, Didier Caluwaerts and Juan E. Ugarriza suggest a set of preliminary answers to what a deliberative democracy should look like in divided societies. Normative implications should pave the way for empirical contestation.

Throughout this book, an interesting and complex picture emerges in relation to whether divided societies should or might aspire to the highest standards of deliberative democracy. When compared to relatively more stable and peaceful societies, our case studies describe many familiar themes, obstacles and opportunities, suggesting along the way how generalizable knowledge could be generated in these unlikely democratic labs. But at the same time, normative prescriptions envisioned for postindustrial societies cannot simply be advanced irrespective of context; hence the relevance of discussing the two alternative models which bring this book to a close.

Provocatively, authors in the concluding part of this book explore how precisely a state of political turm...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• 1  Deliberation in Contexts of Conflict: An Introduction
• Part I  Obstacles and Opportunities for Deliberation in Divided Societies
• Part II  What Does a Deliberative Democracy Look Like in a Divided Society?
• Index