Herramientas utilizadas en la investigación

The discourse of deliberative democracy represents the theoretical basis of current democratic processes that are in evidence in emerging forms of governance. Deliberative democracy has numerous strandsn. Conceptions of deliberative democracy vary along several important lines, most notably the definition of permissible forms and appropriate arenas of interaction, communication, deliberation, and different conceptions of leadership and citizenship.

6.1 .1 . 1 Discursive democracy

Dryzek's (2000) theory of discursive democracy is a useful point of departure to evaluate GCC's efforts in adopting a deliberative ethic because discursive democracy is capable of accounting for the political transformation required to enhance sustainability.

Deliberation is communication where deliberators are "amenable to

changing their judgements, preferences, and views during the course of their interactions, which involves persuasion rather than coercion, manipulation, or deception'' (Dryzek 2000, 1). Importantly, deliberation is not confined to

n The deliberative form of governance has many complementary and competing strands,

including Rawls' (1989; 1993) liberal conceptualisation, Benhabib's (1996) discursive democracy, Habermas' (1984) critical theory of democracy, and Young's (1996; 1997) communicative democracy.

certain forms of communication, or restricted to the "constitutional surface of the liberal state" (Dryzek 2000, 4). Liberal democrats, such as Rawls, tend to restrict deliberation to rational arguments. The discursive model suggests

•

that by the use and legitimation of all forms of communication, power

structures based on certain forms of interaction are undermined. For example, Mansbridge (1999) puts forward a case for including 'everyday talk' as a legitimate and important form of communication in the realm of government decision-making, and Young's communicative extension of deliberative democracy includes greeting and rhetoric as permissible interactive forms. In essence, "deliberation is about good and authentic

communication" (Dryzek 2000, 74). Allowing all forms of communication in all arenas of discussion �s important in achieving a situation where deliberation can proceed free of inhibiting power relations .

•

Addressing Ecological Concerns

Of particular interest to this work, is the capacity of discursive democracy to embrace the guiding principles of sustainability, especially the integration of ecological concerns into a world dominated by the free market bias of liberal capitalism. In this .. capacity, discursive democracy is well placed to incorporate ecological perspectives, primarily because "there is no reason

why this communication has to have a human source" (Dryzek 2000, 140). A discursive procedure itself will not ensure ecologically sustainable outcomes (Goodin 1992), but in conjunction with the dissemination and adoption of ecocentric culture, the possibility of a political transformation is much enhanced (Eckersley 1992). The integration of ecological communication requires both the communicating and listening aspects of deliberation to be utilised. Ecosystems communicate, but in order to be heard, the range of acceptable forms of communication recognised within the political sphere

Chapter 6 Local Governance and Democracy

must be extended in an ecological direction to recognise the communicative

•

capacity that humanity and nature share (Dryzek 2000). When Dryzek (2000, 150) states:

•

[if] individual humans can recall their own situation as ecological rather than merely social beings, then they, as ecosystem members, would be in a position to challenge others' interpretations of the needs of ecosystems of which they are component parts . . .

he implies that nature is best represented by those members of society who conceptualise their position as integrated parts of the wider ecosystem. Such a position challenges present views of human-nature relations and constitutes a valid and important perspective. Both Goodin and Eckersley echo this stance. Goodin (1996) terms nature's politicisation as 'encapsulated interests' represented by 'sympathetic humans', creating a "situation in which interests other than your own are called to mind" (1996, 847); Eckersley (2000) refers to this as 'enlarged thinking'. Such perspectives resonate strongly with the foundational principles of discursive democracy and sustainability discussed thus far.

Theoretically, discursive democracy is well placed to address sustainability concerns. In the following section, I discuss those conditions deemed integral to achieving democratic authenticity and legitimacy.

6 . 1 . 1 .2 Democratic authenticity and legitimacy

Integral to any theory of democracy is the realisation of democratic authenticity and legitimacy. To this end, Dryzek (2000, 8) defines authenticity as the extent to which "democratic control is engaged through communication that encourages reflection upon preferences without coercion'' and describes legitimacy as the extent to which "domination via

the exercise of power, manipulation, indoctrination, propaganda, deception, expressions of mere self-interest, threats, and the imposition of ideological conformity are all absent". Democratic authenticity emphasises the

•

substantive and procedural aspects of democracy in the state and civil spheres, rather than other symbolic aspects. In this way, difference may be recognised and embraced without being erased.

Theoretically, discursive democracy appears capable of satisfying conditions of legitimacy and authenticity. In practice, contextual variables exert a significant influence on deliberative processes. Such influences compromise the validity of communicative forms, the availability of information, and possible representation. The legitimacy of governance and democracy is

assessed through an evaluation of the degree that input has been sought and considered under conditions in which influences that restrict communication

are minimised.

Briefly outlining the challenges for the legitimacy of discursive democracy will further frame the study. Central to the democratic idea is the requirement of legitimacy. This emphasis on legitimacy becomes acute in considering the present globalised trend toward a "disaffected citizenry" (McAllister and Wanna 2001, 7). Legitimacy can be taken to describe the extent to which:

The authorization to exercise state power must arise from the collective decisions of the members of a society who are governed by that power . . . [which] arises from the discussions and decisions of members, as made within and expressed through social and political institutions designed to acknowledge their collective authority" (McAllister and Wanna 2001, 95).

Criteria for democratic legitimacy are proposed by Cohen (1989). The two criteria - freedom and equality - are of particular interest. The Habermasian

Chapter 6 Local Governance and Democracy

idea of 'freedom of power' is important in the construction of an 'ideal speech situation', which is a worthy if, in Foucault's estimation, unattainable goal. A relative freedom of power, therefore, engages with the concept of

•

equality, which Cohen (1989, 23) defines as "substantively equal in that the

existing distribution of power and resources does not shape their chances to contribute to the deliberation".

6. 1.1.2.1 Power

In the complex context of local government decision-making, it is problematic to foster a Habermasian 'ideal speech situation', in which power, knowledge, and rationality are excluded from debate (Flyvbjerg 1998; Forester 1989; McGuirk 2001). Commtmity decision-making engages with meanings, values, understandings and knowledge based on diverse forms of knowing, reasoning, and representation (McGuirk 2001), and aimed at generating consensual "ways of thinking, ways of valuing and ways of acting" (Healey 1997, 29). In theory, a situation where deliberation takes place in which power is not exercised and all forms of knowledge are equal, will produce consensus. However, two important factors intervene. First,

I

local planning decisions are situated in a political context in which citizens cannot participate equally; and second, knowledge held by Council representatives has already been validated by context, whereas the validity of community knowledge has continually to be demonstrated. In addition, McGuirk (2001, 204) suggests that deliberators "cannot be expected to adopt the dialogic practices of listening and giving respect to all voices and value systems, [and] not to abandon political strategising in favour of formulating generalised interests". Therefore, the fact that all social objects are constituted in power and difference must be a significant qualification to any attempt to approach an ideal speech situation (Mouffe 2000). An acceptance

of the ubiquity of power is necessary, and can contribute to identifying those factors leading to distorted communication. Such factors can be identified in the case of Glenorchy as challenges to enhancing inclusive deliberative

•

processes, and sustainability.