Direct and Deliberative Democracy (DDD)
DDD at Stellenbosch 2011
Crowdsourcing
© Norbert Kersting
DDD at IPSA 2018, Brisbane
© N. Kersting

Direct and Deliberative Democracy (DDD)

In 2010 a working group “Direct and deliberative democracy” (DDD) was established which worked on instrument such as referendum and initiatives as well as on new dialogical instruments as well as combinations (“hybrid democracy”). It analyses the mix of online and offline participation (blended democracy). The relation to representative democratic institutions is a special interest. Furthermore the focus on the quality and the integrity of direct and deliberative democracy. Here a Direct Democratic Integrity Index is generated in 2017.

We had meetings in Stellenbosch (2011) and at conferences in Montreal (2014), Madrid (2012), Bordeaux (2013), Poznan (2016), Brisbane (2018) and online (Lisbon 2021) where we further developed the idea. The structure, sequencing, timing, the formalization, supporting actors (parties, ngos) as well as the role of new information and communication technologies became important aspects. DDD was extended analyzing its nexus to representative democracy (political parties) and demonstrative democracy (new social movements). It encompasses theoretical as well as empirical studies. What is the role of political parties and social movements in these processes? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments? Can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter?
 
The new research instrument, the Direct Democracy Integrity Index is being used to assess referenda, for example in Türkiye, Russia, Italy and Hungary.

Contact: norbert.kersting(at)uni-muenster.de

Current Publication

Latest

Kersting, Norbert 2023 Constitutional referendums and deliberation Direct democratic integrity in Russia, Italy, and Turkey. In: Min Reuchamps/ Yanina Welp (eds) 2023: Deliberative Constitution-making. Opportunities and Challenges. London: Routledge

Kersting, Norbert/ Tiphaine Magne/ Margarita Zavadskaya 2023 (forthcoming): Direct democracy integrity in modern authoritarian systems - The constitutional referendum in Turkey 2017 and Russian plebiscite in 2020. In: Journal of Lower States

Kersting, Norbert/Marta Regalia 2023: Direct democracy and its integrity. The Italian 2020 and the Turkey 2017 Constitutional Referendums. In: Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft

Norbert Kersting/Max Groemping 2021: Direct Democracy Integrity and the 2017 Constitutional Referendum in Turkey. A new research instrument. In: European Political Science (2021)

Supplementary Material

Kersting Groemping Direct Democracy Integrity And The 2017 Constitutional Referendum In Turkey_ Supplementary Materials

Conferences:

  • IPSA WC 2023 Congress Buenos Aires

    Panel: Direct and deliberative democracy and its integrity.
    In RC06 Political Sociology
    Convenor
    Prof. Norbert Kersting
    Chair
    Dr. Max Grömping
    Co-chair
    Prof. Norbert Kersting
    Discussant
    Prof. Brigitte Geissel

    Given the disappointments of liberal electoral democracies, election campaigns, and electoral results, scholars have advocated democratic innovations such as direct democratic and deliberative instruments in recent decades. "Direct democratic instruments" such as referendums and initiatives have become increasingly popular but are highly criticized (see Brexit referendum, Russian or the Turkish referendum). The new electoral integrity index covers there countries. "Dialogical deliberative instruments" - e.g. participatory budgeting, mini publics, or citizen assemblies - are en vogue in a number of countries, but some are criticized for their lack of effectiveness (tyranny of participation). Analyzing the integrity of these instruments puts the focus on the evaluation of procedural aspects in addition to outcomes. hat are the criteria of evaluation? Most instruments have online and offline components. Are there new or different criteria for online participation in this respect? What are best or bad practices in direct democracy and in deliberative democracy?

    Beiträge

    An Inquiry into the Conditions for political Participation in current Democracies
    Author: Prof. Ricardo Angel Minetti, Argentina
    Citizens' Assemblies and Direct Democracy
    Author: Prof. Nenad Stojanovic, Switzerland
    Connecting Citizens' Assembly with Citizens' Initiative: A Proposal
    Author: Prof. Robert Podolnjak, Croatia
    Direct democracy and integrity. Referendums in Turkey, Russia, Italy and Chile
    Author: Prof. Norbert Kersting, Germany
    Online Voting as Direct Democracy: Assessing the Effect on Open Government in Chile and Colombia
    Author: Dr. Dmytro Khutkyy, Estonia
    Co-Author: Mr. Eduardo Astudillo Laureda, Chile

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Lisbon 2021 - Direct and Deliberative Democracy: Online and Offline

    Policy development as well as Constitutional review process are characterized by participatory democracy. According to the principle "first talk then vote", deliberative and direct democratic instruments become more important. But also digitalization is changing political participation. What are the online and offline instruments (blended participation) implemented. What are the benefits - what are the problems? This open meeting of the DDD (Direct and Deliberative Democracy)- group is focusing on the combination of online participation and offline participation.

    Chair: Prof. Marian Mendoza
    Discussants: Prof. Todd Shaw

    Papers: Attitudes on Online Participation and Offline Participation
    Norbert Kersting

    Beyond transparency. Using open government and deliberative democracy to assess the quality of lobbying regulation
    Alberto Bitonti, Claudia Mariotti

    Do ICTs Improve Deliberative Quality of Constitutional Reforms?
    Visvaldis Valtenbergs, Raphael Kies, Norbert Kersting, Marie Dufrasne, Alina Ostling

    State Capacity and Public Policy Implementation of Open Data: The Brazilian Context
    Murilo Borsio Bataglia, Ana Farranha

    For further information on the panel and presented papers see the IPSA WC site

    DDD at IPSA WC: Lisbon 2021 - Direct and Deliberative Democracy: The Quality of Online and Offline Participation

    Direct democracy is critised. How can the deliberative quality be enhanced. What are the indictors evaluating online and offline instruments (blended participation)? What are the benefits - what are the problems? Is gamification a sucessful strategy? This meeting of the DDD (Direct and Deliberative Democracy)- group is focusing on the quality of direct and deliberative participation (online or offline or blended).

    Chair: Antonia María Ruiz Jiménez
    Discussants: Dr. Chetan Singai

    Papers: Deliberative Democracy and Policy Making in India: The Case Study of National Education Policy
    Chetan Singai, Nibras K. Thodika

    Direct Democracy in Social Movements: Intersectional Technopolitical Media Practices in Brazil and Spain
    Miss Luiza Aikawa

    Online Campaigning and Devoted Users: Gamification and Engagement on Twitter in the 2019 EP Election Campaign
    Francesco Grisolia, Antonio Martella, Roberta Bracciale, Maurizio Tesconi

    The Institutionalization of Norms of Deliberation in the Design of Local Public Consultations in Germany and Poland
    Anna Przybylska, Tobias Escher, Malte Steinbach, Marta Jas-Koziarkiewicz

    For further information on the panel and presented papers see the IPSA WC site

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Brisbane 2018 - How to Measure Integrity?

    The DDD research group focused on inegriy of direct and deliberative democracy. Included an elevation of the Turkish referedum by Max Grömpin and Norbert Kersting. The new research instrument direct ad deliberative democracy index (DDI) was tested.
    A systemaical framework analyzed processual integrity. Furthermore a comparative study on global citien initiatives and global referendums. Other comparative studies analyzed Mexican cities and Barcelona.

    Chair: Max Grömping
    Discussant: Jensen Sass

    Papers: The Comparative Research on the Global citizens Initiatives & Referendums of the Direct Democracy
    Chang-Lin Li

    Direct Democracy Integrity and Constititional referendum in Turkey in 2017. A new research instrument
    Norbert Kersting, Max Grömping

    Social and Political Innovation: The Case of the Metropolitan Are of Guadalajara in Constrast to that of Barcelona
    Carlos Alberta Navarrete Ulloam

    Measuring the Procedural Integrity of Democrativ Innovations with a Systemic Framework
    Dannica Fleuß, Gary Schaal

     

    For further information on the panel and presented papers see the IPSA WC site.

     

  •  

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    DDD at IPSA WC: Poznań 2016 - The Question of Legitimacy

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Referendums are en vogue. With the deliberative turn new „Dialogical deliberative instruments” were implemented in a number of countries. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). Some countries focus more on referendums and initiatives others seem to prefer participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. Both democratic channels (and a combination of both) are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies.
    In a number of cases, decisions deriving from referendums and deliberative democratic instruments were accepted by the parliaments and executive and different interest groups seem to be satisfied. In other cases executive and legislative institutions reject the results (see for example Icelandic constitutional review). Some direct and deliberative participatory instruments are not able to channel growing political protest. What instruments are more successful? What is the opinion of elected politicians political administrators as well as citizen regarding the legitimacy of participatory instruments? What is the context for the success? What kind of actors are involved?

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Co-Chair: Prof. Maija Setälä

    Discussants: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Abstracts:

    Overcoming political indirectness: populism as radical democracy
    Dr. Enrique Peruzzotti
    Can an unconstitutional referendum be legit? The case of Spain - Catalonia
    Ms. Mariana Lopes Alves
    Democratic Innovations of EMU? Direct and Deliberative Participatory Experiments under Hard Constraints
    Prof. Ulrike Liebert
    Hybrid Participatory Budgeting: the Challenges of a Multi-channel Participation
    Mr. Michelangelo Secchi
    Unequally Succesful Participatory Instruments?: How Institutional Design Affects The Fate Of Policy Proposals
    Mr. Pau Alarcón Pérez, Prof. Graham Smith, Mrs. Carolina Galais, Mr. Joan Font

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • DDD at IPSA WC: Montreal2014 - Direct and Deliberative Democracy. How to combine both?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    With the new wave of democratization "Direct democratic instruments” such as referendums and initiatives became popular. With the deliberative turn new „Dialogical deliberative instruments” are en vogue in a number of countries. Some countries focus more on referendums and initiatives others seem to prefer participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. Both democratic channels are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies. Are these instruments enhancing legitimacy and are they able to channel growing political protest. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). The idea is to bridge these two fields of direct and deliberative democracy research (hybrid democracy). Its combination is rare (see e.g. British Colombia, Iceland). Is it useful to combine dialogical and direct democracy? If yes, how can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter? How can this be institutionalized? What is the role of political parties and social movements in these processes? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments?

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Abstracts:

    A CONSTITUTION BY THE PEOPLE? Deliberative and Direct Democracy in the Romanian 2013 Reform
    Dr. Sergiu Gherghina, Prof. Sergiu Miscoiu
    Democratic Participation and Deliberation in Crowdsourced Legislative Processes: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland
    Dr. Helene Landemore/Tanja Aitamurto
    The Icelandic Democratic Project
    Prof. Stefania Oskarsdottir, Prof. Jon Olafsson
    The Role of Redundancy and Diversification In Multi-Channel Democratic Innovations
    Dr. Paolo Spada, Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • ECPR General Conference: Bordeaux 2013 - Revisiting Theories, Concepts and Methods

    Four Decades of Democratic Innovation Research: Revisiting Theories, Concepts and Methods

    Direct democratic instruments such as referendums and initiatives as well as new "Dialogical deliberative instruments” such as participatory budgeting, mini publics, consensus conferences etc. are en vogue in a number of countries. Both democratic channels are seen as an innovation and addition for mainstream traditional representative democracies. Are these instruments enhancing legitimacy and are they able to channel growing political protest. Direct and deliberative participatory instruments rely on electronic democracy and both use a mix out of online and online engagement (blended democracy). The idea is to bridge these two fields of direct and deliberative democracy research (hybrid democracy). Its combination is rare (see e.g. British Colombia). Is it useful to combine dialogical and direct democracy? If yes, how can dialogical democratic instruments and instruments of direct democracy (Initiatives and Referendums) be combined. Do type, sequence and timing matter? How can this be institutionalised? Who are relevant actors supporting these instruments?
     

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Prof. Maija Setälä

    Discussants: Matt Qvortrup

    Abstracts:

    Beyond the Citizen Initiative? Participatory and Deliberative Agenda Setting in the UK Sustainable Communities Act (2007)
    Adrian Bua

    Combining Citizens’ Initiatives and Deliberation – The Case of Avoin Ministeriö
    Presenter: Laura Nurminen, authors: Maija Jäske, Henrik Serup Christensen

    The Cherry on Top or Too Much Salt in the Soup? Participatory Innovations in Swiss Local Direct Democracy
    Philippe Koch (presenter), Nico van der Heiden, Daniel Kübler

     

  •  

    DDD at IPSA WC: Madrid 2012 - Direct and Deliberative Democracy. Theory and Practices

    Convenor: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Chair: Prof. Norbert Kersting

    Co-Chair: Dr. Giovanni Allegretti

    Discussants: Prof. Roland Roth

    Prof. Eduardo Alsonso

    Mr. Juan Cristóbal Portales

    Prof. Gary Schaal

    Ms. Claudi Ritzi

    Dr. Maija Setälä

    Dr. Enrique Peruzotti

    Ms. Ana Claudia Teixeira

    Miss Paula Pompeu Fiuza Lima

  • DDD at Stellbosch 2011 - From innovative deliberation to binding referendum.

    Mittwoch 9.-12. March  2011,  Stellenbosch: STIAS

    Direct and deliberative democracy. From innovative deliberation to binding referendum-
    Mittwoch 9.-12. March 2011, Stellenbosch: STIAS
    Kommen die Caravellen zurück? Während man in den 1970 er Jahren vor allem von einem Demokratieexport in die Dritte Welt sprach, hat sich dieser Trend anscheinend umgekehrt. In Latein¬amerika wird eine Vielzahl von Referenden implementiert (s. Uruguay). Neue deliberative Beteiligungsinstrumente wie z.B. der Bürgerhaushalt wurde im globalen Süden (Porto Alegre) entwickelt und haben in den letzten Jahren in den alten Demokratien Europas an¬gerei¬chert durch neue Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien großen Anklang gefunden.
    Ein zentrales Problem ist dabei die Verstetigung und Institutionalsierung der neuen delibera¬tiven Verfahren. Ein weiteren zukünftiges Themenfeld ist die Verknüpfung deliberativer Verfahren mit numerischen direktdemokratischen Verfahren Referenden und Initiativen.
    Neben Brasilien und anderen lateinamerikanischen Laendern finden sich „best practices“ im Bereich Bürgerbeteiligung auch in Asien (Indien, Kerala). Auch Südafrika hat in der Verfassung, in der Kommunalgesetzgebung wie auch durch die Rechtsprechung des Verfassungsgerichts zu den soziooekonomischen Rechten -die oft Beteiligungsverfahren ein¬fordert- einzigartige rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für Partrizipation. Die Verfassung Südafrikas sieht in allen politischen „Sphären“ die Nutzung moderner Beteiligungsin¬stru¬mente vor. Die white und green paper zur Local Governenmet benennen derartige Instrumente.
    Sind neue Beteiligungsinstrumente (Citizen Jurys, Participatory budgeting, Forums, Referenden, Deliberative polls etc.) die Lösung zur Kanalisierung des Protests der sozialen Bewegungen? Kann man deliberative Verfahren institutionalisieren? Wie lassen sich Referenden und deliberative Verfahren verknüpfen? Um gegenseitige Lernprozesse zu ermoeglichen wird der Vergleich zwischen Europa, Asien ( Indien) und Lateinamerika (Brasilien) gesucht.