Ian O'FLynn

Veto rights are a prominent institutional feature in ethnically divided societies, especially power-sharing democracies. Yet while vetoes are intended to protect the vital interests of each ethnic community, they can give rise to serious concerns about political deadlock and instability. In response, we argue that vetoes should be subject to a justificatory test grounded in public reason. On the face of it, one troubling consequence of this approach is that a community’s assessment of its own vital interests cannot be decisive. Yet as we explain, the critical issue is not who should be the arbiter of an interest but the need to be fair to the interests of all concerned. To illustrate how a public reason approach of this sort might be rendered sufficiently specific to be of practical use, we take human rights law as our example. Having considered a number of potential difficulties that this example throws up, we conclude by noting how a justificatory test can help to deliver not just greater political stability but a more democratically progressive form of politics.

This article revisits the problems of electoral democracy, especially affective polarisation, from the perspective of the theory of deliberative democracy. Some authors representing ‘realist’ views of democracy have concluded that empirical findings regarding affective polarisation challenge not just the idea of representative democracy as responsive government but also the prospects for deliberative democracy. We point out certain problems and limitations in this conclusion and discuss how theories of deliberative democracy might actually help find remedies for affective polarisation. We apply a recent distinction by Hartman et al. as an intermediate-level conceptualisation that helps translate the theory of deliberative democracy into deliberative practices. To illustrate the potential of deliberative practices, we analyse how forums for citizen deliberation such as deliberative mini-publics could help counteract affective polarisation. We reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative forums from a systemic perspective.

Deliberative democracy entails a commitment to deciding political questions on their merits. To that end, people engage in an exchange of reasons in a shared endeavour to arrive at the right answer or the best judgement they can make in the circumstances. Of course, in practice a shared judgement may be impossible to reach. Yet while compromise may seem a natural way of dealing with the disagreement that deliberation leaves unresolved – for example, some deliberative theorists argue that a willingness to compromise manifests respect for the considered views of others, even as we continue to disagree with them – the relationship between deliberation and compromise is not as straightforward as one might think. To explain why, this paper contrasts conflicts of judgement with conflicts of preference, interest and value to show why greater attention needs to be paid to the character of the decision to be made.

The “youth bulge” in developing countries means that we need to pay close attention to how young people want to be governed. That need is particularly great in developing countries that are also deeply divided. But in divided societies, conventional opinion polls often do not suffice, yielding shallow opinions hostage to elite machinations and mutual mistrust. To shed light on what young people would want if they had a chance to learn and deliberate about the issues, we follow a survey with an intensive deliberative field experiment in one such society – Kirkuk. Contrary to widespread concerns about the predominance of ethnic interests, young educated Kirkukis support the view that different ethnic groups should have an equal say. There is also broad support for an institutional arrangement – Kirkuk’s becoming an autonomous region – that may provide space for instituting “equal say”. And deliberating with balanced information broadens support for that arrangement.

If deeply divided societies are to make the move from conflict to peace and democracy, their communities must pull together. While togetherness can be construed in different ways, its basic logic can be spelt out in terms of the notion of a ‘shared intention’. Accordingly, the burden of this article is to argue that developing shared intentions between conflicting communities is important for overcoming their conflict and to explain why deliberation is a better instrument than bargaining for developing them. Deliberation involves and promotes more extensive and robust shared intentions than bargaining and hence enables a stronger sense of togetherness between communities to emerge.

Research Highlights and Abstract This article One of the first papers to bring deliberative theory and network theory together. Maps ‘who is talking to whom’ in the field of ethnic relations in Britain. Argues that, while Muslim actors do not necessarily couch their claims in general terms, they are well integrated nevertheless. In this article, we examine the assumption that, insofar as actors deliberate well, political integration will follow. We do so specifically with respect to the political integration of Muslims in the field of ethnic relations in Britain, using data retrieved from two quality British broadsheets. Our approach has two components. First, we consider the quality of the deliberative interventions actors make, comparing Muslim actors with other actors. Second, we use measures drawn from network analysis to assess the level of political integration as indicated by the ties that those deliberative interventions forge. Our findings show that the link between how Muslim actors deliberate and their political integration in the field is more complex that one might assume. Although Muslims do not deliberate as well as normative deliberative theory says they should, empirically they are politically integrated, having forged diverse relationships that avoid the danger of polarisation.

Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation. ‘Enclave deliberation’, among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic – the future of the local schools – was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic–Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another.