The Effects of Deliberation on Citizen Knowledge, Attitudes and Preferences: A Case Study of a Belgrade Deliberative Mini Public

Ana Đorđević; Jelena Vasiljević

doi:10.2298/FID2201072D

Autori

Ana Đorđević University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory
Jelena Vasiljević University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2201072D

Ključne reči:

deliberation, deliberative mini publics, citizen participation, pedestrian zone and traffic, Belgrade, knowledge, attitudes, preferences, local politics

Apstrakt

Participation in deliberative arenas is often lauded for its transformative impact on citizens’ attitudes, sense of agency and ability to formulate concrete policy proposals. The focus of this paper is the first ever deliberative mini public in Belgrade, centred on the topic of expanding the pedestrian zone and rerouting traffic in the city core. By relying on a set of qualitative and quantitative data collected before and after the deliberation, we aim to explore the effects of the public deliberation on the participants’ knowledge, attitudes and preferences. Our hypothesis was that participation in this deliberative process led to better understanding (enhanced knowledge) of the discussed topic and change in attitudes and preferences regarding its realization. The scope of this study is limited, given the non-experimental design and small sample. Overall, the results indicate that participants` knowledge on the topic of deliberation is enhanced, becoming more precise, elaborate and encompassing different perspectives. As for the attitudes and preferences, in most cases, around two-thirds of the sample changed their positions, while about a third of the sample changed sides, mostly agreeing less with the expansion of the pedestrian zone. The findings support the conclusion that, on a local level, deliberation has the capacity to inform and enhance competence for greater political participation.

Reference

Bieber, Florian (2018), “Patterns of Competitive Authoritarianism in the Western Balkans”, East European Politics 34 (3): 337–354.

Castaldo, Antonino (2020), “Back to Competitive Authoritarianism? Democratic Backsliding in Vučić’s Serbia”, Europe-Asia Studies 72 (10): 1617–1638.

Curato, Nicole; Hammond, Marit; Min, John B. (2019), “Deliberative Democracy in Dark Times”, in Nicole Curato, Marit Hammond, John B. Min (eds.), Power in Deliberative Democracy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–172.

Dryzek, John S. (2009), “Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building”, Comparative Political Studies 42 (11): 1379–1402.

Fiket, Irena; Pudar Draško, Gazela (2021), „Mogućnost vaninstitucionalne političke participacije unutar neresponsivnog sistema Srbije: uticaj nepoverenja i interne političke efikasnosti“, Sociologija 63 (2): 400–418.

Fiket, Irena; Đorđević, Biljana (2022), “Promises and Challenges of Deliberative and Participatory Innovations in Hybrid Regimes: The Case of Two Citizens’ Assemblies in Serbia”, Philosophy and Society 33 (1): 3–25.

Fiket, Irena; Ilić, Vujo; Pudar Draško, Gazela (2022), “Failed Expectations: Can Deliberative Innovations Produce Democratic Effects in Hybrid Regimes?”, Philosophy and Society 33 (1): 50–71.

Fishkin, James; Luskin, Robert (1999), “Bringing Deliberation to the Democratic Dialogue”, in Maxwell McCombs, Amy Reynolds (eds.), A Poll with a Human Face: The National Issues Convention Experiment in Political Communication, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3–38.

“Freedom in the World 2021, Serbia”, (Internet) available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/serbia/freedom-world/2021 (viewed 3 Jan., 2022).

Habermas, Jürgen (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, Boston: Beacon Press.

Janković, Ivana (2022), “Deliberative Democracy – Theory and Practice: The Case of the Belgrade Citizens’ Assembly”, Philosophy and Society 33 (1): 26–49.

Jiang, Min (2008), “Authoritarian Deliberation: Public Deliberation in China. New Media and the Social Reform”, Proceedings of the 2008 Global Communication Forum, Shanghai, China, 21-22 June, 2008. Shanghai Jiao Tong University: 273–290.

Lacelle-Webster, Antonin; Warren, Mark E. (2021), “Citizens’ Assemblies and Democracy”, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, online: https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1975.

Luskin, Robert; Fishkin, James; Jowell, Roger (2002), “Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain”, British Journal of Political Science 32 (3): 455–487.

Mansbridge, Jane (2010), “Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard”, The Good Society 19 (1): 55–62.

Parkinson, John; Mansbridge, Jane (eds.) (2012), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Theories of Institutional Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“Shadow Report. State of Democracy in Serbia 2021”, (Internet) available at: https://centarsavremenepolitike.rs/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/State-of-Democracy-in-Serbia-2021.pdf (viewed 3 Jan., 2022).

Steiner, Jürg (2012), The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suiter, Jane; Farrell, David M.; O’Malley, Eoin (2016), “When do Deliberative Citizens Change their Opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens’ Assembly”, International Political Science Review 37 (2): 198–212.

Suiter, Jane; Muradova, Lala; Gastil, John; Farrell, David M. (2020), “Scaling up Deliberation: Testing the Potential of Mini-publics to Enhance the Deliberative Capacity of Citizens”, Swiss Political Science Review 26 (3): 253–272.