Abstract: Who wants to deliberate, why, with whom, and on what topics? With the exception of an APSR article by Neblo et al. (2010), scholars and practitioners of deliberative democracy have long disregarded the importance of willingness for deliberation. The work undertaken by Neblo et al (2010) is not able to shed light on areas where deliberation is most necessary and most difficult: under conditions of cultural and religious difference. In this paper, I will provide an account of the indispensability of willingness for deliberation. Furthermore, I will use original survey data collected from students at the University of British Columbia to offer answers to questions such as: What are some of the reasons that would prompt willingness for participation? What are the issues that would make one hesitant about participation? Does the willingness vary depending on the (type) of topic? Does the willingness to deliberate depend on the groups of people involved in the deliberation?Are there any mitigating factors that could motivate those less willing to consider participation? The failure to have an inclusive and representative deliberation is a concern for all deliberative endeavours but particularly problematic when convening multicultural deliberations. Without proper inclusivity and representativeness, cultural and religious groups, opinions, lived experiences, and discourses might be left out of consideration. This can undermine the legitimacy, efficacy, and quality of deliberation and further marginalize groups who might already be or feel that they are marginalized in a society.

Abstract: "Scholars working on deliberative democracy increasingly pay attention to forms of deliberation that aim for compromise rather than consensus. More precisely, compromise is increasingly acknowledged as a promising alternative to consensus when it comes to dealing with the moral and political disagreements that characterize pluralistic societies (Bellamy 1999, Bellamy et al. 2012, Bohman 2009 and 1996, Gutmann and Thompson 2012, Mansbridge et al. 2013, Mansbridge et al. 2010, Weinstock 2006). However, it is not clear how exactly theories of compromise relate to the deliberative democratic paradigm: Should we conceive of compromise as a proper part of deliberative democracy or should we rather think of it as a separate theoretical framework? My paper addresses the yet unsettled question whether (and if so, how) compromise fits in the deliberative democratic paradigm. I suggest that we can clarify the role of compromise in deliberative democracy by analyzing how theories of compromise and deliberative democracy overlap in their constitutive normative ideals. I propose that both theories overlap (1) in their aim to resolve moral and political disagreements through public deliberation; (2) in their emphasis on the non-coercive nature of the deliberative process; and (3) in their assumption that deliberation requires a meaningful exchange of reasons. Based on a conceptual analysis of these three overlapping ideals, I argue that (for the purpose of dealing with disagreement) compromise is best conceived of as a proper part of deliberative democracy rather than as a separate theoretical framework."

Abstract: "In a contemporary era defined by urbanization and globalization, the way diverse populations negotiate the terms under which they live together within the limited confines of urban space has become a critically important political challenge. This paper asks how collective urban actors claim a voice in shaping the places in which they reside, in order to deepen our understanding of the gap that exists between our normative principles and democratic ideals regarding who should have a voice in shaping our cities and the empirical reality of who actually does. To this end, it analyzes instances of the representational politics of urban contestation, occurring in Vancouver, BC, in response to physical and demographic change. In this politics, groups of residents tactically deploy representations of the meanings, values and powers associated with different social groups or “types” of people, and with different “types” of places. These urban, collective actors frame themselves, their political adversaries and other social groups in specific, strategic terms in order to assert their entitlement to particular material and symbolic resources. They employ these representations of identity as a political tool to establish themselves as legitimate political actors: actors with a right to a voice in determining the shape of the places in which they dwell. This paper explores how this politics functions as a process of social construction—that is, how it shape the identities of urban people and places—and what this suggests about the trade-offs involved in becoming “a legitimate political actor.”"

Abstract: The “systemic turn” in deliberative theory emphasizes the need to evaluate institutionalized forms of deliberative democracy (citizen assemblies, deliberative polls, etc) in light of the broader political system. The aim in expanding our evaluation of deliberative democracy’s success beyond formal deliberation is to reduce the democratic burden different elements (mini-publics, protest, legislators) bear: an important move given each component’s limitations. Instead of institutionalized deliberation failing or succeeding on the basis of what it alone can accomplish, the systems approach lets us consider a division of labour (Mansbridge et. al. 2012, 2-5) and redirects our attention to the deliberative and democratic health of the political system. The promise of this approach depends on the connections between institutionalized deliberation and the larger demos. While recent attempts to develop these connections help to close some of deliberative theory’s democratic gaps there is still the question of how a deliberative system’s components ought to fit together and whether current standards of evaluation are sufficient, especially if deliberative democrats are to remain committed to the normative criteria that aim to prevent marginalization and substantive exclusion. In this paper I investigate standards that regulate the systems approach and ask whether a robust deliberative system requires more in the way of normative criteria and institutional requirements in order to guard against exclusion. As I do so I analyse the shortcomings of external responses to the BC and Ontario Citizen Assemblies and apply these lessons to the deliberative systems literature and, in response, propose normative and institutional criteria.