Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why political parties use deliberation: a framework for analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of deliberative procedures raises a series of challenges for political parties. Despite the recent development of fruitful theoretical insights and empirical research, to date, the analytical dimensions have not been put together to facilitate the study of the interaction between parties and deliberation. This paper seeks to address this gap in the literature and proposes a framework that can explain why parties use deliberative democracy. It connects three bodies of literature: intra-party democracy, parliamentary activity, and connection with the citizenry. The article proposes an analytical framework that differentiates between issues (people and policies) and the goals (strategic objectives and normative goals). This framework brings relevant theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions to the broader field of the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman, B.A., and J.S. Fishkin. 2004. Deliberation day. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J.R., and D.W. Brady. 1993. Personal and partisan advantage in US congressional elections. In Congress reconsidered, ed. L.C. Dodd and B.I. Oppenheimer, 141–157. Washington: Congressional Quaterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, V.N., and K.M. Hansen. 2007. How deliberation makes better citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the euro. European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 531–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, A. 2014. Debate and deliberation in legislatures. In The Oxford handbook of legislative studies, ed. S. Martin and T. Saalfeld, 145–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, A., D. Hangartner, P. Hess, and C. Fraefel. 2008. Patterns of parliamentary discourse: How ‘deliberative’are german legislative debates? German Politics 17 (3): 270–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, A., and J. Parkinson. 2019. Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, A., M. Setälä, and K. Grönlund. 2014. Towards a new era of deliberative mini-publics. In Deliberative mini-publics, ed. K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä, 225–245. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi, G., and E. Ganuza. 2014. Participatory budgeting as if emancipation mattered. Politics & Society 42 (1): 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B.R. 1984. Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberà, O., and J. Rodríguez-Teruel. 2020. The PSOE’s deliberation and democratic innovations in turbulent times for the social democracy. European Political Science 19 (2): 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00236-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bedock, C., and J.-B. Pilet. 2020. Enraged, engaged, or both? A study of the determinants of support for consultative vs binding mini-publics. Representation. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caluwaerts, D. 2012. Confrontation and communication. deliberative democracy in divided Belgium. Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caluwaerts, D., and M. Reuchamps. 2018. The legitimacy of citizen-led deliberative democracy. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democractic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1): 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P. 2006. Critical mass, deliberation and the substantive representation of women: Evidence from the UK’s devolution programme. Political Studies 54 (4): 691–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity, ed. A. Hamlin and P. Petit, 17–34. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N., and D. Nethercut. 2005. Citizens Juries: creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In The deliberartive democracy handbook, ed. J. Gastil and P. Levine, 111–119. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curato, N., J.S. Dryzek, S.A. Ercan, C.M. Hendriks, and S. Niemeyer. 2017. Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus 146 (3): 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R.A. 1956. A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, R.J. 2008. Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies 56 (1): 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, S., and A. Stark. 2011. Institutionalising public deliberation: Insights from the Scottish Parliament. British Politics 6 (2): 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J.S., A. Bächtiger, S. Chambers, J. Cohen, J.N. Druckman, A. Felicetti, and M.E. Warren. 2019. The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363 (6432): 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling, M., and F. Wolkenstein. 2018. Exercising deliberative agency in deliberative systems. Political Studies 66 (3): 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esterling, K.M. 2011. “Deliberative disagreement” in US health policy committee hearings. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36 (2): 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Martínez, J.L., P. García-Espín, and M. Jiménez-Sánchez. 2020. Participatory frustration: The unintended cultural effect of local democratic innovations. Administration & Society 52 (5): 718–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399719833628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. 2009. When the people speak. Deliberative democracy & public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J., R.C. Luskin, J. Panaretos, A. Siu, and E. Xekalaki. 2008. Returning deliberative democracy to Athens: Deliberative polling for candidate selection. Available at SSRN 1142842.

  • Flinders, M., and D. Curry. 2008. Deliberative democracy, elite politics and electoral reform. Policy Studies 29 (4): 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Font, J., G. Smith, C. Galais, and P. Alarcon. 2018. Cherry-picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. European Journal of Political Research 57 (3): 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, P., H. van de Kolk, K. Carty, A. Blais, and J. Rose. 2011. When citizens decide: Lessons from citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review 66 (s1): 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gad, N. 2020. A “new political culture”: The challenges of deliberation in Alternativet. European Political Science 19 (2): 190–199. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00235-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand. Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative election. London: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., and K.R. Knobloch. 2020. Hope for democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., and E.O. Wright, eds. 2019. Legislature by Lot: Transformative designs for deliberative governance. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geissel, B., and K. Newton, eds. 2012. Evaluating democratic innovations: Curring the democratic malaise ? New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S. 2013. One-shot party primaries: The case of the romanian social democrats. Politics 33 (3): 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., and B. Geissel. 2020. Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: Understanding the difference. Political Research Exchange 2 (1): 1809474. https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1809474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., and S. Miscoiu. 2016. Crowd-sourced legislation and politics: The legitimacy of constitutional deliberation in Romania. Problems of Post-Communism 63 (1): 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., S. Soare, and V. Jacquet. 2020. Deliberative democracy and political parties: Functions and consequences. European Political Science 19 (2): 200–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gherghina, S., and V. Stoiciu. 2020. Selecting candidates through deliberation: The effects for Demos in Romania. European Political Science 19 (2): 171–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gourgues, G. 2013. Les politiques de démocratie participative. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., A. Bächtiger, and M. Setälä, eds. 2014. Deliberative mini-publics. Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., M. Setälä, and K. Herne. 2010. Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review 2 (1): 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, R., and L. Diamond. 2003. Species of political parties: A new typology. Party Politics 9 (2): 167–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazan, R.Y., and G. Rahat. 2010. Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C.M. 2006. Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 54 (3): 486–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C.M., and J. Lees-Marshment. 2019. Political leaders and public engagement: The hidden world of informal elite-citizen interaction. Political Studies 67 (3): 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718791370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelroos, S. 2017. Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums—a comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation 13 (1): 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., and P. Norris. 2017. Trump and the populist authoritarian parties: The silent revolution in reverse. Perspectives on Politics 15 (2): 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592717000111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi-Accetti, C., and F. Wolkenstein. 2017. The crisis of party democracy, cognitive mobilization, and the case for making parties more deliberative. American Political Science Review 111 (1): 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, V., C. Niessen, and M. Reuchamps. 2020. Sortition, its advocates and its critics: An empirical analysis of citizens’ and MPs’ support for random selection as a democratic reform proposal. International Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120949958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, V., and R. van der Does. 2021. The consequences of deliberative minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. Representation 57 (1): 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. 2006. Political parties and deliberative democracy. In Handbook of party politic, 47–50.

  • Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1990. Three faces of party organization: Adaptation and change. Department of Government, Victoria University of Manchester.

  • Katz, R.S., and P. Mair. 1995. Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1 (1): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068895001001001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J.W. 1993. Politicians, self-interest, and ideas. In Reconsidering the democratic public, ed. G.E. Marcus and R.L. Hanson, 73–89. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, C. 2019. Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Landemore, H. 2013. Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: An epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese 190 (7): 1209–1231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, C., and K. Holzinger. 2010. Institutional determinants of deliberative interaction. European Political Science Review 2 (3): 373–400. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, K., and P.H. Merkl. 2014. When parties fail: Emerging alternative organizations, vol. 911. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord, C., and D. Tamvaki. 2013. The politics of justification? Applying the ‘Discourse Quality Index’ to the study of the European Parliament. European Political Science Review 5 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368. https://doi.org/10.2307/191208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 1993. Self-interest and political transformation. In Reconsidering the democratic public, ed. G.E. Marcus and R.L. Hanson, 91–109. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. 1999. On the idea that participation makes better citizens. In Citizen competence and democratic institutions, ed. S.L. Elkin and K.E. Soltan, 291–325. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mucciaroni, G., and P.J. Quirk. 2006. Deliberative choices: Debating public policy in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., ed. 1999. Critical citizens. Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D., and G. Smith. 2015. Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (2): 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J., and J. Mansbridge, eds. 2012. Deliberative systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascolo, L. 2020. Do political parties support participatory democracy? A comparative analysis of party manifestos in Belgium. ConstDelib Working Paper Series 1 (9): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilet, J.-B., and W. Cross. 2014. The selection of political party leaders in contemporary parliamentary democracies: A comparative study. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Proksch, S.-O., and J.B. Slapin. 2012. Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science 56 (3): 520–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 1993. Making democracy work : Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuchamps, M., and J. Suiter, eds. 2016. Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandri, G., A. Seddone, and A.P.F. Venturino. 2015. Party primaries in comparative perspective. Farnham and Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and party systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. 1987. The theory of democracy revisited. Washington DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, S. 2014. Beyond party members: Changing approaches to partisan mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scarrow, S.E., P.D. Webb, and T. Poguntke, eds. 2017. Organizing political parties: Representation, participation, and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F.W. 2018. Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schattschneider, E.E. 1942. Political parties. New York: Holt, Riehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J.A. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York & London: Harper & Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, M., and G. Smith. 2018. Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy, ed. A. Bächtiger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren, 300–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sintomer, Y., A. Röcke, and C. Herzberg. 2016. Participatory budgeting in Europe: Democracy and public governance. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. 2009. Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, M.R., A. Bächtiger, M. Spörndli, and J. Steiner. 2003. Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. Comparative European Politics 1 (1): 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoiciu, V., and S. Gherghina. 2020. Intra-party deliberation, under-represented groups, and candidate selection: The case of demos in Romania. Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929920939818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strom, K. 1990. A behavioral theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talpin, J. 2011. Schools of democracy. How ordinary citizens (sometimes) become competent in participatory budgeting institutions. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teorell, J. 1999. A deliberative defence of intra-party democracy. Party Politics 5 (3): 363–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068899005003006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Reybrouck, D. 2016. Against elections. The case for democracy. London: The Bodley Head.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vodová, P., and P. Voda. 2020. The effects of deliberation in Czech Pirate Party: The case of coalition formation in Brno (2018). European Political Science 19 (2): 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00233-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampler, B. 2008. When does participatory democracy deepen the quality of democracy? Lessons from Brazil. Comparative Politics 41 (1): 61–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M.E., and H. Pearse, eds. 2008. Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, J., and L.E.A. Ypi. 2011. On partisan political justification. American Political Science Review 105 (2): 381–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolkenstein, F. 2016. A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (3): 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolkenstein, F. 2018. Intra-party democracy beyond aggregation. Party Politics 24 (4): 323–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Glasgow, Room 1206 Adam Smith Building, Glasgow, G12 8RT, UK

    Sergiu Gherghina

  2. TRANSITIONS Institute, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000, Namur, Belgium

    Vincent Jacquet

Authors
  1. Sergiu Gherghina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Jacquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergiu Gherghina.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gherghina, S., Jacquet, V. Why political parties use deliberation: a framework for analysis. Acta Polit 58, 495–511 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00232-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-022-00232-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation