Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:24:24.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authoritarian deliberation revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2018

Baogang He  and
Hendrik Wagenaar
Baogang He*
Affiliation:
Deakin University, Australia
Hendrik Wagenaar
Affiliation:
King’s College London
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: baogang.he@deakin.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This introductory paper reviews the origin and development of the concept of authoritarian deliberation, and highlights the importance of culture and cultural tradition associated with public consultation. This paper summarizes and illustrates six key features of authoritarian deliberation in China. First, deliberation in China is a precarious balance between legal rule and state intervention. Second, the Party appeals to public reason to address and manage social conflict, and develop the soft coercion that accompanies much authoritarian deliberation. Third, this highly controlled deliberative process does, however, allow the freedom of local participants to find spaces for democratic expression, and local experiments to develop elements of deliberative democracy. Fourth, authoritarian deliberation is characterized by mutual instrumentalism. Fifth, there is an importance of an administrative and policy perspective in authoritarian deliberation. Six, the concept of authoritarian deliberation is not limited to China. There is the convergence in real-world deliberative process and outcome between authoritarian and liberal democratic systems.

Keywords

Authoritarian deliberationChinaGovernancedemocracylocal deliberative democracydeconstructed democracy
Type
Special Section, Authoritarian Deliberation Revisited (Edited by Baogang He and Hendrik Wagenaar)
Information
Japanese Journal of Political Science , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 622 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We acknowledge the financial support of the Australian Research Council.

References

Alexander, JC (2006) The Civil Sphere. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R and Cohen, MD (2001) Harnessing Complexity. Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A, Niemeyer, S, Neblo, M, Steenbergen, MR and Steiner, J (2010) Symposium: toward more realistic models of deliberative democracy disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. The Journal of Political Philosophy 18, 32–63.Google Scholar
Brown, W (2017) Undoing the Demos. Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. New York, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Charmaz, K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Cohen, J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Hamlin, A and Pettit, P (ed.), The Good Polity. New York: Blackwell, pp. 17–34.Google Scholar
Dryzek, JS (1990) Discursive Democracy. Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J (2018) Democracy When the People Are Thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J, He, B, Luskin, R and Siu, A (2010) Deliberative democracy in an unlikely place: deliberative polling in China. British Journal of Political Science 40, 435–448.Google Scholar
Habermas, J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by McCarthy, Thomas, Boston: Beacon Press, 1984.Google Scholar
He, B (1996) The Democratization of China. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
He, B (2006) Western theories of deliberative democracy and the Chinese practice of complex deliberative governance. In Leib, E and He, B), The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China. New York: Palgrave, pp. 133–148.Google Scholar
He, B (2014) Deliberative culture and politics: the persistence of authoritarian deliberation in China. Political Theory 42, 58–81.Google Scholar
He, B (2018) Deliberative Citizenship and Deliberative Governance: a case study of one deliberative experimental in China. Citizenship Studies 22, 294–311.Google Scholar
He, B and Warren, M (2011) Authoritarian deliberation: the deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics 9, 269–289.Google Scholar
He, B and Warren, M (2017) Authoritarian deliberation in China. Daedalus 146, 155–166.Google Scholar
Keane, J (2017) When Trees Fall, Monkeys Scatter: Rethinking Democracy In China. London: World Scientific Europe Ltd.Google Scholar
Lindblom, CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
Niu, P and Wagenaar, H (2018) The limits of authoritarian rule: policy making and deliberation in urban village regeneration in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 678–693.Google Scholar
O'Flynn, I and Curato, N (2015) Deliberative democratization: a framework for systemic analysis. Policy Studies 36, 298–313.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J and Mansbridge, J (eds.) (2012) Deliberative Systems. Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qin, X and He, B (2018) Deliberation, demobilization, and limited empowerment: a survey study on participatory pricing in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 694–708.Google Scholar
Rodan, G (2018) Participation Without Democracy: Containing Conflict in Southeast Asia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Romano, GC (2018) A critical reappraisal residents’ participation in China and France: “authoritarian deliberation” goes global?. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 709–722.Google Scholar
Tang, B (2018) Deliberation and governance in Chinese middle-class neighborhoods. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 663–677.Google Scholar
Tong, D and He, B (2018) How democratic are Chinese grassroots deliberations? An empirical study of 393 deliberation experiments in China. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 630–642.Google Scholar
van Eijck, G (2018) Populisme in de praktijk. De effecvitiviteit van Inspraak. De Groene Amsterdammer 142, 24–27.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, H (2007) Governance, complexity and democratic participation: how citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighbourhood decline. American Review of Public Administration 37, 17–50.Google Scholar
Weaver, RK (1986) The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6, 371–398.Google Scholar
Weber, R and Froehlich, T (2016) Are there elements of deliberative democracy in China? comments on the discussion of the Zeguo experiment. Politische Viertel Jahresschrift 5, 550.Google Scholar
Wildavksy, A (1979) Speaking Truth to Power. The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Zhang, K and Meng, T (2018) The roles of political elites in deliberative democracy: beliefs and behaviors of Chinese local Officials. Japanese Journal of Political Science 19, 643–662.Google Scholar