The Dynamics and Effects of Public Deliberation Pomatto Ravazzi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
63rd Political Studies Association Annual International Conference 25-27 March 2013 Cardiff The Dynamics and Effects of Public Deliberation. Empirical Evidence from Three Italian Case Studies Gianfranco Pomatto ([email protected]) Stefania Ravazzi ([email protected]) University of Turin – Department of Cultures, Politics and Society Although still marginal compared with other traditional forms of policy- making, public deliberation is spreading all over the world at various government levels. In parallel, theoretical and empirical research in deliberative democracy is increasing and has now reached significant results, concerning characters and implications of deliberative tools, strategies and settings. However, several matters remain uncertain and need further inquiry. Among them, the present article focuses on two questions. The first is set in the wake of some recent works proposing to redefine the concept of deliberation in the light of the frequent constraints of the real world (Revel et al, 2007; Mansbridge et al, 2010; McAlister, 2011; Steiner, 2011) - How much do real deliberative processes manage to adhere to the ideals of deliberative theory and which conditions are very hard to satisfy? The second concerns a still highly controversial matter, namely the impact of deliberation on the environment in terms of external legitimacy and political influence - Does the social context legitimise deliberative practices and why? When does deliberative output really makes an impact on the decisions of the policy-makers? To answer these questions we compared three recent deliberative processes. To identify the case studies we adopted the ‘maximum 1 difference’ criterion (Peters, 1998; Rothstein, 2002), selecting three recent Italian case studies different in issue, context and structure: a deliberative process on a law on the living will, held in Turin between 2008 and 2009; a ‘Public debate’ on the construction of a new urban highway that took place in 2009 in Genoa; a ‘citizens’ jury’ on the localisation of a pyrogasifier held in 2011 in a small Tuscan town. To collect the data we combined two different qualitative methods: participatory observation (transcribing the speech acts of the dialogical sessions for a subsequent content analysis) and interviews (20-30 for each case study 1). The paper is structured as follows: the first section contains a synthetic description of the cases; in the second and in the third section we report the results of comparative analysis, highlighting and explaining the gaps between deliberative theory and deliberative practice and the impact of deliberation on the social system and the decisional process; in the conclusion we summarize and problematise the results of analysis. 1. Three deliberative experiences The deliberative ideal is based on two main principles: inclusion and argumentation. With respect to the first, the deliberative approach suggests that policy-making processes should involve every actor potentially affected by its effects and give equal space of expression to every ‘voice’ (Bohman, 1996; Elster, 1998). As a second principle, the decisional process should be based on a dialogic exchange of arguments from different points of view (Habermas, 1981; Dryzek, 1990) 2. Following these two main imperatives, a decisional process can be called ‘deliberative’ if it opens the arena to people potentially affected by the policy and if it is designed and lead to promote the exchange of heterogeneous information, ideas and arguments amongst participants. The three case studies chosen for the analysis fit perfectly this definition, although they present different deliberative settings (Table 1). 1 In the first case we interviewed citizens, members of associations and experts involved in the process. In the second case we interviewed members of citizens’ committees and environmental associations, local authorities, technicians and public servants. In the third case, we interviewed jurors, experts, politicians and public servants involved in the process. 2 Habermas (1981), mentioning Toulmin (1958), defines an argument as a speech act composed of a problematic expression and the reason (based on empirical evidence or on principles) used to prove the validity of the expression. 2 Tab. 1 – The three settings 1. A law on the living will 2. A new urban highway 3. A new pyrogasifier commitment of the arguing publicly on ratifying the political none the deliberative deliberative verdict authority output targeted (members of participants’ associations) + free survey selection free (by application) type of one shot meetings + single issue meetings + sequential meetings with participation final ‘ETM’ public assemblies the same participants five alternative issue three open dilemmas dichotomous choice (yes/no) layouts informative document ways to inform dossier of the proponent informative document experts ‘by call’ during participants ‘E-D-E’ style * ‘D-E-D’ style * the final ETM discussion groups 5-15 participants 10-20 participants 40-45 jurors role of the somewhat active passive active facilitators consensual production of the e-vote at the end of the report of the recommendations of the deliberative outputs ETM Commission jurors * E = experts’ audition. D = participants’ deliberation. 1.1 Deliberating on ethical issues: A deliberative process on the ‘living will’ Although in Italy some associations have long been active on problems related to the end of life, the national debate on the ‘living will’ 3 started only a few years ago, when the disputes around Terry Schiavo and the ethical fight of Piergiorgio Welby became popular. Then, the debate became heated during the judicial process regarding Eluana Englaro’s father, who asked for the interruption of the Life-Sustaining Treatments (LST) that for 17 years (as a consequence of a road accident) were keeping his daughter alive in a ‘persistent vegetative state’4. After a long judicial path, in 2008 the father obtained the recognition of the right to stop LST to her daughter, arguing that this was her will before losing the ability to communicate. Eluana’s case was reported by all newspapers and even though she had not written any document attesting her desire to die, her 3 A ‘living will’ is a document where a person expresses his or her will regarding therapies or health treatments he or she wants or does not want to receive in case of loss of the ability to communicate (for instance, after a trauma or in the advanced stage of a degenerative disease). 4 When fallen in a “persistent vegetative state”, a patient is alive but has lost most of his/her abilities, including the capacity to communicate and to feed autonomously. 3 vicissitudes became the spark that set off the conflict on the living will in Italy. During this period of intense and contentious debate involving politicians, the Church and several associations, the Scientific Committee of ‘Biennale Democrazia’ 5 decided to organize a deliberative process on the issue. It took place in Turin and Florence from February to April 2009 and was designed and led by a group of professional facilitators. The aim of the process was to produce recommendations to present into the Senate Health Commission. The first step was the establishment of a Steering Committee, composed of eleven experts from various fields (theology, law, philosophy, bioethics, medicine), whose duty was to guarantee impartiality to the process and to supervise the content of an informative document to distribute to the citizens prior to the process. The document contained the definition of some essential terms, a summary of different opinions and arguments on the topic and three questions concerning the most controversial aspects of the issue: 1) Should the will expressed in the past by the patient in his/her ‘living will’ prevail over the current choices of doctors? 2) Should people be free to ask for (and obtain) the discontinuation of LST like artificial breathing, nutrition and hydration? 3) Should Parliament produce a law on the matter? The dialogic process consisted of two parts: from February to April 40 meetings involving 650 citizens in two-hour discussions assisted by facilitators; on the 25th of April a one-day electronic town meeting (ETM) involving 378 citizens (some of whom had already participated in the previous meetings) in Turin and Florence. The process ended with a final report produced by the organizers and publicly presented in Turin and Florence. 1.2 Following the French example: A public debate on new highway in Genoa In Genoa, the construction of a new stretch of highway had been a topic of discussion and conflict since the ‘80s, when a first project was presented, stirring up hard opposition by the residents which caused the proponent (Autostrade SpA) to withdraw the plan in the 1990s. In 2001, a new project was included in the National plan of strategic public works and in 2006 the Liguria Region, the Province and the Municipality of Genoa approved again the project: a new stretch of highway across a densely 5 Biennale Democrazia is an event including many conferences, meetings and exhibitions about democracy. It takes place every two years in the historic capitals of Italy. 4 populated area close to an important industrial plant employing more than two thousands workers. In 2007 the mayor of Genoa promoted a deliberative process on the lines of the French Débat publique , to involve citizens in a process of inquiry on five different layouts of the future highway 6. The process