1 Yuna Blajer De La Garza One of the Goals of Democratic Theory Is To

Note: This is a very early draft. Please do not circulate or quote without author’s permission. Any comments or questions are appreciated at [email protected]. TRAINING FOR DEMOCRACY: LOCAL DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION IN PARIS Yuna Blajer de la Garza One of the goals of democratic theory is to understand what makes a democracy democratic—or, otherwise put, where lies the democratic spine, the democratic essence of democracy. While structuralist scholars have opted for a minimalist description of a democracy characterized by “free and fair elections,” scholars of democratic deliberation have emphasized the role of open discussion among equals: by confronting different arguments for a policy or law, citizens interacting as equal members of a political community can reach decisions perceived by all as legitimate. Accordingly, the democratic-ness of a regime is sustained through the process of deliberation. But where exactly does that process take place? Where can democratic deliberation be seen and cultivated at its best? Given the challenge posed by the sheer number of individuals who compose a political community, the deliberation that interests these theorists is usually understood to take place in representative spaces (such as Congress), appropriately considered the deliberative bodies of a democratic government. Indeed, scholars have argued that it is precisely in legislative spaces where laws and policies are debated by elected representatives that deliberation can be seen at its prime. In those spaces, laws that will govern all those who inhabit the political community are decided. Perhaps because of that, Joshua Cohen has cautioned that “local, sectional, or issue-specific lines are unlikely to produce the open-ended deliberation required to institutionalize a deliberative procedure.”1 1 Joshua Cohen, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Deliberative Democracy : Essays on Reason and Politics 85. 1 Contrarily to that cautionary word, in this paper I explore neighborhood meetings as an alternative and seemingly unremarkable site for democratic deliberation. At first blush, neighborhood meetings in a consolidated democracy might not seem particularly significant from the perspective of democratic theory: for starters, they occupy citizens in “local, sectional, [and] issue-specific lines.” Moreover, unlike the Qāt chews studied by Lisa Wedeen, they are not flourishing amid the inhospitable grounds of an authoritarian regime.2 And yet, I argue that not only are neighborhood meetings critical for developing democratic mores (much to the liking of Tocqueville), but, more significantly, that it might be easier to approach the ideals of deliberative democracy in low-key, local contexts where not much seems to be at stake, than in the high-stakes context of national legislative bodies. As such, this paper can be read as an apology of the virtues of ordinariness. First, low-stakes discussions are not prone to being captured by vexing party politics, making it possible for one person to vote with one group on one topic and another group on another. Low-stakes discussions allow individuals to have an “open- mind” with regards to the outcome of the decision (at least more open than in national legislative bodies). Second, the simplicity of the topics discussed makes them accessible to everyone regardless of social capital and education. While not everyone might feel informed enough to provide their opinion on, say, a convoluted reform to the tax code and its implications, everyone can easily have an opinion on the flowerpots of their neighborhood. Namely, the basis for equal standing in the discussion are easily guaranteed. Conversely, at higher national levels where the stakes are high, deliberations are easily captured by party politics and the perverse incentives that jeopardize the openness that supposedly characterizes genuine democratic deliberation.3 As such, at high levels, there is not much real deliberation and not much willingness to revise positions and reconstitute alliances.4 In neighborhood meetings, on contrary, I show that it is because the issues discussed are mundane, specific, and simple that they are accessible to all and thus make possible a space to cultivate democratic mores. 2 Lisa Wedeen, “The Politics of Deliberation: Qāt chews as Public Sphere in Yemen,” Public Culture 19 (2007): 59-84, and Peripheral Visions: Publics, Power, and Performance in Yemen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008). 3 On this point, see Adrian Blau, “Rationality and Deliberative Democracy: A Constructive Critique of John Dryzek's Democratic Theory,” Contemporary Political Theory 10 (2011): 37-57. 4 I discuss this below, but, for a preview, think about how “deliberations” in Congress take place. Although there are often displays of remarkable oratorial abilities, there is not much debate at place: few representatives change their mind after the discussion and vote differently, few vote outside of party lines. 2 Tocqueville referred to mores as “habits of the heart,” which “gradually permeated customs, opinions, and forms.”5 These democratic forms, he stated, are even more important than democratic laws.6 I am skeptical that democratic mores are more important than democratic laws, but I am interested in thinking about how and where can democratic habits and forms be cultivated. Although high-stakes legislative bodies are certainly necessary for the preservation of democratic institutions, mores are best cultivated in low-stakes environments, such as neighborhood meetings. That is not to say that the topics are unremarkable or insignificant for those who attend the meetings; after all, they take the time to attend them and participate in the discussions, suggesting they are consequential to them. But relatively speaking, the stakes are low. Neighborhood meetings, called Conseil de Quartiers, were established in 2002 by the Conseil de Paris –the deliberative body of the city of Paris that brings together its elected representatives—as a tool to enhance local democratic practices, foster solidarity, and engage the citizens of Paris in the decision-making process of their urban spaces. These neighborhood meetings are well attended, and, although the issues discussed seem relatively insignificant—flower pots, dog excrement, and public urination occupy a large proportion of the discussions— the form of these conversations not only illustrates some tenets of democratic deliberation (for instance, attendants take turns, push against the arguments of others, and typically accept the decisions of the majority), but is often explicitly understood by attendants as being the very stuff that constitutes their republican and democratic state: “this is what letting the democratic game unveil!” one attendee exclaimed, seemingly without a hint of irony, after a vote on the hours of operation of a room of the Mairie. By drawing on ethnographic observations about neighborhood meetings that took place in the fall of 2015, I show how such meetings function as sites for the reproduction of a democratic practices that undergird shared imaginaries about the virtues and resilience of a democratic community: the reliability of the bureaucratic state; the significance of deliberative practices; and the basis for claiming equal standing in those deliberative practices. I put these ethnographic reflections in 5 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, trans. by Arthur Goldhammer (New York: The Library of America, 2004), 355-356. 6 This discussion is reminiscent of Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba’s, The Civic Culture: The Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963). Another way of thinking about this question is going back to Robert Putnam’s formulation: namely, how do democracies work? In Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 3 conversation both with scholarly work on democratic deliberation and other pieces that have focused on the importance of shared imaginaries and everyday practices for the constitution of political spaces. The paper is structured as follows: I begin with a literature review on democratic deliberation, followed by a discussion of my object of inquiry, and methodological approach. The section that follows is divided in two: I first address the importance of form over content in deliberations in neighborhood meetings, then, I discuss practices of exclusion and policing in those meetings. In the conclusion, I address the lessons gleaned from the continuities and ruptures after the terrorists attacks of November 13th, 2015. Democratic deliberation, ethnography in political theory, and Conseils de Quartier The virtues of deliberation Although some ideals of democratic deliberation can be traced to Ancient Athens, “deliberative democracy” emerged as an powerful tradition in the discussion of democracies in the last quarter of the 20th century.7 Some scholars of deliberation such as Habermas, Cohen, or Gutmann and Thompson emphasize the importance of providing justifications for decision-making, as well as submitting those justifications to the public scrutiny of equals. Both citizens and their representatives, write Gutmann and Thompson, are “expected to justify the laws they would impose on one another.”8 In order for the deliberation to properly function as a process through which competing arguments are presented, arguments ought to be accessible and understandable.9 In her study of social activists in

Load more