Participation and Trust: Conditions and Constraints on Democratic Deliberation
Public engagement in policy making is on mechanism used in an effort to improve the legitimacy of policy decisions surrounding ethically contentious health policy or medical technologies. Citizens’ trust in the process and in the medical, science and democratic institutions surrounding the policy is vital to the success of efforts to engage publics in deliberative processes. This paper explores the nature and role of trust in deliberative democracy, as well as effects of misplaced and abused trust on the legitimacy of specific policies and the overall project of inclusive participation of citizens in public policy deliberation.
KeywordsParticipation Trust Deliberative democracy
This research was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Grant “Big Picture Bioethics: Policy-Making and Liberal Democracy” (DP0556068), the ARC Centre of Excellence for Materials Science (CE0561616), and the University of Tasmania. It is a revised version of a chapter entitled “Trust accountability and participation: conditions and constraints on ‘new’ democratic models” published in Public Engagement and Emerging Technologies, ed. Edna Einsiedel and Kieran O’Doherty: UBC Press, 2013, 69–79, Vancouver. Reprinted with the permission of UBC Press.
- Baier, A. 1994. Trust and its vulnerabilities. In Moral prejudices: Essays on ethics, ed. A. Baier, 130–151. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Dagger, R. 1997. Civic virtues: Rights, citizenship and republican liberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Dryzek, J.S. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Estlund, D.M. 2008. Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Festenstein, M. 2005. Dewey’s political philosophy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Spring 2009 ed, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/dewey-political/.
- Fishkin, J.S. 1995. The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Gaus, G.F. 1996. Justificatory liberalism: An essay on epistemology and political theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Govier, T. 1997. Social trust and human communities. Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
- Gutmann, A., and D. Thompson. 1996. Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. 1996. Three normative models of democracy. In Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, ed. S. Benhabib, 21–30. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Hookway, C. 2008. Pragmatism. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy,Spring 2010 ed, ed. Edward N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/pragmatism/ .
- Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Irwin, A., and B. Wynne (eds.). 1996. Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Macleod, C. 2006. Trust. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy,Spring 2011 ed, ed. Edward N. Zalta.http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/trust/ .
- Wynne, B. 2006. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—Hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 9: 211–220.Google Scholar
- Young, I.M. 2000. Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar