About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 Disp. Resol. Mag. 18 (2005-2006)
Deliberative Democracy and Conflict Resolution

handle is hein.journals/disput12 and id is 58 raw text is: DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION TWO THEORIES AND PRACTICES OF PARTICIPATION IN THE POLITY BY CARRIE MENKEL-MEADOW OR TWO OR MORE DECADES NOW, two different movements have been working in parallel toward the same goal-theorizing about and attempting to structure processes for increased participation in decision- making by the parties most affected by those decisions. As dialogue between the two fields increases, it is useful to consider what we can learn from each other: our commonalities, our differ- ences, and what questions we might want to explore together. On one hand, the deliberative- democracy movement has emerged within the political science field, and has considered how to enhance reasoned argument and deliberation among members of the polity, princi- pally in political decision-making.1 Its practical embodiments include delib- erative polling, citizen town meetings, national-issues fora, citizen juries and the like.' On the other hand, the conflict- resolution movement has developed as an eclectic applied social science of both theory and practice, drawing from planning, law, sociology, psychology, communications and decision sciences to develop models of decision-making, dialogue and dispute settlement.' Its process embodiments include the pri- mary ADR processes of negotiation, mediation, arbitration and adjudica- tion, of course, along with all the many hybrid forms we have developed in the last few decades-med-arb sum- mary jury trials, mini-trials, consensus- Carrie Menkel- Meadow is A.B. Chettle, Jr. professor of dispute resolution and civil procedure at Georgetown University Law Center and a co-ordinating committee member at the June 2005 Conference on Deliberative Democracy and Dispute Resolution, MIT-PON Public Policy Disputes Program. She can be reached at meadow@law.georgetown. edu. building fora, facilitated collaborative decision-making, negotiated rule- making, study circles, public conversa- tions and restorative justice, to name just a few of the newer combinations. Shared ideology Though developing within dif- ferent spheres, the two movements actually share similar intellectual roots. In both deliberative democ- racy and conflict resolution, one can see John Dewey's brand of Ameri- can democratic philosophical and political pragmatism.4 One can also see evidence of the social philosophy that ideal speech conditions should enable individuals to participate in and discuss rules and decisions that affect their lives, an idea that comes from Jurgen Habermas.5 And, most recently, Stuart Hampshire's social and moral philosophy has taught us that if we cannot always agree on the substantive good, we must agree on how to develop processes for living and working together.6 Both deliberative democrats and dispute-resolution professionals also usually assert (we still don't have ideal empirical verifications of these claims) that participatory processes will pro- duce better outcomes, in the sense that the outcomes are joint, mutual and Pareto-optimal. People in both fields also believe that participatory processes create processes with greater legitimacy and satisfaction. Indeed, for many in both move- ments, conflict, also called political dissensus, is a good thing. In the words of one of our foremothers, Mary Parker Follett, we use friction to make things happen constructively.7 Both groups believe that decid- ing issues on the basis of interests or needs rather than positions, and deciding them through honest and open discussion, argument, bargaining and brainstorming, will produce better and more inclusive outcomes. Thus, we have both spent the last few de- cades attempting to build and evalu- ate models, processes and institutions that can best facilitate various formats of increased participation in dialogues, mutual understanding and decision- making. Global use of new processes This issue highlights some of these new processes, which have been used to resolve a wide variety of dis- putes around the world. Here in the United States, processes developed in the deliberative-democracy and conflict-resolution movements have been used in environmental siting, budget allocation, and community and inter-ethnic disputes. They have also been applied in addressing divisive political issues such as affirmative ac- tion and abortion, and used in local governmental decision-making about such issues as community policing and education. Internationally, these processes have been incorporated in post-con- flict reconciliation fora such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commis- sions in South Africa and Guatemala. In Rwanda, indigenous-dispute-reso- lution processes are even being com- bined with Truth and Reconciliation concepts and criminal prosecutions to restructure the traditional community and public gacaca process.8 Along the way, people in both fields have considered similar ques- tions: how to engage participants most inclusively, what process rules or procedures should be used to ensure adequacy of participation and mutual hearing, what decision rules should be employed (e.g., majority votes, con- sensus or near unanimity), and what kinds of representation are appropri- ate. They have also wondered how fact-finding and information gathering should be conducted, what kinds of DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 18 WINTER 2006

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most