Más allá de modas y cortinas de humo: la deliberación ciudadana en cambios constitucionales

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Yanina Welp, F. Soto
{"title":"Más allá de modas y cortinas de humo: la deliberación ciudadana en cambios constitucionales","authors":"Yanina Welp, F. Soto","doi":"10.21308/RECP.50.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the increasing number of countries that have implemented deliberative processes during constitutional changes, the discussion remains open about the criteria for these processes to be deemed fair and democratic. Thus, this article first proposes some conditions related to the features of the mechanism of deliberative participation and the method of processing the resulting contents. Next an empirical analysis is carried out, focused on deliberative processes of constitutional change that were regulated and/or promoted by governments or public institutions; were opened to citizenship, excluding the ones oriented only to experts or political parties; and promoted the generation of contents compared to the merely informative or educative ones. Between 1970 and 2018, 29 processes were identified in 27 countries. The analysis identified five models of deliberative processes:  symbolic, controlled, participatory overflow, constituent opening  and  constituent participation.  The conclusions invite to go beyond the  sui generis  commitment to implement participatory mechanisms and replace it with the definition of minimal criteria the deliberative processes should fulfil to be considered democratic.","PeriodicalId":43142,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica-RECP","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Ciencia Politica-RECP","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21308/RECP.50.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Despite the increasing number of countries that have implemented deliberative processes during constitutional changes, the discussion remains open about the criteria for these processes to be deemed fair and democratic. Thus, this article first proposes some conditions related to the features of the mechanism of deliberative participation and the method of processing the resulting contents. Next an empirical analysis is carried out, focused on deliberative processes of constitutional change that were regulated and/or promoted by governments or public institutions; were opened to citizenship, excluding the ones oriented only to experts or political parties; and promoted the generation of contents compared to the merely informative or educative ones. Between 1970 and 2018, 29 processes were identified in 27 countries. The analysis identified five models of deliberative processes:  symbolic, controlled, participatory overflow, constituent opening  and  constituent participation.  The conclusions invite to go beyond the  sui generis  commitment to implement participatory mechanisms and replace it with the definition of minimal criteria the deliberative processes should fulfil to be considered democratic.
超越时尚和烟幕:公民对宪法改革的审议
尽管越来越多的国家在宪法改革期间实施了审议程序,但关于这些程序被认为是公平和民主的标准的讨论仍然是公开的。因此,本文首先就协商参与机制的特点及其产生内容的处理方法提出了若干条件。接下来进行实证分析,重点是由政府或公共机构管理和/或促进的宪法改革的审议过程;向公民开放,但不包括只面向专家或政党的;并促进了内容的产生,而不是仅仅提供信息或教育。1970年至2018年期间,在27个国家确定了29项进程。分析确定了五种协商过程模式:象征性模式、控制性模式、参与性溢出模式、主体开放模式和主体参与模式。结论要求超越对执行参与机制的特殊承诺,代之以定义审议过程应达到的被认为是民主的最低标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信