Inside the innovation: participants’ perceptions of the Consultative Committee of Inquiry to Enhance the Quality of Democracy in Austria, 2014–15

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Michael Hunklinger
{"title":"Inside the innovation: participants’ perceptions of the Consultative Committee of Inquiry to Enhance the Quality of Democracy in Austria, 2014–15","authors":"Michael Hunklinger","doi":"10.1080/02606755.2022.2139530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is a comprehensive analysis of the democratic benefit of a democratic innovation introduced to the Austrian Parliament in the year 2014–15: the Consultative Committee of Inquiry to Enhance the Quality of Democracy in Austria. As a novelty, eight citizens, selected by lot, were included to participate in this committee. This article looks at the perceptions of these citizens (gathered via interviews), committee protocols and media coverage. The committee deepened the lack of trust in politics, and it fell prey to party politics. Pseudo-participation to window-dress problems is likely to be detected by participants and the media, especially when they occur in established forms of deliberation. This article shows that, instead of enhancing democracy, democratic innovations can backfire.","PeriodicalId":53586,"journal":{"name":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","volume":"252 1","pages":"283 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliaments, Estates and Representation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02606755.2022.2139530","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article is a comprehensive analysis of the democratic benefit of a democratic innovation introduced to the Austrian Parliament in the year 2014–15: the Consultative Committee of Inquiry to Enhance the Quality of Democracy in Austria. As a novelty, eight citizens, selected by lot, were included to participate in this committee. This article looks at the perceptions of these citizens (gathered via interviews), committee protocols and media coverage. The committee deepened the lack of trust in politics, and it fell prey to party politics. Pseudo-participation to window-dress problems is likely to be detected by participants and the media, especially when they occur in established forms of deliberation. This article shows that, instead of enhancing democracy, democratic innovations can backfire.
创新内部:参与者对提高奥地利民主质量咨询委员会的看法,2014-15
本文全面分析了2014-15年奥地利议会引入的一项民主创新的民主效益:提高奥地利民主质量的咨询委员会。作为一种新奇的做法,通过抽签选出的八名市民被包括在这个委员会中。本文着眼于这些公民的看法(通过采访收集),委员会协议和媒体报道。该委员会加深了对政治的不信任,并成为政党政治的牺牲品。为了粉饰问题的伪参与很可能被参与者和媒体发现,特别是当它们发生在既定的审议形式中时。这篇文章表明,民主创新不仅不能促进民主,反而会适得其反。
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
Parliaments, Estates and Representation
Parliaments, Estates and Representation Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
×
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