22
Just solutions to these problems echo the democratic nature of green republicanism
in ensuring that lay people and experts have open and dialogic channels of communication (Layton et al. 1993; Jasanoff 2003). Stakeholders affected by technological
developments can often bring anecdotal and local knowledge which needs to be
incorporated in the contexts of expert scientific knowledge, as well as open means
of deliberating risk and uncertainty (Beck 1995). At the same time, forums of discussion and persuasion need to be set up for deliberations to take place between
experts, lay people and policy-makers, particularly in relation to GRAIN
technologies.
Democratic deliberation involves participation and negotiated decision-making
in the form of open, respectful and critical discussion underpinned by reason
(Bridges 1979). Such forums have operated in many different types of contexts such
as citizen juries (Gastil 2000), consensus conferences (Joss and Durant 1995) and
youth parliaments (Percy-Smith and Thomas 2010). Procedures involving democratic deliberation consist of drawing on relevant knowledge, normative clarifications and the ability to make decisions in relation to the context of the activity.
Operationalising these procedures consists of the following practices:
1. Ensuring regular exchange of views between experts, policy-makers and lay people
2. Obtaining public feedback to identify alternative possibilities
3. Direct work with stakeholders throughout the process of deliberation to respond to public concerns in a coherent manner
4. Collaborating with stakeholders and lay citizenry in the development of preferred solutions
5. Empowering participants to acquire relevant knowledge in implementing decisions
6. Ensuring direct decision-making is in the hands of the public (Engage 2020, www.
engage2020.eu)
Criticism of democratic deliberation is that such procedures are underpinned by
equal access to those democratic structures that presuppose deliberation as well as
the power and know-how to activate decisions. However, this ideal does not always
pertain. It can be prejudiced in the interests of those who propose the forums; it
means framing the debate in a way that satisfies contending parties – not easily
attained – and there is no obligation to act on decisions made (Levinson 2010).
Jackson et al. (2005), however, have shown that where values, risks and benefits are
discussed between experts and stakeholders at early stages of development of an
innovative technology, the dialogue by all parties is deemed to be constructive.
Some other political approaches of Environmental Citizenship such as pluralism
(feminist, multiculturalist) and globalism (cosmopolitan and neoliberal) are also
worth mentioning. Pluralist theories (feminist and multicultural) challenge the universalism and the exclusion of difference in association with the classical political
theories of citizenship (Cao 2015). Historically, certain groups of people have been
excluded from full citizenship (e.g. women, sexual minorities) but also indigenous
people and ethnic minorities, especially for the populations of Global South.
Feminist theories challenge the public/private divide (Yuval-Davis 1997), expose
the gender character of citizenship and reveal the centrality of time for the exercise
of citizenship in relation to additional rights (Lister 1997) based on sexual differences (e.g. reproductive rights, right to abortion, maternity leave). Feminist
R. Levinson et al.
Just solutions to these problems echo the democratic nature of green republicanism
in ensuring that lay people and experts have open and dialogic channels of communication (Layton et al. 1993; Jasanoff 2003). Stakeholders affected by technological
developments can often bring anecdotal and local knowledge which needs to be
incorporated in the contexts of expert scientific knowledge, as well as open means
of deliberating risk and uncertainty (Beck 1995). At the same time, forums of discussion and persuasion need to be set up for deliberations to take place between
experts, lay people and policy-makers, particularly in relation to GRAIN
technologies.
Democratic deliberation involves participation and negotiated decision-making
in the form of open, respectful and critical discussion underpinned by reason
(Bridges 1979). Such forums have operated in many different types of contexts such
as citizen juries (Gastil 2000), consensus conferences (Joss and Durant 1995) and
youth parliaments (Percy-Smith and Thomas 2010). Procedures involving democratic deliberation consist of drawing on relevant knowledge, normative clarifications and the ability to make decisions in relation to the context of the activity.
Operationalising these procedures consists of the following practices:
1. Ensuring regular exchange of views between experts, policy-makers and lay people
2. Obtaining public feedback to identify alternative possibilities
3. Direct work with stakeholders throughout the process of deliberation to respond to public concerns in a coherent manner
4. Collaborating with stakeholders and lay citizenry in the development of preferred solutions
5. Empowering participants to acquire relevant knowledge in implementing decisions
6. Ensuring direct decision-making is in the hands of the public (Engage 2020, www.
engage2020.eu)
Criticism of democratic deliberation is that such procedures are underpinned by
equal access to those democratic structures that presuppose deliberation as well as
the power and know-how to activate decisions. However, this ideal does not always
pertain. It can be prejudiced in the interests of those who propose the forums; it
means framing the debate in a way that satisfies contending parties – not easily
attained – and there is no obligation to act on decisions made (Levinson 2010).
Jackson et al. (2005), however, have shown that where values, risks and benefits are
discussed between experts and stakeholders at early stages of development of an
innovative technology, the dialogue by all parties is deemed to be constructive.
Some other political approaches of Environmental Citizenship such as pluralism
(feminist, multiculturalist) and globalism (cosmopolitan and neoliberal) are also
worth mentioning. Pluralist theories (feminist and multicultural) challenge the universalism and the exclusion of difference in association with the classical political
theories of citizenship (Cao 2015). Historically, certain groups of people have been
excluded from full citizenship (e.g. women, sexual minorities) but also indigenous
people and ethnic minorities, especially for the populations of Global South.
Feminist theories challenge the public/private divide (Yuval-Davis 1997), expose
the gender character of citizenship and reveal the centrality of time for the exercise
of citizenship in relation to additional rights (Lister 1997) based on sexual differences (e.g. reproductive rights, right to abortion, maternity leave). Feminist
R. Levinson et al.