Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:10:04.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From ‘Opening Up’ to Democratic Renewal: Deepening Public Engagement in Legislative Committees

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2017

Carolyn M. Hendriks Open the ORCID record for Carolyn M. Hendriks [Opens in a new window]  and
Adrian Kay
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many legislatures around the world are undergoing a ‘participatory makeover’. Parliaments are hosting open days and communicating the latest parliamentary updates via websites and social media. Public activities such as these may make parliaments more informative and accessible, but much more could be done to foster meaningful democratic renewal. In particular, participatory efforts ought to be engaging citizens in a central task of legislatures – to deliberate and make decisions on collective issues. In this article, the potential of parliamentary committees to bring the public closer to legislative deliberations is considered. Drawing on insights from the practice and theory of deliberative democracy, the article discusses why and how deeper and more inclusive forms of public engagement can strengthen the epistemic, representative and deliberative capacities of parliamentary committees. Practical examples are considered to illustrate the possibilities and challenges of broadening public involvement in committee work.

Keywords

public engagementcommitteespublic deliberationcitizen inputparliament
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 25 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Carolyn M. Hendriks is Associate Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. Contact email: [email protected].

Adrian Kay is Professor at the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. Contact email: [email protected].

References

Arnold, J.R. (2012), ‘Parliaments and Citizens in Latin America’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 441–462.Google Scholar
Arter, D. (2012), ‘The Finnish Eduskunta: Still the Nordic “Vatican”?’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 275–293.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A. (2014), ‘Debate and Deliberation in Legislatures’, in S. Marin, T. Saalfeld and K.W. Strøm (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 145–166.Google Scholar
Bessette, J.M. (1994), The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T. and O’Leary, R. (2005), ‘The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government’, Public Administration Review, 65(5): 547–558.Google Scholar
Bonney, N. (2003), ‘The Scottish Parliament and Participatory Democracy’, Political Quarterly, 74(4): 459–467.Google Scholar
Bochel, C. (2012), ‘Petitions: Different Dimensions of Voice and Influence in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales’, Social Policy and Administration, 46(2): 142–160.Google Scholar
Bochel, C. (2013), ‘Petitions Systems: Contributing to Representative Democracy?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 66(4): 798–815.Google Scholar
Burton, K. (1999), ‘Community Participation in Parliamentary Committees’, in Australian Parliament Information and Research Services Paper, No. 10 (Canberra: Politics and Administration Group, Parliament of Australia).Google Scholar
Carson, L. (2008), ‘Creating Democratic Surplus through Citizens’ Assemblies’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1): Article 5. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol4/iss1/art5/.Google Scholar
Carman, C.J. (2006), The Assessment of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions System 1999–2006 (Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament).Google Scholar
Carman, C.J. (2014), ‘Barriers are Barriers: Asymmetric Participation in the Scottish Public Petitions System’, Parliamentary Affairs, 67(1): 151–171.Google Scholar
Chambers, S. (2004), ‘Behind Closed Doors: Publicity, Secrecy and the Quality of Deliberation’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4): 349–410.Google Scholar
Clark, A. and Wilford, R. (2012), ‘Political Institutions, Engagement and Outreach: The Case of the Northern Ireland Assembly’, Parliamentary Affairs, 65(2): 380–403.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. (2004), ‘Connecting Parliament to the Public via the Internet’, Information, Communication and Society, 7(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Dalla-Pozza, D. (2008), ‘Promoting Deliberative Debate? The Submissions and Oral Evidence Provided to Australian Parliamentary Committees in the Creation of Counter-terrorism Laws’, University of New South Wales Law Journal, 339: 339–341.Google Scholar
Davidson, R.H. (1974), ‘Representation and Congressional Committees’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 411: 48–62.Google Scholar
Davidson, S. and Stark, A. (2011), ‘Institutionalising Public Deliberation: Insights from Scottish Parliament’, British Politics, 6(2): 155–186.Google Scholar
Dermody, K., Holland, I. and Humphery, E. (2006), ‘Parliamentary Committees and Neglected Voices in Society’, The Table, 74: 45–55.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2010), Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Duffy, B. and Foley, M. (2011), ‘Social Media, Community Engagement and Perceptions of Parliament: A Case Study from the NSW Legislative Council’, Australasian Parliamentary Review, 26(1): 198–206.Google Scholar
Elstub, S. (2014), ‘Minipublics: Issues and Cases’, in S. Elstub and P. McLaverty (eds), Deliberative Democracy: Issues and Cases (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press): 166–188.Google Scholar
Escher, T. and Riehm, U. (2017), ‘Petitioning the German Bundestag: Political Equality and the Role of the Internet’, Parliamentary Affairs, 70(1): 132–154.Google Scholar
Evans, H. (1993), ‘Parliamentary Committees and the Public Interest’, Legislative Studies, 8(1): 15–19.Google Scholar
Faggoto, E. and Fung, A. (2009), Sustaining Public Engagement: Embedded Deliberation in Local Communities (East Hartford, CT: Everyday Democracy and the Kettering Foundation), www.kettering.org/catalog/product/sustaining-public-engagement-embedded-deliberation-local-communities.Google Scholar
Farrell, D.M. (2014), ‘Deliberative Democracy, Irish Style’, Inroads, 34: 110–17.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. (1998), ‘Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post Positivist Perspective’, Policy Studies Journal, 26: 129–146.Google Scholar
Flinders, M., Marsh, I. and Cotter, L.-M. (2015), Building Public Engagement: Options for Developing Select Committee Outreach. A report for the Liason Committee. First Special Report of Session 2015–16 (London: UK House of Commons).Google Scholar
Fox, R. (2009), ‘Engagement and Participation: What the Public Want and How our Politicians Need to Respond’, Parliamentary Affairs, 62(4): 673–685.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (2011), Parliaments and Public Engagement: Innovation and Good Practice from Around the World (London: Hansard Society).Google Scholar
Fung, A. and Wright, E.O. (2003), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovation in Empowered Participatory Governance (London: Verso).Google Scholar
Gamble, K.L. (2007), ‘Black Political Representation: An Examination of Legislative Activity with U.S. House Committees’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, 32(3): 421–447.Google Scholar
Gastil, J. and Levine, P. (2005), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the Twenty-First Century (San Francisco: Jossey Bass).Google Scholar
Griffith, J. and Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012), ‘How Are Parliaments Using New Media to Engage with Citizens?’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 496–513.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2005), ‘Sequencing Deliberative Moments’, Acta Politica, 40: 182–196.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2012), ‘How Can Deliberative Democracy Get a Grip?’, Political Quarterly, 83(4): 806–811.Google Scholar
Grube, D. (2014), ‘Administrative Learning or Political Blaming? Public Servants, Parliamentary Committees and the Drama of Public Accountability’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 49(2): 221–236.Google Scholar
Hall, R.L. (1996), Participation in Congress (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Hall, R.L. and Wayman, F.W. (1990), ‘Buying Time: Moneyed Interests and the Mobilization of Bias in Congressional Committees’, American Political Science Review, 84(3): 797–820.Google Scholar
Halligan, J. (2008), ‘Parliamentary Committee Roles in Facilitating Public Policy at the Commonwealth Level’, Australasian Parliamentary Review, 23(2): 135–156.Google Scholar
Halpin, D., MacLeod, I. and McLaverty, P. (2012), ‘Committee Hearings of the Scottish Parliament: Evidence Giving and Policy Learning’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Hansard Society (2011), Connecting Citizens to Parliaments: How Parliament Can Engage More Effectively with Hard to Reach Groups (London: Hansard Society).Google Scholar
Hansard Society (2013), #futurenews: The Communication of Parliamentary Democracy in a Digital World (London: Hansard Society).Google Scholar
Hardin, R. (2013), ‘Government Without Trust’, Journal of Trust Research, 3(1): 32–52.Google Scholar
Hartz-Karp, J. (2007), ‘Understanding Deliberativeness: Bridging Theory and Practice’, International Journal of Public Participation, 1(2). http://static.qwad.com.au/iap2/files/Journal_Issue2_HartzKarp.pdf.Google Scholar
Heitshusen, V. (2000), ‘Interest Group Lobbying and U.S. House Decentralization: Linking Informational Focus to Committee Hearing Appearances’, Political Research Quarterly, 53(1): 151–176.Google Scholar
Hendriks, C.M. (2011), The Politics of Public Deliberation: Citizen Engagement and Interest Advocacy (London: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Hendriks, C.M. (2016), ‘Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The Role of Institutional Design’, European Journal of Political Research, 55(1): 43–60.Google Scholar
Honohan, I. (2014), ‘What Can the UK Learn from the Irish Constitutional Convention?’, OpenDemocracy, 8 October, www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/iseult-honohan/what-can-uk-learn-from-irish-constitutional-convention.Google Scholar
Hoppe, R. (1999), ‘Policy Analysis, Science and Politics: From “Speaking Truth to Power” to “Making Sense Together”’, Science and Public Policy, 26(3): 201–210.Google Scholar
Hough, R. (2012), ‘Do Legislative Petitions Systems Enhance the Relationship between Parliament and Citizen?’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 479–495.Google Scholar
House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee (2015), The Work of the Communities and Local Government Committee since 2010: Tenth Report of Session 2014–15, HC821 (London: Stationery Office).Google Scholar
Lees-Marshment, J. (2015), The Ministry of Public Input (Basingstoke: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2012), ‘Parliaments’ Endless Pursuit of Trust: Re-focusing on Symbolic Representation’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 514–526.Google Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2014), ‘The Pursuit of Legitimacy as a Key Driver for Public Engagement: The European Parliament Case’, Parliamentary Affairs, 67(2): 415–436.Google Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2016a), Why Symbolic Representation Frames Parliamentary Public Engagement’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(2): 498–516.Google Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. (2016b), ‘A Year on, the New Petitions Committee Has Much to Celebrate’, The Constitution Unit, 20 July, https://constitution-unit.com/2016/07/20/a-year-on-the-new-petitions-committee-has-much-to-celebrate/.Google Scholar
Leston-Bandeira, C. and Bender, D. (2013), ‘How Deeply Are Parliaments Engaging on Social Media?’, Information Polity, 18(4): 281–297.Google Scholar
Lindner, R. and Riehm, U. (2011), ‘Broadening Participation through E-Petitions? An Empirical Study of Petitions to the German Parliament’, Policy and Internet, 3(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
McGreevy, R. (2012), ‘Citizens in Convention Need “Strong Backing”: Warning Politicians Could Manipulate Proceedings’, 3 November, Irish Times.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, M.K. and Warren, M.E. (2012), ‘Two Trust-based Uses of Minipublics in Democratic Systems’, in J. Parkinson and J.J. Mansbridge (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 95–124.Google Scholar
McLaverty, P. and MacLeod, I. (2012), ‘Civic Participation in the Scottish Parliament Committees’, International Journal of Public Administration, 35(7): 458–470.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2003), ‘Rethinking Representation’, American Political Science Review, 97(4): 515–528.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., Thompson, D.F. and Warren, M. E. (2012), ‘A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy’, in J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 1–26.Google Scholar
Mattson, I. and Strøm, K. (1995), ‘Parliamentary Committees’, in H. Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe (New York: St Martin’s Press): 249–307.Google Scholar
Missingham, R. (2011), ‘E-Parliament: Opening the Door’, Government Information Quarterly, 28(3): 426–434.Google Scholar
Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, G.M. and Leighninger, M. (2012), Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2005), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere (Bristol: Policy Press).Google Scholar
Newton, K. and Norris, P. (2000), ‘Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture or Performance?’, in S. Pharr and R. Putnam (eds), Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? (Princeton: Princeton University Press): 52–74.Google Scholar
NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues. (2012), Domestic Violence Trends and Issues in NSW (Sydney: NSW Legislative Council).Google Scholar
Owens, S., Petts, J. and Bulkeley, H. (2006), ‘Boundary Work: Knowledge, Policy, and the Urban Environment’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(5): 633–643.Google Scholar
PAC (Public Accounts Committee). (2012), Report on the Economics of Energy Generation (Sydney: Legislative Assembly of the NSW Parliament, Public Accounts Committee), www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/6e0c25bf50c6aa0dca257abd00196735/$FILE/Report%206%2055%20-%20Economics%20of%20Energy%20Generation%20v4.pdf.Google Scholar
Pedersen, H.H., Halpin, D. and Rasmussen, A. (2015), ‘Who Gives Evidence to Parliamentary Committees? A Comparative Investigation of Parliamentary Committees and their Constituencies’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 21(3): 408–427.Google Scholar
QLD Committee System Review Committee. (2010), Review of the Queensland Parliamentary Committee System (Brisbane: Legislative Assembly of Queensland), www.parliament.qld.gov.au/documents/committees/CSRC/2010/QldParlCtteeSystemReview/rpt-15Dec2010.pdf.Google Scholar
Ravetz, J.R. (1999), ‘What is Post-Normal Science’, Futures, 31(7): 647–653.Google Scholar
Russel, D., Turnpenny, J. and Rayner, T. (2013), ‘Reining in the Executive? Delegation, Evidence and Parliamentary Influence on Environmental Policy’, Environment and Planning C, 31: 619–632.Google Scholar
Russo, F. and Verzichelli, L. (2012), ‘Parliament and Citizens in Italy: An Unfilled Gap’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 18(3–4): 351–367.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2006), ‘Representation’, in A. Dobson and R. Eckersley (eds), Political Theory and the Ecological Challenge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 183–199.Google Scholar
Shaw, M. (1998), ‘Parliamentary Committees: A Global Perspective’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 4(1): 225–251.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (2009), Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. and Steenbergen, M.R. (2004), Deliberative Politics in Action: A Cross-National Study of Parliamentary Debates (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Tormey, S. (2015), The End of Representative Politics (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
Turnpenny, J., Russell, D. and Rayner, T. (2013), ‘The Complexity of Evidence for Sustainable Development Policy: Analysing the Boundary Work of the UK Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(4): 586–598.Google Scholar
Uhr, J. (1998), Deliberative Democracy in Australia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Urbinati, N. and Warren, M.E. (2008), ‘The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory’, Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 387–412.Google Scholar
Walker, A. (2012), ‘A People’s Parliament?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 65(1): 270–280.Google Scholar
White, H. (2015), Select Committees Under Scrutiny (London: Institute for Government), www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Under%20scrutiny%20final.pdf.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (2012), ‘Assessing (E-)Democratic Innovations: “Democratic Goods” and Downing Street E-petitions’, Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 9(4): 453–470.Google Scholar