Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:53:13.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When War Adversaries Talk: The Experimental Effect of Engagement Rules on Postconflict Deliberation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Juan E. Ugarriza
Juan E. Ugarriza*
Affiliation:
Universidad del Rosario. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in postconflict societies, but also points to ways that outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned and common-good–oriented, and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , Fall 2016 , pp. 77 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2016

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.)

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3: 8–22.Google Scholar
Bejarano, Ana María, and Pizarro, Eduardo. 2002. From “Restricted” to “Besieged”: The Changing Nature of the Limits to Democracy in Colombia. Kellogg Institute Working Paper 296. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 1998. The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 399–425.Google Scholar
Caluwaerts, Didier. 2012. Confrontation and Communication: Deliberative Democracy in Divided Belgium. Brussels: P.I.E. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Caluwaerts, Didier, and Ugarriza, Juan E.. 2012. Favourable Conditions for Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: a Methodological Assessment. Journal of Public Deliberation 8: Article 6, 1–19.Google Scholar
Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (CNMH). 2013a. Basta ya! Colombia: memoria de guerra y dignidad. Bogotá: Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica.Google Scholar
Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica (CNMH). 2013b. Una verdad secuestrada. Cuarenta años de estadísticas de secuestro 1970–2010. Bogotá: Centro Nacional de Memoria Histórica.Google Scholar
Chambers, Simone. 2003. Deliberative Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307–26.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Black, Laura, and Moscovitz, Kara. 2008. Ideology, Attitude Change, and Deliberation in Small Face-to-Face Groups. Political Communication 25, 1: 23–46.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M. 2007. The Sophisticated Public: the Effect of Competing Frames on Public Opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies 30, 3: 377–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 2002. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Internal Displacement Monitoring Center. 2013. Internal Displacement: Global Overview 2012: People Internally Displaced by Conflict and Violence. Oslo: Norwegian Refugee Council.Google Scholar
Kameda, Tatsuya. 1991. Procedural Influence in Small-Group Decision Making: Deliberation Style and Assigned Decision Rule. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 245–56.Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. Disagreement and Consensus: the Need for Dynamic Updating in Public Deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation 1, Article 2, 1–17.Google Scholar
Latin American Public Opinion Poll (LAPOP). 2012. Political Culture of Democracy in Colombia and the Americas, 2012: Toward Equality of Opportunity. Bogotá: Vanderbilt University, Universidad de Los Andes, et al.Google Scholar
Leal, Francisco, and Dávila, Andrés. 1991. Clientelismo. El sistema político y su expresión regional. Bogotá: IEPRI-Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
Martz, John D. 1997. The Politics of Clientelism: Democracy and State in Colombia. New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, and Oleske, John. 2000. Race and Public Deliberation. Political Communication 17, 2: 169–91.Google Scholar
Michelman, Frank I. 1997. How Can the People Ever Make the Laws? A Critique of Deliberative Democracy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Democracy, ed. Bohman, James and Rehg, William. Cambridge: MIT Press. 145–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, Rebecca B., and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussio, Enzo. 2012. Emotional Legacies of War among Former Colombian Paramilitaries. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 184: 369–83.Google Scholar
O'Flynn, Ian. 2007. Review article: Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy. British Journal of Political Science 37: 731–51.Google Scholar
Pécaut, Daniel. 1991. Violencia y política en Colombia. Elementos de reflexión. Medellín: Hombre Nuevo Editores, Universidad del Valle.Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1992. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Posner, R.C. 2004. Smooth Sailing. Legal Affairs (January–February): 40–2. https://legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2004/feature_posner_janfeb04.msp Google Scholar
Prisching, Manfred. 2010. Rational Democracy, Deliberation, and Reality. Critical Review 222–33: 185–225.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1998. Deliberation and Ideological Domination. In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 140–60.Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph. 1998. Disagreement in Politics. American Journal of Jurisprudence 43: 25–52.Google Scholar
Roger, Léa, and Schaal, Gary. 2012. The Quality of Deliberation in the European Parliament: Assessing the Context of Decision-Making. Paper presented at the 22nd International Political Science Associatioin World Congress, Madrid, July 8–12.Google Scholar
Sánchez, Gonzalo. 1991. Guerra y política en la sociedad colombiana. Bogotá: El Áncora.Google Scholar
Schiller, Rachel. 2012. Using Dialogue to Advance Reconciliation in Post-conflict Societies: a Field Experiment in Aceh, Indonesia. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, April 1–4.Google Scholar
Setälä, Maija, Grönlund, Kimmo, and Herne, Kaisa. 2010. Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: a Comparison of Two Decision-Making Methods. Political Studies 584: 688–714.Google Scholar
Shadish, William R.; Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1999. Enough of Deliberation: Politics is About Interests and Power. In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, Stephen. New York: Oxford University Press. 28–38.Google Scholar
Söderström, Johanna. 2011. Politics of Affection: Ex-combatants, Political Engagement and Reintegration Programs in Liberia. Ph.D. diss., Department of Government, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy: Empirical Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, André, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan C. 1998. Pathologies of Deliberation. In Deliberative Democracy, ed. Elster, Jon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–39.Google Scholar
Stromer-Galley, J. 2007. Measuring Deliberation's Content: a Coding Scheme. Journal of Public Deliberation 3, Article 12.Google Scholar
Ugarriza, Juan E. 2009. Ideologies and Conflict in the Post–Cold War. International Journal of Conflict Management 201: 82–104.Google Scholar
Ugarriza, Juan E., and Caluwaerts, Didier, eds. 2014. Democratic Deliberation in Deeply Divided Societies: From Conflict to Common Ground. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Ugarriza, Juan E., and Craig, Matthew J.. 2013. The Relevance of Ideology to Contemporary Armed Conflicts: a Quantitative Analysis of Former Combatants in Colombia. Journal of Conflict Resolution 573, 445–77.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1999. Deliberation, and What Else? In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, ed. Macedo, Stephen. New York: Oxford University Press. 58–69.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, Magdalena, and Price, Vicent. 2010. Bridging the Divide or Intensifying the Conflict? How Disagreement Affects Strong Predilections about Sexual Minorities. Political Psychology 31, 3: 315–39.Google Scholar
World Values Survey. 2005. Official Datafile v.20090901, 2009. World Values Survey Association. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org. Accessed June 10, 2013.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ugarriza supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Ugarriza supplementary material(File)
File 28.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Ugarriza supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Ugarriza supplementary material(File)
File 32.8 KB