The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions

John DRYZEK; Andre Bachtiger; Simone Chambers; Joshua Cohen; James Druckman; Andrea Felicetti; James Fishkin; David Farrell; Archon Fung; Amy Gutmann; Helene Landemore; Jane Mansbridge; Sophie Marien; Simon NIEMEYER; Michael Neblo; Maja Setala; Rune Slothuus; Jane Suiter; D. Thompson; Mark Warren

doi:10.1126/scienceaaw2694

The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions

John DRYZEK, Andre Bachtiger, Simone Chambers, Joshua Cohen, James Druckman, Andrea Felicetti, James Fishkin, David Farrell, Archon Fung, Amy Gutmann, Helene Landemore, Jane Mansbridge, Sophie Marien, Simon NIEMEYER, Michael Neblo, Maja Setala, Rune Slothuus, Jane Suiter, D. Thompson, Mark Warren

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

380 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

That there are more opportunities than ever for citizens to express their views may be, counterintuitively, a problem facing democracy—the sheer quantitative overabundance overloads policymakers and citizens, making it difficult to detect the signal amid the noise. This overload has been accompanied by marked decline in civility and argumentative complexity. Uncivil behavior by elites and pathological mass communication reinforce each other. How do we break this vicious cycle? Asking elites to behave better is futile so long as there is a public ripe to be polarized and exploited by demagogues and media manipulators. Thus, any response has to involve ordinary citizens; but are they up to the task? Social science on “deliberative democracy” offers reasons for optimism about citizens' capacity to avoid polarization and manipulation and to make sound decisions. The real world of democratic politics is currently far from the deliberative ideal, but empirical evidence shows that the gap can be closed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1144–1146
Number of pages	3
Journal	Science
Volume	363
Issue number	6432
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/scienceaaw2694
Publication status	Published - 15 Mar 2019

Access to Document

10.1126/scienceaaw2694

Cite this

DRYZEK, J., Bachtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J., Farrell, D., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., NIEMEYER, S., Neblo, M., Setala, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. (2019). The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/scienceaaw2694

@article{7177deaed9e840c8a91b1c6ed299040a,

title = "The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions",

abstract = "That there are more opportunities than ever for citizens to express their views may be, counterintuitively, a problem facing democracy—the sheer quantitative overabundance overloads policymakers and citizens, making it difficult to detect the signal amid the noise. This overload has been accompanied by marked decline in civility and argumentative complexity. Uncivil behavior by elites and pathological mass communication reinforce each other. How do we break this vicious cycle? Asking elites to behave better is futile so long as there is a public ripe to be polarized and exploited by demagogues and media manipulators. Thus, any response has to involve ordinary citizens; but are they up to the task? Social science on “deliberative democracy” offers reasons for optimism about citizens' capacity to avoid polarization and manipulation and to make sound decisions. The real world of democratic politics is currently far from the deliberative ideal, but empirical evidence shows that the gap can be closed.",

author = "John DRYZEK and Andre Bachtiger and Simone Chambers and Joshua Cohen and James Druckman and Andrea Felicetti and James Fishkin and David Farrell and Archon Fung and Amy Gutmann and Helene Landemore and Jane Mansbridge and Sophie Marien and Simon NIEMEYER and Michael Neblo and Maja Setala and Rune Slothuus and Jane Suiter and D. Thompson and Mark Warren",

note = "Funding Information: Financial supportwas provided bytheInternational Centerfor Cultural and Technological Studies (IZKT) of theUniversityof Stuttgart and the Australian Research Council (FL140100154). Competing interests:A.Fu.serves on the Board of Directorsof Common Cause and EverydayDemocracyand is anoccasional consultant toApple.",

year = "2019",

month = mar,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1126/scienceaaw2694",

language = "English",

volume = "363",

pages = "1144–1146",

journal = "Science",

issn = "0036-8075",

publisher = "American Association for the Advancement of Science",

number = "6432",

}

DRYZEK, J, Bachtiger, A, Chambers, S, Cohen, J, Druckman, J, Felicetti, A, Fishkin, J, Farrell, D, Fung, A, Gutmann, A, Landemore, H, Mansbridge, J, Marien, S, NIEMEYER, S, Neblo, M, Setala, M, Slothuus, R, Suiter, J, Thompson, D & Warren, M 2019, 'The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions', Science, vol. 363, no. 6432, pp. 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/scienceaaw2694

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation

T2 - Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions

AU - DRYZEK, John

AU - Bachtiger, Andre

AU - Chambers, Simone

AU - Cohen, Joshua

AU - Druckman, James

AU - Felicetti, Andrea

AU - Fishkin, James

AU - Farrell, David

AU - Fung, Archon

AU - Gutmann, Amy

AU - Landemore, Helene

AU - Mansbridge, Jane

AU - Marien, Sophie

AU - NIEMEYER, Simon

AU - Neblo, Michael

AU - Setala, Maja

AU - Slothuus, Rune

AU - Suiter, Jane

AU - Thompson, D.

AU - Warren, Mark

N1 - Funding Information: Financial supportwas provided bytheInternational Centerfor Cultural and Technological Studies (IZKT) of theUniversityof Stuttgart and the Australian Research Council (FL140100154). Competing interests:A.Fu.serves on the Board of Directorsof Common Cause and EverydayDemocracyand is anoccasional consultant toApple.

PY - 2019/3/15

Y1 - 2019/3/15

N2 - That there are more opportunities than ever for citizens to express their views may be, counterintuitively, a problem facing democracy—the sheer quantitative overabundance overloads policymakers and citizens, making it difficult to detect the signal amid the noise. This overload has been accompanied by marked decline in civility and argumentative complexity. Uncivil behavior by elites and pathological mass communication reinforce each other. How do we break this vicious cycle? Asking elites to behave better is futile so long as there is a public ripe to be polarized and exploited by demagogues and media manipulators. Thus, any response has to involve ordinary citizens; but are they up to the task? Social science on “deliberative democracy” offers reasons for optimism about citizens' capacity to avoid polarization and manipulation and to make sound decisions. The real world of democratic politics is currently far from the deliberative ideal, but empirical evidence shows that the gap can be closed.

AB - That there are more opportunities than ever for citizens to express their views may be, counterintuitively, a problem facing democracy—the sheer quantitative overabundance overloads policymakers and citizens, making it difficult to detect the signal amid the noise. This overload has been accompanied by marked decline in civility and argumentative complexity. Uncivil behavior by elites and pathological mass communication reinforce each other. How do we break this vicious cycle? Asking elites to behave better is futile so long as there is a public ripe to be polarized and exploited by demagogues and media manipulators. Thus, any response has to involve ordinary citizens; but are they up to the task? Social science on “deliberative democracy” offers reasons for optimism about citizens' capacity to avoid polarization and manipulation and to make sound decisions. The real world of democratic politics is currently far from the deliberative ideal, but empirical evidence shows that the gap can be closed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062965997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1126/scienceaaw2694

DO - 10.1126/scienceaaw2694

M3 - Article

SN - 0036-8075

VL - 363

SP - 1144

EP - 1146

JO - Science

JF - Science

IS - 6432

ER -

The Crisis of Democracy and the Science of Deliberation: Citizens can avoid polarization and make sound decisions

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this