Tab Our path to Mutual Learning Guide 2

Taking into consideration the aforementioned data, democracies in the Global South need to become more visible in the field of deliberative democracy, and especially in the field of democratic innovation. Visibility means here recognizing the need to keep working on it, but also highlighting its innovations.

So far, this visibility has been brought about mainly in two complementary ways: first, by focusing on making visible both the problems and advances of democratic innovation in the Global South; second, by calling for the decolonization of deliberative democracy. With these two avenues in mind, the Three Frontiers of Deliberative Democracy project believes that there is an opportunity to open a new reinforcement pathway, that of South-North, South- North and South-South mutual learning. Let’s take a quick look at what the first two paths consist of.

Particularities of Democracies in the Global South

Taken from the workshops conducted as a basis for this guide, as well as from the bibliography on the subject, these are some aspects of democracy in the Global South that should be in the spotlight:

a.

Democracy is backsliding in various parts of the Global South. Especially in Southeast Asia, the existence of authoritarian innovations has been demonstrated (Curato and Fossati, 2020), which, in contrast to democratic innovations, seek to “shrink spaces for meaningful public participation in politics” (Curato and Fossati, 2020).

b.

In Asia and the Pacific there has been a decline in democracy, with freedoms of speech, press and association coming under threat (International IDEA, 2023). Several factors are contributing to this decline in democratic values and freedoms in the region:

Authoritarian Resurgence: Some countries in Asia and the Pacific have witnessed a strengthening of authoritarian rule, where leaders consolidate power, often at the expense of democratic institutions and principles.
Legal and Extralegal Measures: Governments in the region have increasingly used a combination of legal and extralegal measures to suppress dissent and limit the freedoms of speech, press, and association.

c.

Despite its shortcomings in other indicators of democracy, the African region has strengthened considerably in the category of participation: “Nine African countries are in the top 50 in the world in levels of Participation. Recent experiences in Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria and Sierra Leone (among other countries) have shown that popular movements can play a vital role as a countervailing institution when other institutions have been unable to constrain governments” (International IDEA, 2023).

d.

Democracy in Latin America presents serious challenges. Among the main challenges are the following:

Institutional weakness in traditional political parties,
political polarization and fragmentation, and
the emergence and strengthening of authoritarian and populist political leaderships.

e.

Some characteristics of democracy in Latin America have been considered opportunities:

the existence of social movements that seek to affirm their representativeness and political identity among citizens, and
the existence of an active citizenry that is aware of human rights and the benefits of living in a democracy.

g.

Some practitioners have noticed a difficulty in achieving equal participation in the Global South. Individuals and communities living in informal settlements and with informal livelihoods, which are particularly prevalent in cities in the Global South (e.g., in India), are often perceived as “illegal” by local governments and therefore denied participation in formal planning processes.

h.

In regions of the Global South such as India and Latin America, there is an increase in democratic experimentation and innovation being used to correct the failures of representative institutions and achieve social goals. Pogrebinschi (2013) understands this as a “pragmatic turn” in Latin American democracies. Thus, instead of describing them as pseudo-democracies, we can speak of a pragmatic democracy that uses mechanisms of representative, participatory, and deliberative democracy.

a. Democracy is backsliding in various parts of the Global South. Especially in Southeast Asia, the existence of authoritarian innovations has been demonstrated (Curato and Fossati, 2020), which, in contrast to democratic innovations, seek to “shrink spaces for meaningful public participation in politics” (Curato and Fossati, 2020).

b. In Asia and the Pacific there has been a decline in democracy, with freedoms of speech, press and association coming under threat (International IDEA, 2023). Several factors are contributing to this decline in democratic values and freedoms in the region:

Authoritarian Resurgence: Some countries in Asia and the Pacific have witnessed a strengthening of authoritarian rule, where leaders consolidate power, often at the expense of democratic institutions and principles.
Legal and Extralegal Measures: Governments in the region have increasingly used a combination of legal and extralegal measures to suppress dissent and limit the freedoms of speech, press, and association.

c. Despite its shortcomings in other indicators of democracy, the African region has strengthened considerably in the category of participation: “Nine African countries are in the top 50 in the world in levels of Participation. Recent experiences in Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Mozambique, Nigeria and Sierra Leone (among other countries) have shown that popular movements can play a vital role as a countervailing institution when other institutions have been unable to constrain governments” (International IDEA, 2023).

d. Democracy in Latin America presents serious challenges. Among the main challenges are the following:

Institutional weakness in traditional political parties,
political polarization and fragmentation, and
the emergence and strengthening of authoritarian and populist political leaderships.

e. Some characteristics of democracy in Latin America have been considered opportunities:

the existence of social movements that seek to affirm their representativeness and political identity among citizens, and
the existence of an active citizenry that is aware of human rights and the benefits of living in a democracy.

f. Some practitioners are perceiving that in the Global South, participation and deliberation are seen by governments as a favor to citizens to participate in the decision-making process, rather than a human and civil right.

g. Some practitioners have noticed a difficulty in achieving equal participation in the Global South. Individuals and communities living in informal settlements and with informal livelihoods, which are particularly prevalent in cities in the Global South (e.g., in India), are often perceived as “illegal” by local governments and therefore denied participation in formal planning processes.

h. In regions of the Global South such as India and Latin America, there is an increase in democratic experimentation and innovation being used to correct the failures of representative institutions and achieve social goals. Pogrebinschi (2013) understands this as a “pragmatic turn” in Latin American democracies. Thus, instead of describing them as pseudo-democracies, we can speak of a pragmatic democracy that uses mechanisms of representative, participatory, and deliberative democracy.

Decolonizing Deliberative Democracy

Another way of making the Global South visible in the field of deliberative democracy is by calling for its decolonization.

Recently, scholars and practitioners have shown the challenges of talking about deliberative democracy in the Global South. Deliberative democracy, in its dominant construction today, is closely linked with the tradition of European Enlightenment.

Nevertheless, deliberative democracy has roots that can be rescued from different parts of the world, and not only from the Global North.

The recognition that deliberative democracy, as it is predominantly conceived today, has its intellectual and philosophical underpinnings in the European Enlightenment raises important questions about the universality and adaptability of these concepts across different cultural and historical contexts, especially in the Global South. This enlightenment tradition emphasizes reason, individual rights, and the public use of reason in democratic deliberation, which has profoundly influenced the development of democratic theories and practices worldwide.

However, the recent scholarly and practitioner focus on the challenges of discussing and implementing deliberative democracy in the Global South highlights a crucial point: deliberative practices and democratic ideals are not exclusive to the Enlightenment tradition or the Global North.

Across various regions in the Global South, there exist rich histories and traditions of collective decision-making, community consultation, and consensus-building practices that embody the essence of deliberative democracy. These practices may not align perfectly with the Enlightenment’s philosophical framework, but they represent indigenous and culturally specific forms of deliberation and decision-making.

Examples of Deliberation and Sortition in the Global South

Deliberation and civic lotteries, while often associated with Western democratic practices, have origins and parallels in various cultures and societies within the Global South. These practices demonstrate the rich diversity of democratic thought and participation beyond the conventional narratives centered on the Global North. Here are some examples illustrating these origins and parallels:

Examples of Deliberation and Sortition in the Global South

African Palaver

Traditional African societies have long employed the Palaver system, a form of community meeting under a tree where elders and community members gather to discuss issues, make decisions, and resolve conflicts through dialogue and consensus. This practice emphasizes collective deliberation and is foundational in many African communities.

Indian Panchayati Raj

The Panchayati Raj is a decentralized form of government in which each village, or a group of villages in some states, has a sarpanch (head) and a panchayat (council) elected by the village members. This system, rooted in ancient Indian governance, embodies principles of direct democracy and deliberation at the grassroots level.

Indigenous Councils
in Latin America

Many indigenous communities across Latin America practice forms of collective decision-making that involve community assembly, dialogue, and consensus. For example, the Quechua and Aymara peoples have long traditions of community meetings and deliberations to decide on matters affecting their communities.

Examples of Civic Lotteries in the Global South

Buddhist Monastic Practices

In some Buddhist traditions, particularly within the Theravada tradition in countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka, monastic positions and responsibilities are sometimes assigned through a form of lottery. This practice ensures that assignments are made fairly and without bias, reflecting an early form of civic lottery for role allocation within religious communities.

Traditional governance mechanisms
in Latin America

In various indigenous communities across Latin America, traditional governance mechanisms often include elements of sortition or rotation of roles that can be likened to civic lotteries. These practices ensure that leadership and decision-making responsibilities are shared among community members, reflecting a commitment to equality and collective governance. While these practices are rooted in indigenous traditions rather than in the concept of civic lotteries per se, they embody similar values of fairness, randomness, and democratic participation.

These examples demonstrate that the principles underlying deliberative democracy and civic lotteries—such as collective decision-making, equality, and chance-based selection—are not exclusive to any one culture or region. Instead, they are universal ideas that have been expressed in diverse ways across the Global South.

Recognizing and integrating these diverse traditions into the broader discourse on deliberative democracy can enrich our understanding of democratic practices and their potential to adapt to different cultural contexts.

Other ideas included in the decolonization of deliberative democracy are the following

There needs to be critical reflection on deliberative democracy. It should not be taken as a neutral starting point, as it has been implicated in the maintenance of unequal and colonial practices.

It is not enough to recognize that deliberative democracy is interested in or takes into account a plurality of cultures. It is necessary to “recontextualize, reconceptualize and reimagine deliberative democracy” (Curato, 2022). For this it is necessary to recognize and value that in the Global South there are deliberative elements that do not necessarily coincide with those of the Global North.

In the specific field of extractivism, deliberative democracy does not operate well in the Global South:

“Colonial relations dominate deliberative processes of consultation between Indigenous communities and multinational corporations in the extractive industries (Banerjee, 2000, 2008) and in CSR interventions into Third World child labor (Khan et al., 2010).” This is why it is necessary to think of new ways in which indigenous communities can enter into a deliberative dialogue in a position of equality.

The Good Practice Principles for Deliberative Processes for Public Decision Making by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are very useful for improving deliberative democracy. However, it is necessary to recognize that they seem to respond more to the context of the Global North. Several reflections have been made on this point, not with the idea of rejecting the standards, but to make explicit the differences that deliberative democracy can bring to the Global South and therefore the nuances that the application of these standards can have.

The debate around establishing standards in deliberative democracy practices, as highlighted by Parry (2023), is a pivotal one with significant implications for the integrity and inclusivity of democratic processes globally. This discussion is particularly relevant in the context of efforts to decolonize deliberative democracy and promote mutual learning between the Global North and South. Standards, on one hand, can serve as benchmarks for quality, ensuring that deliberative processes are meaningful, inclusive, and effective. On the other hand, there’s a valid concern that rigid standards could oversimplify the rich complexity of deliberative practices or, worse, impose a Eurocentric framework that sidelines indigenous and locally rooted democratic traditions.

The Case for

Standards

Standards in deliberative democracy could play a critical role in safeguarding the integrity of deliberative processes. By establishing clear benchmarks for what constitutes a quality deliberative process, standards can provide guidance for practitioners, ensuring that these processes are conducted in a manner that genuinely fosters open, inclusive, and impactful dialogue. Furthermore, standards could aid in the institutionalization of deliberative democracy, making it easier to integrate these practices into existing political systems while maintaining a consistent level of quality and effectiveness.

The Concerns

with Standards

However, the adoption of universal standards raises important concerns. Deliberative democracy, as a field, thrives on diversity and adaptability, reflecting the vast array of cultural, political, and social contexts in which it is practiced. Imposing a one-size-fits-all set of standards could inadvertently stifle this diversity, forcing complex and contextually rich practices into a narrow mold that may not be appropriate or effective in all settings. Moreover, there’s a risk that standards developed within a Eurocentric paradigm could overlook or undervalue indigenous practices and perspectives, reinforcing colonial patterns of knowledge imposition and marginalization.

Navigating the Path Forward

To navigate these challenges, it’s crucial to approach the development of standards in deliberative democracy with a nuanced and inclusive mindset. This involves:

By carefully balancing the need for quality and consistency with respect for diversity and local autonomy, the field of deliberative democracy can develop standards that enhance the integrity and impact of deliberative processes while remaining open to the rich array of democratic practices and traditions across the globe.

Incorporating Diverse Perspectives

Engaging practitioners, scholars, and participants from a wide range of cultural and geographic contexts in the development of standards to ensure they reflect a broad spectrum of experiences and traditions.

Flexibility and Adaptability

Developing standards that are flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs and circumstances of different communities, rather than prescribing a rigid set of practices.

Learning and Evolving

Viewing standards not as fixed rules but as living documents that evolve based on ongoing learning and exchange across different contexts, particularly through mutual learning initiatives between the Global North and South.

Promoting Local Autonomy

Ensuring that standards serve as a guide rather than a mandate, supporting local practitioners in adapting deliberative democracy practices in ways that resonate with their communities' values and needs.

What Is Our Global South Perspective?

“Global South” (GS) is a rather broad term that can mean many different things. But it is also a term that has gained a lot of preeminence at the scholarly and institutional level. Institutionally, the United Nations first used the term “South” in the 1970s to refer to the global interconnectedness of multiple regions and emphasize the economic and political importance of Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Haug, 2021). As a meta-category in the analysis of world politics, the Global South is used to refer to three different issues:

1. those places in the world that are socioeconomically marginalized.
2. those places of resistance to capitalism, regardless of their place in the world; and
3. to highlight international cooperative arrangements between countries outside the colonial powers (Haug, 2021).

As a meta-category, therefore, it is important to avoid falling into generalizations that do not help to understand a given problem. The key is to make explicit what we mean by the Global South. Thus, here we understand the Global South as a political category related to the functioning of deliberative democracy in the regions of Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe. Many countries in the Global South are characterized by low income, dense population, poor infrastructure, inequality, and being current or former subjects of colonialism and/or extractivism by countries in the Global North.

We understand that this may have an impact on the way deliberative democracy is “done” in these regions and that there are conditions that can result in consequences different from those of the Global North for deliberative democracy.

While empirical studies are essential to confirm the impact of the specificities of the Global South on deliberative democracy, we believe that practitioners' experiences also provide valuable insights into understanding this impact.

Finally, we also understand that the four geographic regions we include in our “GS” category contain immense diversity in political, economic, and cultural conditions; it feels it should go without saying that the Global South is not a monolith, nor do we make it out as such. Keeping in close view these internal diversities between Global South contexts, in this section, we present data from the Global South about inequalities and democracy.

In Synthesis, Our Global
South Perspective

We understand the Global South as a political category. The Global South is geographically used to identify countries and regions of Latin America, Africa and Asia. In our collective exercise we decided to also include Central and Eastern Europe. Many of the countries that geographically constitute the Global South have low-income economies and struggle with social and economic inequality, fragile democratic institutions, or authoritarian/autocratic systems of governance. They also experience the ongoing consequences of being current or former subjects of colonialism imposed by countries in the Global North.

But the Global South is also characterized by strong democratic traditions rooted in traditional and/or indigenous systems of governance.

We also understand that the Global South is not a monolith, thus our perspective must involve recognizing differences.

A nuanced understanding of the Global South as a mosaic of distinct cultures, histories, and socio-political contexts prompts a departure from generalizations, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and appreciating the unique characteristics and contributions of each region within the Global South.

What Is Our Mutual Learning Perspective?

Mutual learning is genuine and non-coercive process of knowledge exchange towards the creation, adoption and adaptation of deliberative democracy practices among different actors in the Global South and North. Mutual learning strengthens deliberative democracy. It is a generative form of practice that facilitates both critique and action to advance the principles of global public deliberation.

We call it mutual learning because, recognizing the importance of avoiding colonization and highlighting the difference of the Global South, it seeks to generate learning actions between the South and the North. If we are to innovate in deliberative democracy, we must learn about the conditions and practices that make “good deliberation” possible, as well as those human contexts in which it is not. The Global South, with its context of deep, structural and generalized inequality, offers great opportunities for learning in both directions. Moreover, if we understand that deliberative democracy is not a matter solely for states, but a project that goes beyond them, then there is all the more reason to think about learning in different directions: South-North; South-South; South-North.

Mutual learning involves conversations between the South and the North, recognising their common aspirations and differences in perspectives. Importantly, it also includes South-South learning, with the understanding that there are differences within the South as well. In particular, as we are in the context of the Democracy R&D, we are primarily interested in mutual learning about democratic innovations.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

g.