02
South—North Learning (SNL)
What is this guidebook about, and why does it matter?
The Living Guidebook is an innovative tool designed to foster mutual learning within the Democracy R&D. It’s crafted to facilitate fruitful exchange processes between network members, emphasizing the promotion of democratic innovations from the Global South while minimizing the risks of colonization or coercion. The Guidebook aims to bridge gaps and enhance understanding and practices across different contexts, focusing on the intricacies of deliberative democracy across geographical and cultural divides.
This living guidebook is the result of a collaborative effort by the South-North Learning Committee of Democracy R&D, led by Sofía Castillo, with the participation of Silvia Cervellini, Indira Latorre, Karin Adams, Susan Lee, and Santiago Niño Aguilar. We would like to extend special thanks to Andrea Bernarte, David Schecter, Fiorella Wernicke, Ieva Cesnulaityte, Joe Mac, John Badawi, Marianna Sampaio, Nicole Curato, Oliver Escobar, Sanskriti Menon, Septrin Calamba, and Zakia Elvang for their contributions to the creation of this guide.
Objectives of the Living Guidebook
Strengthen Mutual Learning
Enhance the exchange of knowledge, experiences, and practices among members of the Democracy R&D.
Minimize Risks of Colonization
Ensure that the learning and exchange processes are equitable and respectful of all participants' contexts, specifically aiming to prevent the imposition of ideas and practices that might not be suitable or desired in different cultural or political environments.
Highlight Global South Innovations
Bring attention to the unique contributions and innovations in deliberative democracy emerging from the Global South, acknowledging their value and potential for enriching global practices.
Structure of the Living Guidebook
The Guidebook is divided into two main parts:
Conceptual Framework
This section outlines the principles of South-North learning and the distinctive aspects of the Global South in the context of deliberative democracy. It sets the foundation for understanding the unique challenges and opportunities present in different regions of the world.
Methodologies and Tools
Proposes specific methodologies and tools to facilitate South-North and South-South learning. It includes a protocol for establishing South-North learning relationships and a ritual for enhancing South-South relationships, aiming to provide practical guidance for fostering productive and respectful exchanges.
Why a Living Guidebook?
The Guidebook is termed “living” for two main reasons:
Collaborative Creation
It is the product of collaborative efforts among members of the Democracy R&D, reflecting a diverse range of experiences and perspectives. The methodologies included have been developed and refined through feedback from network members who have applied them in practice.
Dynamic Usage
The Guidebook is intended to be a dynamic resource that evolves over time. As more organizations test and provide feedback on the methodologies, the Guidebook will be updated to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in facilitating mutual learning.
Mutual learning Case Studies
Document instances of knowledge transfer and co-creation within the network, evaluating spaces and tools through Global South and mutual learning lenses. The following case studies are presented:
Highlights include:
This Living Guidebook, by promoting mutual learning and recognizing the diversity of democratic practices, aims to enhance the quality and inclusivity of deliberative democracy globally.
Table of content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.
Identifying the Problem: A Global Democratic Challenge
Modern democracies are being challenged and citizens are less and less satisfied with political leadership everywhere around the globe, whether in countries with a long term democratic history or those where basic representative democratic elements have been present for less than a decade.
We could say that humanity—as we are talking about a large portion of the world’s population living in, more or less, democratic systems—is facing a serious political problem which, in turn, has generated the spread of a diverse effort around the globe to experiment with and find solutions involving direct democracy, technology, institutional engineering, social movements and participatory processes. One track of this globally spreading effort corresponds to our field: deliberative democracy.
The Disparity Between the
Global North and South
Deliberative democracy initiatives, particularly deliberative mini-publics, have seen more promotion, documentation, and study in the Global North, specifically Europe and North America, than in the Global South.
This disparity is notable despite the Global South’s rich history of democratic experimentation, including other notions of representation by sortition[1]. Mini-publics, or ‘mini-populus’[2], such as Citizen Juries, Planning Cells, and Citizens’ Assemblies, were pioneered in the 1960s in the Global North, leading to a proliferation of such initiatives in these regions (Escobar, 2017). However, the Global South has been slower to adopt and document these processes, leading to an imbalance in global deliberative practices.
Redefining the Role of the Global South
Despite the historical focus on the Global North, the rise of mini-publics and interest in deliberative democracy in the Global South presents an opportunity to redefine its role from a mere “receiver” of ideas to an active “collaborator” and “protagonist” in the global democratic challenge. The unique colonial histories, contexts, and constraints of nations in the Global South necessitate a departure from merely adapting to standards and models developed in dissimilar contexts. Instead, there’s a critical need for a platform for mutual learning and exchange that respects and leverages the distinctiveness of each region.
Pathways for Collaboration and mutual learning
Addressing this imbalance requires a concerted effort to foster mutual learning between the Global North and South. We believe that several complementary paths can be taken to foster mutual learning between the Global South and Global North. This is why this living guidebook connects the emerging scholarly work and practical developments in the field, inspired by the traditions of decolonial theory, deliberative cultures, democratization studies, and South- North dialogues.
Our living guidebook approach promotes continuous exchange and learning and can serve as (one of the) effective platforms for this purpose. By connecting scholars and practitioners across regions, this approach encourages a collaborative exploration of deliberative democracy that transcends traditional geographical and conceptual boundaries. This involves not only decolonizing deliberative democracy (Curato, 2024) but also recognizing and celebrating the unique contributions of the Global South.
The Democracy R&D exemplifies this collaborative spirit, with its diverse membership spanning 32 countries across six continents. This network’s commitment to mutual learning and horizontal collaboration positions it as a pivotal force in advancing deliberative democracy globally. By emphasizing equal partnership and learning, the network aims to enhance the institutionalization and quality of deliberative processes, ensuring that democratic innovations benefit from the rich tapestry of global perspectives.
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:
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
Examples of Civic Lotteries in the Global South
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:
- Incorporating Diverse Perspectives
- Flexibility and Adaptability
- Learning and Evolving
- Promoting Local Autonomy
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.
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.
Developing standards that are flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs and circumstances of different communities, rather than prescribing a rigid set of practices.
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.
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
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.
In particular, as we are in the context of the Democracy R&D, we are primarily interested in mutual learning about democratic innovations.
How to Read This Methodology
This methodology was co-created by DRD members participating in South-North Learning Committee sessions during 2023. The South-North Learning (SNL) group drafted this initial proposal based on the recollection of methodological insights in workshops and through a crowd-sourced writing exercise entitled Notebook of co-creation during 2023.
From the insights gathered, two methodologies were drafted to strengthen mutual learning:
- A protocol for Global South-to-North interactions
- A ritual for Global South-to-South interactions
Each of the methodologies will be explained below through a series of steps, exercises and recommended principles and practices to strengthen mutual learning within our ecosystem.
The concrete objectives of both methodologies are the following
How to Use This Methodology
This methodology, either for a South-North or South-South orientation to mutual learning, can be used in any interactions between deliberative democracy practitioners, advocates, learners, scholars, etc.
This methodology can also be used in transnational or global spaces like the Democracy R&D or other similar networking spaces.
This methodology can also be used before or through project co-design processes, or in co-implementation and/or fund-seeking stages for collaborative projects.
Protocol for South-North Learning (SNL)
“This methodology identifies principles and recommends practices for mutual learning in the interactions between Global North and South practitioners.”
South-to-North Objective:
Principles and practices recommended to guide the interaction and collaborations between deliberative democracy practitioners and learners from the Global North and South in order to enhance mutual learning, particularly in interactions initiated by Global North actors.
Step 01
Let’s get into an SNL mutual learning mood!
Protocol for South-North Learning (SNL)
Step 02
Let’s integrate our principles and practices for SNL
Protocol for South-North Learning (SNL)
Ritual for South-South Learning
“This methodology identifies principles and recommends practices for mutual learning in the interactions between Global South practitioners from
Why is this a Ritual?
South-to-South Objective: In this methodology, we want to focus on enhancing South-South learning and identifying principles and practices used by Global South practitioners to enhance learning, collaboration and innovation based upon shared challenges and solutions in the Global South.
Step 01
Let’s get into a South-South mutual learning mood!
Ritual for South-South Learning
Step 02
Let’s integrate our principles and practices for mutual learning in our South-South interactions.
Ritual for South-South Learning
Step 03
Let’s celebrate and share our SNL process with others! I think we're missing this last important step.
Mutual Learning Case Studies
This chapter aims to document in-depth case studies of mutual learning in the field, particularly existing practices of knowledge transfer and co-creation in the Democracy R&D.
Introducción
This chapter aims to document in-depth case studies of mutual learning in the field, particularly existing practices of knowledge transfer and co-creation in the Democracy R&D.
Deliberative practices have long been a central part of self-governance in the Global South. Nevertheless, following the so-called “deliberative turn” in democratic theory in the 1980s, new citizen deliberation practices flourished in the Global South and North, giving rise to a growing demographic of deliberative practitioners or public participation professionals inside bureaucracies, in the private sector, and in nongovernmental organizations (Lee, 2014; Friess & Herff, 2023; Bherer, Gauthier & Simard 2017). Starting with Central and Western Europe, North America, and Oceania, demand from institutional actors and a growing capacity precipitated networks like the Democracy R&D, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), and the International Association for Facilitators (IAF). These networks constitute sites of knowledge transfer and co-creation in the ecosystem, alongside other channels such as conferences, publications, fellowship or train-to-trainer programs, certifications, databases, and open-source software (OECD, 2022). In addition to formal sites, we can also identify mutual learning as happening in informal, interpersonal interactions between practitioners as well as during the implementation of projects that are co-delivered by more than one organization.
Take a moment to try to identify how you rate the value of spaces, tools, or interactions in the deliberative democracy ecosystem. Do you consider how well a network facilitates important connections for you or introduces you to best practices? When you download a how-to guidebook pdf, is it important how well-researched the recommendations are, or how applicable they are to your context? Does the authority of the individual authors or organizations matter?
How would these evaluations change if we applied Global South and mutual learning perspectives to these sites? Beginning from the perspective that learning is political pushes us to take a step back and re-interrogate the value of the spaces where we engage with like-minded peers and the value of the products, we circulate to share knowledge. For example, we can think once more about what makes an organization seem reputable to us or why something is considered a best practice. Rather than intrinsic, obvious facts, the value we ascribe to knowledge in our practice worlds is implicated in broader patterns of power and authority.
Lupia and Norton (2017) importantly reminded us that inequality is always in the room within a deliberative forum. We ought also to consider the potential that inequality is in the room—in our networks, handbooks, projects, or informal interactions—during our backstage organizing efforts as practitioners of deliberative spaces.
In this section, we present in-depth case studies of 6 instances of knowledge transfer and co-creation in the field, with this shift in mind. We evaluate these spaces and tools through the Global South and mutual learning lenses, keeping the following questions in mind:
- To what extent do these instances of knowledge comprise examples of mutual learning understood as ‘genuine and non-coercive processes’?
- How well do these instances serve Global South actors?
- Are they representative of and well-equipped to support the global scope of the field today?
For each case, we focus on what can be learned from the experience to inform our methodology on mutual learning. Our selection criteria comprises high-profile cases of knowledge transfer and practices of mutual learning, underlined with an attempt to cover a diversity of formats ranging from networks to insights from informal interactions. Additionally, we will also present a case study to share what was learned from projects delivered under the New Frontiers project upon its completion.
Case 1
Democracy R&D Network
Type of instance: Network
Modality of mutual learning: South-North, South-South, North-North
International network of organizations, associations, and individuals that develop, implement, and promote deliberative democracy. Promotes meetings, learning calls, an active forum, and ad hoc connections between practitioners.
- Networks like Democracy R&D are curated ecosystems where mutual learning activities occur. This includes forum interactions, learning calls, and informal connections.
- Networks can also give repute to certain actors (through membership) and practices (through appraisal).
Case 2
Demo.Reset
Type of instance: Network
Modality of mutual learning: South-South
The first network of and by deliberative practitioners in the Global South (Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, SEA, India, and Latin America).
The civic innovation laboratory, called Demo.Reset/Lab, produces tools and solutions (e.g. “masterclasses”) geared toward these regions.
This network also supports Global South projects developed collaboratively within Demo.Reset/Lab.
Case 3
OECD Standards & Evaluation Guidelines
Type of instance: Publication (Handbooks, Normative Frameworks)
Modality of mutual learning: South-North
Reports published by the OECD’s Innovative Citizen Participation team on best practices for running deliberative mini-publics and a framework on how to evaluate them.
Case 4
Boost Bangsamoro
Type of instance: Project
Modality of mutual learning: South-South
Showcases deliberation in post-conflict settings, emphasizing peacebuilding and community engagement in the southern Philippines.
Case 5
"Resurgentes: Democracia Deliberativa
para el clima en América Latina"
Type of instance: Project - Network
Modality of mutual learning: South-South
Consortium project of organizations implementing climate citizens’ assemblies in Latin America.
Co-implemented projects facilitate mutual learning in the most practice-based way. Organizations and individuals share, implement, and evaluate best practices in the field.
Case 6
St. Petersburg Citizens’ Assembly
Type of instance: Project
Modality of mutual learning: North
Explores prototyping and learning in action within a challenging political climate, highlighting the importance of building deliberative capacities in non-state actors.
Case 6
St. Petersburg Citizens’ Assembly
Type of instance: Project
Modality of mutual learning: North
Explores prototyping and learning in action within a challenging political climate, highlighting the importance of building deliberative capacities in non-state actors.
Comments and contributions
Leave your comments or contributions to this guide
“Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.”
