Week 7

Deliberative democratic processes

Aslin and Brown (2004) briefly outline deliberative democratc tools.
You may remember reading about the application of deliberative democratic process in Stehlik (2010), and the benefits outlined. Specifically, the process involved resulted a high level of community engagement, which in turn resulted in the consideration of information about an issue, and potentially empowerment.

1. In a nutshell, what were the strengths and positive outcomes from the deliberative democracy process used to engage community abut nuclear power issues?

2. Aslin and Brown (2004) identify essential elements required for deliberative democracy to be effective. What are they?

• Aslin H.J. and Brown V.A. (2004) Towards whole of community engagement: A
  practical toolkit Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
  Accessed in July 2010.
• Stehlik D. (2010). Appendix A: Conceptual framework and literature review. In
  Understanding the formation of attitudes to nuclear power in Australia, pp41-56. National Academies Forum, Melbourne. Accessed July 2010.
  
• See also the summary appended at the very end of the report, prepared by Peta
  Ashworth (2009), "Summary of community attitudes toward nuclear and
  other low emission energy technologies". CSIRO P2009/2108, Compiled for the
  National Academies Forum.

Relationships between organisations and community

Tim Muirhead’s booklet for local government is a handy “how to” guide that you may consider purchasing.

1. Read through the recommended section, and pause to consider he “Reflections” if you can.

2. Would the weaknesses and strengths he identifies preclude you from using this kind of tool? Why?

• Muirhead T. (2007). Weaving Tapestries: a handbook for building communities,
  pp23-32. Local Government Community Services Association (WA), Perth.
  

Rhetoric to reality? – a good question

Alsin and Brown (2004) refer you to James and Blamey (1999) for more details about the types of participatory democracy.

1. In order to build an understanding of what is involved and how it might be used, review their conference paper and make note of the strengths and weakness of the approach, and the elements involved in good process.

2. Can you see an application for this tool in your professional practice or in a specific situation?

 

 

• James R.F. and Blamey R.K. (1999). Public Participation in Environmental
  Decision-Making – Rhetoric to Reality? International Symposium on Society and
  Resource Management, 7-10 July 1999, Brisbane, Australia.
  Accessed in July 2010.