Anastasia Deligiaouri

This paper aims to integrate epistemic versions of deliberative democracy into policy studies in order to develop a policy impact tool (PIT) for e‐rulemaking initiatives. In building its argumentation, the paper assesses and engages with epistemic democracy and online deliberation design while considering policy‐related dilemmas and the specific challenges of deliberative e‐rulemaking. The PIT aims to introduce a concise procedure along with a number of basic indicators that can be used to understand and evaluate the quality of discourse and the policy potential of deliberative e‐rulemaking. In order to build this tool, (a) we rely on the importance of comparative text analysis; (b) we develop a threads index, which will categorize citizens' input in the major arguments spelt out in the deliberation; (c) we propose argumentation and discourse analysis to evaluate arguments vis a vis their justification and identify the policy‐valuable arguments and; (d) we provide a concise proc...

This paper connects and disentangles three interrelated concepts: citizens’ participation; e-rulemaking (in a deliberative environment) and effective policymaking at the EU level. We critically evaluate public participation under the revamped 2015 ‘Better Regulation Agenda’ by focusing on the public consultations tool; examining it through the lens of deliberative democratic legitimacy; and assessing its potential to be more deliberative following the legitimacy evaluation framework of Schmidt [2013. Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union revisited: Input, output and ‘throughput’. Political Studies, 61(1), 2–22]. The paper employs an innovative theoretical approach, which blends deliberative democracy, e-rulemaking with EU studies insights. Furthermore, it introduces a new legitimacy criterion we call ‘functional legitimacy’ which refers to an overarching principle and evaluative framework that should govern e-rulemaking initiatives from their design through implementation and evaluation. We examine the preconditions for e-rulemaking at the EU level on the principles of transparency, inclusiveness and evidence-based policymaking.

How can we define democracy today given the continuous
changes that modern societies are undergoing? What is the role of a democratic theorist? This paper articulates a threefold argument in responding to these questions by analyzing the term of democracy in vitro, in vivo, and in actu. The first step is to secure a democratic minimum and the core principles of democracy. The second step involves studying democracy as an ongoing project and examining how the principles of this democratic minimum are encoded. In the third step we deploy the basic premises of discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe when evaluating a specific discourse of democracy, as this approach encompasses both discursive and non discursive practices. Utilizing this three-level evaluative framework for democratic theory will allow us to not only articulate normative principles but also evaluate them according to their mode of implementation.

Abstract

Democratic and deliberation democracy scholars are very much focused on motivating the public to participate in public debates by engaging in deliberative procedures that allow flow of communication between participants and the formation of reasonable and well sustained arguments. While much effort is invested in widening public participation and in defining the best procedural rules to be followed in deliberation, less importance has been placed to the actual effect of deliberations on policy making and to the evauation of deliberative procedures in relation to policy making. For the moment  only a few examples such as the Citizens Assemblies in Ireland (Suiter et al 2016) (engaging in face to face deliberation) seem to really result in a recognizable policy outcome.
The field of epistemic democracy is blossoming and constantly evolving and several Quality indicators and measurement criteria of deliberation have emerged such as the Discourse Quality Index of Steenberger et al (2003) the six level coding scheme of Stromer –Galley (2007) and the procedure- independent standard introduced from Fernros and Schaffer (2017) which draws on argumentation theory.
We argue that the evauation of deliberative procedures and their connection with policy outcome is still emerging. One would say that due to various format(s) and the discusive pattern of deliberation such a task is nearly impossible to achieve. Our approach will focus on e–rulemaking deliberative fora in which participants can act as co-editors at law making procedure. As law making is bound to have an effect we argue that a Policy Impact Index is a sine qua non prerequisite in evaluating e-rulemaking initiatives and make them sustainable. Laws are text based and thus provide a more  ‘solid’ groung for understanding the result of the deliberation and how and if citizens input is transcribed into some form of output in the final law adopted .
This paper will asses and utilise, wherever appropriate, current quality and measurement indicators that are already developed in literature and relevant empirical studies for the purpose of creating a Policy Impact Tool for e-rulemaking initiatives. This tool will seek to establish a number of indicators that can predict the policy impact of citizens’ deliberation specifically for e-rulemaking. In order to build this tool a) we will rely on the importance of comparative text analysis; b)we will develop the necessary criteria for the development of a threads index which will categorise citizens input in deliberation in the major arguments spelled out in the deliberation. At a third level c) we will employ argumentation and discourse analysis in order to evaluate arguments vis a vis their justification and d) we will provide the framework and the benchmark for the assessment of the policy potential of the preceding deliberation.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 798502

Democratic innovations are flourishing, reflecting the combined effort and optimism of political scientists, along with a number of governments and policy makers, that these new participatory fora will increase legitimacy in decision making and reinvigorate democratic institutions and procedures. Most commonly, these innovations are in the context of deliberative democracy and employ a ‘mini-public’ structure, small participatory spaces in which deliberation is feasible and productive.
The broad scope of these small-scale participatory spaces fills in legitimacy gaps in modern democracies and introduces a new mode of decision making which reinforces citizens’ engagement. The participants in these experiments must abide by the rule of representativeness if the organisers wish the decisions they reach to be considered legitimate and applicable to the larger maxi-public. 
In view of this ‘methodological requirement’ these innovations transform the direction and nature of representation and transpose it to another scale/level.  We argue that these small-scale participatory fora implement the representation in a reverse mode. More specifically, in traditional representation people choose their representatives usually through an election or public vote. In mini publics, representatives (deliberators) are
appointed following some form of random selection or sortition, and their decisions are considered reflective of the ‘many’. This ‘reverse representation’ does not aim of course to replace traditional electoral representation but it certainly demands a closer scrutiny of issues of legitimacy and representation. Representation is of course present but with a different character as here, participants are not exercising any power on behalf of the electorate.
As these deliberative fora are becoming more commonplace in the quest for the renewal of democratic practices and are beginning to be embedded in formal institutions we should re-engage with democratic theory and especially with the perennial debate about representation and democracy for the purpose of examining how representation is articulated in new forms or directions.
These innovations from design to implementation engage, explicitly or not, with a long-standing theoretical debate, the role of representation in democracy; a debate which is contentious among scholars even for the established forms of political representations and the nature of the mandate. Furthermore, the complexity of modern social and political structures, in which multiple forms of citizens associations have emerged, has reopened the core question “who is to be represented”? As democracy matures and embraces more innovations and expands its theoretical and empirical arsenal, we need to see how we can reconcile and combine traditional concepts of democracy, such as representation, with its modern manifestations.

This paper is included in the project “PEREDEP” (“Promoting E-rulemaking in the EU through Deliberative Procedures”) and has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 798502.

“This is a post by Anastasia Deligiaouri. The text was originally published in the edited volume Euroflections. Leading academics on the European elections 2019, a free downloadable report with results, analyses and reflections on the election to the European Parliament 2019. More than 70 researchers from all over Europe participate in the project led by the editors Niklas Bolin, Kajsa Falasca, Marie Grusell and Lars Nord.

The 2008 economic crisis signalled a new era for European and global politics and introduced a new ‘economic crisis discourse’, which has emerged as an attempt to explain, justify, criticize and interpret economic crisis. It has introducednew terms and constructed new meanings to political life. Media economic crisisdiscourse has been a decisive factor in peoples’ understanding of economic crisis.
The paper studies the construction and media narratives of economic crisis
discourse through an analysis of articles published by The Economist during the ‘peak years’ of the early Greek economic crisis (2009–2011). The analysis follows Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) discourse theory and reveals the ‘nodal points’ of Greek crisis discourse as they are presented in the articles of The Economist. The paper underlines the importance of media discourse during crisis periods, in which information dissemination and news framing may crucially affect citizens,
policies and societies in general.
Keywords: economic crisis, Greek crisis, discourse analysis, discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe, media discourse

This article provides a theoretical and philosophical investigation for the discursive construction of truth based predominantly upon the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe but also on insights drawn from other scholars. As a theoretical article the aim is to contribute to the understanding of post-truth as a recent phenomenon and elaborate on several dimensions and aspects of it by employing a conceptual analysis enriched with several references from recent literature and published articles. Social truth as a social construction is a discourse with a privileged signification power over masses. Therefore the conditions for the construction of the discourse of truth are a focal topic for analysis. On the other hand, the ‘post-truth’ concept, which invaded in political life during 2016, puts into contestation several constitutive and structural elements of truth and consequently democracy as it currently functions in modern liberal states. The article is divided into three sections: (1) The first section provides a theoretical analysis on what is truth and how it is constructed as a discourse in a society; (2) the second section discusses the concept of post-truth and the possible reasons for the emergence of post-truth narratives in contemporary political communication and (3) the last section delineates the impact that post-truth narratives have on the political level, the institutional level and the social level.

This paper aims to provide an in-depth analysis of the role and importance of e-participation in the political process. The internet has introduced new ways and forms of political communication and citizen participation in social and political life. In the era of digital democracy, the capabilities of citizens in terms of participating directly in politics have been enriched significantly. Accordingly, the internet and the technologies of Web 2.0 in particular have been invested with increased democratic expectations for the renewal of democratic institutions. However, academic research broaches the democratic potential of social media with reservation and highlights the loose connection between online and offline political participation. In this paper, we explore the variables and factors that influence online political participation, taking into consideration the new communicative codes introduced by social media. The analysis of the paper is based on a literature review performed on recent studies in the field, which reveal a plurality of variables and factors that should be analysed thoroughly and combined for the articulation of valid conclusions in relation to the features and the political characteristics associated with the new forms

Project introduction
The project “Promoting E-Rulemaking in the EU through Deliberative Procedures” (PEREDEP) has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 798502.
The project “Promoting E-Rulemaking in the EU through Deliberative Procedures” (PEREDEP) is an interdisciplinary research project based on the theory of deliberative democracy and participatory democracy. Its innovative character lies in the effective combination and implementation of deliberation, law making and policy making procedures for the purpose of strengthening citizen’s voice in the EU and more specifically in law making procedures and policies. It assesses the potential and limitations of ‘e-rulemaking’ in the European Union (EU).
The project addresses two major topics: responsible citizenship and the prerequisites for qualitative civic participation in an e-rulemaking initiative in the EU following-deliberative procedures. For this purpose, it will examine thoroughly the preconditions for meaningful and effective political participation that can have an impact on policy making in the context of e-rulemaking. The project is in nature interdisciplinary as the research it proposes stands at the crossroads of political science (with specific attention to deliberation theory and participatory democracy), media studies (with specific attention to new media theory and e-participation) and certainly law as it refers to law making procedures in the EU
PEREDEP aims to produce outcomes that are informed by relevant empirical analysis and are of practical value. To this extent it aspires to provide valuable contribution to the current ‘Better Regulation Agenda” of the EC which was launched in 2015. The purpose is to strengthen the deliberative features of this Agenda in order for policies and law making procedures to be informed of citizens interests, demands and expectations.