Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instituting Deliberation: Three Stages of Bottom-Up Policymaking in Denmark’s Alternative Party

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Soziologie der Parteien

Part of the book series: Politische Soziologie ((POLSOZ))

Abstract

The notion of deliberative democracy has been a subject of scholarly attention since Joseph Bessette first coined the term some 40 years ago. Generally understood as ‘the idea that legitimate lawmaking issues from the public deliberation of citizens’, the theory of deliberative democracy seeks to provide answers to questions that have haunted political theory since the dawn of modern democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    It should be noted that the second author did not occupy a position of trust within the party, meaning that she was not elected to represent certain political ideas. In other words, she was not a politician, and her employment at Alternativet did therefore not require her to share the views of the party.

  2. 2.

    Here, an alternative interpretation could be that, since the laboratories were held in different parts of the country, some people realistically only had one opportunity to influence the decisions. Viewed as such, the laboratories were perhaps less accessible than what they are here made out to be.

  3. 3.

    An alternative interpretation might be that the notion of ‘oligarchy’ is a misleading way of describing the introduction of Political Forum. After all, Michels (1965/1915) developed his ‘iron law of oligarchy’ in a context of large mass-parties with many levels of authority and an elaborate party bureaucracy. This is quite different from Alternativet’s organizational context, which—at this point—included only one of two members of staff. Furthermore, it was relatively easy for ordinary members to become forum members.

  4. 4.

    Although these ideas where meant as an invitation to debate within Alternativet, many members and almost all commentators viewed them as actual policy proposals.

  5. 5.

    An alternative interpretation might be that the digital platform heightened the barrier of entry for political discussions, precisely because of its deliberative affordances. Awarding rights and privileges to users who participate in particular ways obviously serves to marginalize users who are accustomed to other modes of political debate.

References

  • Alternativet. 2013a. Manifesto: There is always an alternative! https://alternativet.dk/en/politics/manifesto. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2013b. Our values. https://alternativet.dk/en/politics/our-values. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2013c. Debate principles. https://alternativet.dk/en/politics/debate-principles. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2014a. Party programme. https://alternativet.dk/en/politics/party-programme. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2014b. Blog-indlæg: Politiske Laboratorier. www.alternativet.dk. Accessed 02 Dec 2019.

  • Alternativet. 2015a. Vær med til at skabe Politik. https://alternativet.dk/politik/vaer-med-til-skabe-alternativets-politik. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2015b. Konkretpolitik kvæler Visionerne. www.alternativet.dk. Accessed 19 Aug 2019.

  • Alternativet. 2018a. The next Denmark: Freedom and community—a new narrative. https://bit.ly/2Xj8vbV. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alternativet. 2018b. Evaluering af Politikudviklingsprocesser i Alternativet. https://bit.ly/2QDML8i. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Alvesson, Mats, and Kaj Sköldberg. 2017. Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bächtiger, André, John Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren. 2018. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessette, Joseph M. 1980. Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government. In How democratic Is the constitution?, ed. Robert Goldwin and William Schambra, 102–116. Washington DC: AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, Samantha. 2005. The morality of conflict: Study on reasonable disagreement in the law. Portland: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, James, and William Rehg. 1997. Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, Gordon. 2019. A citizens’ assembly Is now the only way to break the brexit deadlock. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/20/citizens-assembly-brexit-article-50-britain. Accessed: 31 Jan 2021.

  • Breines, Winnie. 1980. Community and organization: The new left and Michel’s ‘iron law’”. Social Problems 27 (4): 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, Ian. 2000. Deliberative democracy versus direct democracy—plus political parties! In Democratic innovation, ed. Michael Saward. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chironi, Daniela, and Raffaela Fittipaldi. 2017. Social movements and new forms of political organization: Podemos as a hybrid party. Partecipazione E Conflitto 10 (1): 275–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Joshua. 1989. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In The good polity, ed. Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, 17–34. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Porta, Donatella, Joseba Fernández, Hara Kouki, and Lorenzo Mosca. 2017. Movement parties against Austerity. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWalt, Kathleen M., and Billie R. DeWalt. 2002. Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, Jon. 1998. Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, James S. 2009. When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Jo. 1972. The tyranny of structurelessness. Women’s Studies Quarterly 41 (3/4): 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2019. The digital party: Political organisation and online democracy. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. Reconciliation through the public Use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy 92 (3): 109–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, Gerard. 1999. Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, David. 2006. Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, Emil, and Allan Dreyer Hansen. 2017. The alternative to occupy? Radical politics between protest and parliament. TripleC 15 (2): 459–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, Emil, and Ursula Plesner. 2017. Spaces of open-source politics: Physical and digital conditions for political organization. Organization 24 (5): 648–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, James. 2006. Political parties and deliberative democracy? In Handbook of party politics, ed. Richard S. Katz and William Crotty, 47–51. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, Danny L. 2015. Participant observation. In Emerging trends in social and behavioral sciences, ed. Stephen Kosslyn and Robert Scott, 1–10. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kock, Christian. 2014. Aristotle on deliberation: Its place in ethics, politics and rhetoric. In Let’s talk politics: New essays on deliberative rhetoric, eds. Hilde Van Belle, Kris Rutten, Paul Gillaerts, Dorien Van de Mieroop, Baldwin Gorp, 13–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, John. 2004. After method: Mess in social science research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, Ron, Hoi Kong, Graeme Orr, and Jeff King. 2018. The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lichterman, Paul. 1998. What do movements mean? The value of participant-observation. Qualitative Sociology 21 (4): 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mac, Majken. 2017. Når Mennesker skaber sammen: En Undersøgelse af Muligheder, Begrænsninger og Dilemmaer i Samskabelse. Kopenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, Bernard. 1987. On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15 (3): 338–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martí, José Luis. 2017. Pluralism and consensus in deliberative democracy. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20 (5): 556–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michels, Robert. 1965 [1915]. Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 1993. The return of the political. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research: An International Quarterly 66 (3): 745–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muirhead, Russell. 2010. Can deliberative democracy be partisan? Critical Review 22 (2–3): 129–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neblo, Michael A. 2017. Deliberative democracy between theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Observation. 2014. Alternativet’s First Annual Meeting. Denmark: Allinge, June 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Observation. 2015a. Political Laboratory on 30 Hour Work Week, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Observation, 2015b. The Dialogue Platform. https://dialog.alternativet.dk/. Accessed June 18.

  • Osterman, Paul. 2006. Overcoming oligarchy: Culture and agency in social movement organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 51 (4): 622–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Simon, and Martin Parker. 2017. Antagonism, accommodation and agonism in critical management studies: Alternative organizations as allies. Human Relations 70 (11): 1366–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plows, Alexandra. 2008. Social movements and ethnographic methodologies: An analysis using case study examples. Sociology Compass 2 (5): 1523–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polletta, Francesca. 2002. Freedom is an endless meeting: Democracy in American social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ramiro, Luis, and Raul Gomez. 2017. Radical-left populism during the great recession: Podemos and its competition with the established radical left. Political Studies 65(1_suppl): 108–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riessman, Catherine K. 1993. Narrative analysis. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenblum, Nancy. 2008. On the side of the angels: An appreciation of parties and partisanship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothschild-Whitt, Joyce. 1979. The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociological Review 44 (4): 509–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, Edward. 2009. Political ethnography: What immersion contributes to the study of power. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, Maija, and Graham Smith. 2018. Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy, 300–314. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skærbæk, Morten, and Anders Bæksgaard. 2015. Den her ordning er sindssygt dyr. Politiken. https://politiken.dk/indland/politik/art5597166/%C2%BBDen-her-ordning-er-sindssygt-dyr%C2%AB. Accessed 31 Jan 2021.

  • Teorell, Jan. 1999. A deliberative defence of intra-party democracy. Party Politics 5 (3): 363–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thucydides. 2003[431BD]. The peloponnesian war book II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Jonathan, and Lea Ypi. 2011. On partisan political justification. American Political Science Review 105 (2): 381–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2016. A deliberative model of intra-party democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (3): 297–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolkenstein, Fabio. 2018. Intra-party democracy beyond aggregation. Party Politics 24 (4): 323–334.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Emil Husted

  2. University of Copgenhagen, Kopenhagen, Denmark

    Majken Mac

Authors
  1. Emil Husted
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majken Mac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emil Husted .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Soziologie und VWL, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Neubiberg, Deutschland

    Jenni Brichzin

  2. Institut für Soziologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Deutschland

    Jasmin Siri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Der/die Autor(en), exklusiv lizenziert durch Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Husted, E., Mac, M. (2021). Instituting Deliberation: Three Stages of Bottom-Up Policymaking in Denmark’s Alternative Party. In: Brichzin, J., Siri, J. (eds) Soziologie der Parteien. Politische Soziologie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33853-4_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33853-4_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-33852-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-33853-4

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation