RANGONI, Sacha; BEDOCK, Camille; TALUKDER, David

doi:10.1057/s41269-021-00209-4

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

RANGONI, Sacha
Centre d'étude de la vie politique [CEVIPOL]

BEDOCK, Camille
Centre Émile Durkheim [CED]

TALUKDER, David
Centre d'étude de la vie politique [CEVIPOL]

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

Acta Politica. 2023-07, vol. 58, n° 3, p. 531-551

Palgrave Macmillan

Résumé en anglais

MPs face a dilemma when it comes to deliberative mini-publics (DMPs): in a context of distrust, they may see it as an opportunity to re-legitimize themselves and solve complex policy issues. But it could also challenge the quasi-monopoly they used to have on political decisions and undermine the role of the Parliament and the primacy of elections. The article is found on 91 face-to-face interviews with French-speaking Belgian MPs sitting in federal or regional parliaments. First, we describe the profile of supporters of DMPs. We then identify three ideal–typical discourses: the power-sharing discourse, the consultative discourse, and the elitist discourse. The contribution of this article is twofold. First, it analyzes the argumentative frames used by MPs to assess deliberative mini-publics using a large number of interviews. Second, it demonstrates that their discourses depend on their evaluation of ordinary citizens’ competence to participate and on their resulting vision of representation. Political actors mainly perceive DMPs as power-sharing instruments that would alter their elected position and the legitimacy of the election.< Réduire

Mots clés en anglais

Mini-publics

MPs

Representative democracy

Political competence

Deliberative democracy

Métadonnées

Licence d’utilisation du document

More competent thus more legitimate? MPs’ discourses on deliberative mini-publics

Langue

Ce document a été publié dans

Résumé en anglais

Mots clés en anglais

DOI

Origine

Unités de recherche