Political parties have gradually distanced themselves from voters in both established and new democracies. This is reflected in lower levels of public confidence in political parties and politicians, in lower political participation (including voting), and in higher electoral volatility over time (Dalton Reference Dalton2019; Emanuele, Chiaramonte, and Soare Reference Emanuele, Chiaramonte and Soare2020). Moreover, and especially in the twenty-first century, the mainstream political parties face the electoral challenge of fringe and populist parties that encapsulate people’s protest attitudes and anti-system beliefs (Heinisch, Holtz-Bacha, and Mazzoleni Reference Heinisch, Holtz-Bacha and Mazzoleni2021; Mudde Reference Mudde2021). All of these beliefs indicate that political parties greatly need avenues to reconnect with the public.
Deliberative democracy is an alternative approach to decision making in which citizens have the possibility to make policy suggestions to institutions. It proposes a shift from a vote-centric to a talk-centric conception of decision making in which the exchange of ideas, judgment, and inclusion is prominent (Dryzek Reference Dryzek2000; Habermas Reference Habermas1996). The symposium approaches deliberation through the lens of its general principles that make it an alternative form of democracy and also through those of deliberative practices. According to the latter theory, ordinary people converse with one another to find appropriate answers to problems or to exchange knowledge that might influence a decision maker to choose a specific course of action. Its basic principles entail the existence of free and equal citizens who engage in public debates and collective reasoning to self-govern their community. The debates are characterized by fairness, thoroughness, diligence, and an educational and substantive nature (Bächtiger et al. Reference Bächtiger, Dryzek, Mansbridge and Warren2018; Fishkin Reference Fishkin2011; Habermas Reference Habermas1996).
Deliberative democracy practices gained momentum in the twenty-first century and involved citizens in different topics and in several forms (Escobar and Bua Reference Escobar and Bua2025; Geissel and Newton Reference Geissel and Newton2012; Smith Reference Smith2009). Such practices also work in fragile contexts (Curato and Calamba Reference Curato and Calamba2024). Extensive research indicates that people appreciate this type of engagement in decision making, and their demand for deliberative practices is high in many countries (Gherghina and Geissel Reference Gherghina and Geissel2020; Pilet et al. Reference Pilet, Bedock, Talukder and Rangoni2024). People engage with deliberative democracy practices when they are available in their communities (Christensen, Himmelroos, and Grönlund Reference Christensen, Himmelroos and Grönlund2017).
Despite the popular appeal of deliberation and the need to reconnect with citizens, political parties often are reluctant to engage in deliberation. There are only isolated instances in which they use deliberation internally or in which they engage in external deliberative practices (Gherghina Reference Gherghina2024). However, many countries adopted legislation that would allow them to proceed in that direction. Even rhetorically, relatively few political parties support deliberation, although this number has increased significantly compared to one decade ago. The rhetorical support usually is driven by parties’ presence in government, their newness, belonging to the mainstream (i.e., populist parties do not support deliberation), and sometimes ideological orientation (Gherghina and Mitru Reference Gherghina and Mitru2025a, Reference Gherghina and Mitru2025b; Moyano Reference Moyano2024). These attitudes and behaviors are counterintuitive, and the extant literature does not explain the variation in political parties’ approaches toward deliberation.
Despite the popular appeal of deliberation and the need to reconnect with citizens, political parties often are reluctant to engage in deliberation.
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LITERATURE
So far, previous research has covered the reasons why political parties support deliberation, the deliberative democracy practices used, and the consequences of these practices for political parties. However, there is limited information about why some parties engage in deliberative practices and others do not. This is important especially because parties may benefit greatly from using deliberative practices (Farrell Reference Farrell2025; Gherghina Reference Gherghina2024; Wolkenstein Reference Wolkenstein2016). This symposium addresses this gap in the literature by including articles that explain why some political parties engage with deliberative democracy practices in the following countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America: Austria, Chile, Kenya, Luxembourg, Romania, and Turkey. The symposium covers two major forms of institutional deliberative democracy practices: (1) mini-publics; and (2) participatory budgeting, if it has a deliberative component.
The symposium makes two main contributions to the extant literature. The first is theoretical and proposes different analytical frameworks that explain the variation in political parties’ approaches toward deliberative democracy practices. The symposium articles highlight the existence of several complementary variables that can encourage parties to use deliberative practices: electoral strategies in the form of either receiving credit for the deliberative practice or seeking to mobilize the electorate (Akallah and Tap Reference Akallah and Tap2025; Mokre Reference Mokre2025); miscommunication and lack of transparency (Mitru Reference Mitru2025); competition and ideology (Paulis Reference Paulis2025; Tapia Reference Tapia2025); and organizational priorities (Şahin Reference Şahin2025). The symposium outlines the logic behind the effects produced by these variables and reveals their complementarity. Future analyses could group some of these variables into analytical frameworks.
The second contribution is empirical. The articles outline the importance of several variables that have been understudied so far regarding the relationship between political parties and deliberation. These variables are the elite control (Akallah and Tap Reference Akallah and Tap2025); conflicting organizational aims at central and local levels (Şahin Reference Şahin2025); and the relevance of information (Mitru Reference Mitru2025). The findings complement existing studies. For example, previous studies describe how some politicians are against deliberative democracy practices because they view it as a power-sharing arrangement that undermines their authority and legitimacy (Pálsdóttir, Gherghina, and Tap Reference Pálsdóttir, Gherghina and Tap2025). This symposium presents evidence about similar thinking within political parties in which the party elites are more reluctant to deliberation compared to the grassroots members (Şahin Reference Şahin2025). Using the same example, previous studies describe the importance of deliberation to democratize the internal procedures of political parties (Wolkenstein Reference Wolkenstein2016). The findings in this symposium illustrate that, indeed, deliberation works as a remedy for the centralized and sometimes ineffective party structures. However, it also is a springboard for political careers—that is, an alternative to a career through traditional party structures (Şahin Reference Şahin2025).
CONTENT OF THE SYMPOSIUM
The first article in the symposium seeks to understand the extent to which deliberative activities can compensate for the lack of suffrage (i.e., of some people in Vienna) and effectively impact political parties. The findings show the importance of a public sphere for the voices of those without voting rights who can experience representation outside of elections. All of the Austrian political parties are engaged with this deliberative practice mainly for electorally strategic reasons: the questions and answers were made visible to the broader electorate (Mokre Reference Mokre2025).
The second article focuses on the deliberation in Ankara in an environment characterized by general reluctance of the mainstream political parties in Turkey to promote deliberation. Nevertheless, the local branches of several parties were enthusiastic about deliberation, and the article seeks to understand why party members at the grassroots level embraced deliberation. The findings reveal that party members view this as an opportunity for nonpolarized engagement with civil society and for increasing visibility for political careers.
The third article seeks to explain why only a few people engage with the participatory budgeting in Nairobi. It explains that this behavior was the result of political parties’ control over and attempts to minimize the importance of the process because they cannot receive the credit for what happens in the community (Akallah and Tap Reference Akallah and Tap2025).
The fourth article explains why political parties did not engage in the first citizens assembly organized at the local level in Romania in Spring 2024. The results indicate that miscommunication between the local authority managing the project and the political parties, as well as the lack of transparency in handling the process, led to poor knowledge on the side of parties about what deliberation entails. As such, parties stayed away from something about which they did not know much (Mitru Reference Mitru2025).
The fifth article explores how political parties respond to the deliberation that drafted a new constitution in Chile. It reveals that the ambivalent positioning of parties toward the outcome of deliberation along ideological lines created confusion among the electorate, thereby resulting in the rejection of the constitutional proposal (Tapia Reference Tapia2025).
The sixth article analyzes the ways in which political parties engaged with the Luxembourg Climate Assembly. The findings reveal how electoral competition and ideology influence parties’ approaches toward citizens’ assemblies (Paulis Reference Paulis2025).
Overall, this symposium contributes nuances and details to the bigger picture that brings together political parties and democratic deliberation. Its rich evidence confirms previous accounts about the importance of ideology, the party members’ appetite for inclusiveness, and the concerns of some party elites about deliberation. Equally important, it provides novel insights about the use of deliberation by political parties as electoral assets and the relevance of information and transparency of procedures for party engagement with deliberation. The analyses encompass different types of political regimes—established democracies, new democracies, and transition countries—which makes the main takeaways valuable for broader audiences.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article is based on work conducted in the framework of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action CA22149 Research Network for Interdisciplinary Studies of Transhistorical Deliberative Democracy (CHANGECODE)
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author declares that there are no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.
Open access
