Hearing Voices: Negotiating Representation Claims in Public Deliberation

Abstract

The last decade has seen a great amount of experimentation with processes which involve citizens directly in public decision making, in part justified by claims of greater representativeness. However, representation arguments are also used to make cases against direct involvement of citizens, particularly by those with power under existing representative structures like elected officials and interest group leaders. This paper explores those conflicting claims both normatively and empirically, the latter through analysis of secondary materials and interviews with participants in a public debate about hospital reconfiguration in the city of Leicester in early 2000. It categorises different claims, discusses both their normative and practical political strength, with the aim of offering some guidance to political actors trying to negotiate these competing claims.