Creating space for democracy

Abstract

The role of non-government organisations (NGOs) in democracy is a highly topical subject in Australia. In an historic decision in the AidWatch case in 2010, the Australian High Court upheld the freedom of charitable organisations to engage in public advocacy on matters of public benefit. Four years earlier, the Tax Office had revoked the tax deductible status of AidWatch, sending shock waves through the sector. The majority decision of the High Court was that engaging in public debate about foreign aid, as AidWatch had done, was a beneficial purpose compatible with charitable status. The freedom of political communication was at last to apply to NGOs, protecting their democratic role from financial penalties. As we shall see later, this High Court decision has now been enshrined in important Commonwealth legislation. This is the first time there has been statutory recognition of the democratic role of NGOs despite its significance. In Australia, most political representation between elections is undertaken by the peak bodies that regularly speak to government and to parliament on behalf of different sections of the community. These NGOs also perform other vital democratic functions, creating space for public deliberation and serving as schools in democratic practice The issue of a public sphere where deliberation can take place is a central concern for �deliberative democrats� who associate the quality of democracy with the quality of its public talk. Such quality is measured by the willingness of participants in debate to change their minds after listening carefully to different points of view. In other words, the potential for �preference transformation� is an important measure of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democrats sometimes assume that existing political organisations, including NGOs or social movement organisations, are too bound up with pre-given interests or ideological frames to provide a public sphere where such deliberation can occur (Hendriks 2002, p. 65). They favour new mechanisms, ranging from deliberative polls to citizens� juries, consensus conferences or citizens� assemblies, to achieve the quality of deliberation that should be central to democracy. But is it true that existing political organisations, including those arising from social movements, make poor homes for deliberative democracy? An ambitious European research project has recently found much evidence to the contrary Show more