When War Adversaries Talk: The Experimental Effect of Engagement Rules on Postconflict Deliberation

Resultado de la investigación: Contribución a RevistaArtículo

1 Cita (Scopus)

Resumen

© 2016 University of MiamiA set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in postconflict societies, but also points to ways that outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned and common-good–oriented, and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.
Idioma originalEnglish (US)
Páginas (desde-hasta)77-98
Número de páginas22
PublicaciónLatin American Politics and Society
DOI
EstadoPublished - sep 1 2016

Huella dactilar

deliberation
majority rule
common good
Colombia
society
group discussion
politics
effect
protocol

Citar esto

@article{911114876d284519ad5dbcad07bf7264,
title = "When War Adversaries Talk: The Experimental Effect of Engagement Rules on Postconflict Deliberation",
abstract = "{\circledC} 2016 University of MiamiA set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in postconflict societies, but also points to ways that outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned and common-good–oriented, and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.",
author = "Ugarriza, {Juan E.}",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1548-2456.2016.00319.x",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "77--98",
journal = "Latin American Politics and Society",
issn = "1531-426X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When War Adversaries Talk: The Experimental Effect of Engagement Rules on Postconflict Deliberation

AU - Ugarriza, Juan E.

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - © 2016 University of MiamiA set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in postconflict societies, but also points to ways that outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned and common-good–oriented, and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.

AB - © 2016 University of MiamiA set of discussion groups including leftist ex-guerrillas and rightist ex-paramilitaries in Colombia shows the limits for democratic deliberation in postconflict societies, but also points to ways that outcomes closer to the deliberative ideal might be obtained. A total of 342 ex-combatants agreed to sit down and talk politics under a number of experimental conditions, using three different protocols of engagement. Results show that consensus rule fosters simultaneously a more reasoned and common-good–oriented, and less self-interested type of discussion when compared to majority rule and unstructured “free talk.” Nevertheless, while it might be desirable to promote a better quality of deliberation in divided societies, it does not necessarily prevent antagonists’ tendency to polarize.

U2 - 10.1111/j.1548-2456.2016.00319.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1548-2456.2016.00319.x

M3 - Article

SP - 77

EP - 98

JO - Latin American Politics and Society

JF - Latin American Politics and Society

SN - 1531-426X

ER -