Conversely, the process was criticised on the basis that the South Australian public and the jury did not sufficiently understand the complexities of the nuclear storage debate, undermining the final verdict. [...] An explicit aim of the 10 USING PARTICIPEDIA TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF MINI-PUBLICS process was an attempt to educate the public about the topic and the Royal Commission Report (Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission Consultation and Response Agency 2016). [...] This is perhaps one of the greatest appeals of holding a deliberative process; given a randomly selected mini-public purports to represent the views of 11 USING PARTICIPEDIA TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF MINI-PUBLICS the wider community, the resulting recommendations may have greater credibility in the eyes of the public than if produced by policymakers and public servants (McKenzie and Warren 2012; Sout. [...] The lack of trust in the process and the perception that the decision had already been made meant that ‘no’ campaigners were convinced that the outcome was pre-determined in favour of the proposal (Carson 2017). [...] This is also in line with the emerging research on deliberative democracy that emphasises the discrepancy between ideal and real settings and calls researchers to investigate the unique contribution of the non-ideal settings to the realisation of deliberative democracy beyond mini-publics, at the large scale (Bächtiger and Parkinson 2019).
- Pages
- 22
- Published in
- Australia
