Liberal Democracy, Citizenship and the
Social Research Group

Background and approach to the project

Over the past two decades there has been increasing attention paid to claims of ethical neutrality in policy-making and legislation in industrialised democracies. Neo-liberal policies are increasingly identified with either free-market ideology or politically conservative values that rest on a conception of persons and citizens as robust individuals who are neither dependent nor depended upon. Critics of these policies and normative approaches frequently question the legitimacy of such policies and ideological commitments, claiming that contemporary political decision-making is undemocratic, that it privileges some interests and values over others, that it reinforces discriminatory attitudes and silences disadvantaged members of the society (including members of cultural minorities, women and people who are poor, elderly, sick or disabled). Some liberals argue that the legitimacy of public policies in liberal democratic states depends, in principle, on the ability of the policy-maker to justify those policies to any reasonable member of the society; therefore at the core of liberal democracy is a commitment to public reasoning. Current debates in normative political philosophy centre on fundamental questions about the possibility of this kind of public reasoning and justification. This is one of the ways in which the latent ethical basis of public reasoning has been challenged in recent years.

At the same time, a second set of concerns demanding overtly ethically informed policy has arisen. Scientific developments and technological innovation have generated significant public concern about the use of science in shaping human life and society. Governments are increasingly required to develop policies that are predicated on ethically or normatively contentious aspects of technological development (e.g. assessments of risk associated with novel technologies, tensions between strongly held moral commitments by some members of society and claims of massive social or health benefits from pursuit of research). This occurs against a backdrop of changing opinion and lack of consensus among a range of constituents.

Where policy-making occurs in areas recognised as ethically contentious, the policy-making process is thought to demand public consultation and expert input from a range of identified stakeholders. In identifying certain areas of policy as requiring articulation of their overtly normative content, liberal democracies seek to acknowledge the diversity of ethical positions and the imperative to engage in public debate about important decisions, while at the same time protecting the liberal democratic commitment to ethical pluralism or neutrality about “the good”. Such appeals to the values held by citizens are thought by many to obscure the power relations inherent in such regulation and consultative processes.

Some questions that arise from consideration of these two developments are central to debates about contemporary democracy, e.g.:

1. Is there any non-arbitrary distinction to be made between areas of policy-making that are (or ought to be) ethically neutral and those that are (or ought to be) recognised as ethically contentious?
2. How should ethical values be incorporated into public policy?
3. Which ethical values are appropriate to critical policy evaluation?
4. How should public reasoning be conducted so as to simultaneously allow for expression of the diversity of values within a society on an issue and to protect against bigoted majoritarianism in areas that require policy resolution?

This project will engage critically with current theoretical literature on public ethics and democratic decision making with emphasis on demands for regulation or removal of regulation on activities of public institutions (e.g. health care, welfare provisions, education, telecommunications etc). The project draws on a range of disciplinary approaches, including philosophy, social theory, sociology, science and technology studies, political theory and law to address a range of interconnected issues as identified in the sub-themes, below.

Sub-themes

1. Public Reasoning: democratic debate, justice and legitimacy

This theme will critically examine some key policy processes to evaluate the ways in which those processes relate to the following liberal democratic ideals of governance:

• value-neutrality or impartiality; avoiding the imposition of a particular set of values on a diverse society;
• democratic decision-making understood as deliberative and participatory democracy;
• legislative or policy legitimacy as dependent on the process of public debate and reasoning; and
• respect for cultural difference, commitment to removal of oppression, and concern for disadvantaged members of a society.

This analysis will draw on alternative normative approaches to democracy including deliberative democracy, Habermas’ communicative power, associative democracy, constitutionalism, republicanism and will be informed by Marxist, feminist, communitarian, post-structuralist and foucauldian critiques. The analysis of policy-making processes in light of these recent debates in political theory form a theoretical framework for beginning to answer the questions listed above. Full response to those questions requires closer analysis, examination and evaluation of different aspects of the ethical significance of various kinds of policy-making.

2. Ethics and institutional responsibility

This theme examines the ethical responsibilities of public institutions as these institutions come under threat from free market ideology, and the ways in which some of those threats risk loss of the values justifying the institutions. For example, universities and other research institutions are under increasing pressure to effectively commodify the research enterprise, to allow private funding to determine the research agenda and to control access to research findings. Given the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry, pursuit of knowledge, contribution to open debate, and potential for beneficial application of academic research as articulated in documents like the Welcome Trust Guidelines on Good Research Practice, it is evident that increasing private control over what research is done, how it is done, why it is done and how it is published can directly conflict with the primary purpose of those research institutions. This theme analyses and evaluates the ethical effects of market pressures on a range of public institutions previously understood to have their source of value outside of the market (e.g. welfare service provision, health care institutions, education, etc), and the specific ethical responsibilities of those institutions that must be protected if the institutions are to maintain their primary social functions.

3. Technology and regulation

Researchers, members of the public and legislators have responded to some technological advances and scientific breakthroughs with concern, arguing that certain technological steps ought never be taken (e.g. human cloning) and that others require significant preemptory governmental regulation to protect against the development of practices or organisms which some members of the society find deeply morally risky (e.g. human embryonic stem cell research, GM foods, development of databases of genetic material). Yet other technological developments that significantly affect individual and social experience are implemented with little ethical debate or public discussion, at least until evidence of the negative effects of that technology emerges (e.g. telecommunications technology: microwave radiation, EMR). This theme examines the demand for governmental or self-regulation, the kinds of ethical concerns raised in the demand for regulation and the consistency of regulatory approaches in different areas. Among other things, this theme seeks to question whether a justification can be developed for distinguishing between areas where policy is viewed as appropriately grounded in ethical as opposed to other considerations, the different kinds of ethical and epistemic claims used in regulating in different areas and the role of different interest or power groups in decisions whether or not to regulate.

4. Critical/normative policy evaluation

Integrated into the above themes is an overlapping theme that develops a critical/ normative approach to policy evaluation and regulatory assessment for a small set of key policy/ regulation debates. Issues addressed within this sub-theme include: the identification of the appropriate values or norms against which to assess policy; recognition of tensions between ethical, economic and legal norms and assessment of the extent that risk (or discourses of risk) and acturalism have overtaken ethical considerations in public debate, legislation formation and policy and unearthing of ideological or hegemonic assumptions in social policy and regulation.

Research activities over the first year would include

• Holding a regular Reading/ discussion group to discuss works of mutual interest on these themes
• Organising four research seminars which may include inviting significant national or international researchers to Wollongong
• Organising 1 x 2-day Workshops on this theme, leading to refereed publications.