Deliberative Practices in Western Democracies and ‘Authoritarian Deliberation’ in China: Opposing Trends and Ambiguities of Deliberative Methods

The crisis in the legitimacy of stabilised democracies has been a well-known fact for some time now: scholars from a variety of disciplines have embarked on various strands of reflection, first and foremost, on whether democracy was in crisis, and then on why it was going through a pathological phase that was now systemic in nature. In this context, since the second half of the 20th century, new theorisations on the concepts of democracy and reflec tions on deliberative politics began to mature. And the 2000s saw the gradual spread of new practices and articulations of deliberative democracy: citizens’ assemblies. However, deliberative instruments have not only developed within democratic contexts. As a matter of fact, ‘controlled’ forms of political participation and deliberation have long since found application in some authoritarian regimes in Asia, South America, and Africa. Among these, the Chinese experiences are particularly significant. The paper aims to propose some reflections in a comparative perspective about the concept of ‘authoritarian deliberation’ and the deliberative practices in Western democratic regimes. Subsequently, an attempt will be made to analyse the reasons why such tools may be functional to authoritarian patterns and dynamics: the comparison will be played on the ground of the deliberative instrument within different political contexts.