Abstract
This article explores the relationship between inclusive and deliberative social movement organisations (SMOs) and state authorities. Three perspectives are presented. The first perspective argues in favour of an autonomous public sphere, in which SMOs establish only indirect relations with state authorities. This perspective suggests that direct relations are unnecessary to exert influence on policy choices. In contrast, the second perspective advocates an inclusive state, invested with SMOs. While direct cooperation guarantees policy influence, it does not necessarily lead to co-optation on the part of SMOs. The third perspective is primarily concerned with the impact of deliberative and strategic ideas and practices on power relations within SMOs. It argues that state authorities have expectations toward the public sphere that sometimes feed into the tension within SMOs between the proponents of deliberation and those in favour of strategic action. When this organisational strife reaches a critical point, the capacity of a SMO to contribute to both deliberation and policy-making are seriously undermined. Our empirical analysis of the contribution of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) on the issue of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in Canada during a period of 15 years provides strong support for this third perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arseneault, I. (1994). Le pouvoir des experts médicaux dans la regulation politique des nouvelles techniques de reproduction: Le cas de la Commission royale canadienne sur les nouvelles techniques de reproduction 1989–1993.Québec: Mémoire présenté pour l'obtention du grade de maîtreès arts, Faculté des études supérieures, Université Laval.
Banaszak, L. A., K. Beckwith and D. Rucht, (2003). ‘When power relocates: Interactive changes in women's movements and states,’ in L. A. Banaszak, K Beckwith, and D. Rucht (eds.), Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bashevkin, S. (1996). ‘Losing common ground: Feminists, conservatives and public policy in canada during the Mulroney years’, Canadian Journal of Political Journal 29: 211–242.
Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Black, N. (1992). ‘The Canadian women's movement: The second wave’, in S. Burt, L. Code and L. Dorney (eds.), Changing Patterns: Women in Canada,Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Callon, M., P. Lascoumes and Y. Barthe (2001). Agir dans un monde incertain: Essai sur la démocractie technique.Paris: éditions du Seuil.
Cohen, J. (1997). ‘Deliberation and democratic legitimacy’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society.Rev. edn., New Haven: Yale University Press.
deLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dobrowolsky, A. (2000). The Politics of Pragmatism: Women, Representation, and Constitutionalism in Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M. A. and H. Wagenaar (eds.), (2003). Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). ‘Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science’, Minerva 41: 223–244.
Jenson, J. (1994). ‘Commissioning Ideas: Representation and Royal Commissions’, in S. Phillips (ed.), How Ottawa Spends 1994–95: Making Change. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Jenson, J. and S. D. Phillips (1996). ‘Regime shift: New citizenship practices in Canada’, International Journal of Canadian Studies 14: 111–135.
Joss, S. (1999). ‘Public participation in science and technology policy and decision-making: Ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change?’ Science and Public Policy 26: 290–293.
Lippman, A. (2001). ‘Presentation for the Standing Committee on Health: Speaking Notes’. Presented to the Standing Committee on Health, Ottawa, 27 November 2001.
Molgat, A. and J. G. Cummings (2003). ‘Herstory: AnAction that Will Not Be Allowto Subside’. Document posted on NAC's web site (http://www.nac-cca.ca/) visited on 5 May 2003.
Montpetit, é. (2003). ‘Public consultations in policy network environments: The case of assisted reproductive technology policy in Canada’, Canadian Public Policy 29: 93–110.
Montpetit, é. (2004). ‘Policy networks, federalism and managerial ideas: How art non-decision in Canada safeguards the autonomy of the medical profession’, in I. Bleiklie, M. Goggin and C. Rothmayr (eds.), Comparing Biomedical Policy: Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology. London: Routledge.
National Action Committee on the Status of Women (1990). ‘The New Reproductive Technologies: A Technological Handmaid's Tale’. Brief presented to the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Tech-nologies.
National Action Committee on the Status of Women (1997). ‘For Reproductive Rights and Social Justice: Regulating the New Reproductive and Genetic Technologies’. Brief submitted to the sub-committee on Bill C-47 of the Standing Committee on Health.
Pelletier, D., V. Kraak, C. McCullum, U. Uusitalo and R. Rich (1999). ‘The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: An empirical study from New York's North Country’, Policy Sciences 32: 103–131.
Phillips, S. D. (1991). ‘Meaning and structure in social movements: Mapping the network of national Canadian women's organisations’, Canadian Journal of Political Science 24: 755–782.
Phillips, S. D. (1996). ‘Discourse, identity, and voice: Feminist contributions to policy studies’, in L. Dobuzinskis, M. Howlett and D. Laycock (eds.), Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Reger, J. (2002). ‘Organizational dynamics and construction of multiple feminist identities in the national organization for women’,Gender & Society 16: 710–727.
RCNRT--Royal Commission on NewReproductive Technologies (1993). Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. Ottawa: Minister of Government Services Canada.
Sapiro, V. (1998). ‘Feminist studies and political science--and vice versa’, in A. Phillips (ed.) Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scala, F. (1997). ‘Pratiques discursives et savoir social: l'exemple de la Commission royale sur les nouvelles techniques de reproduction’, Politique et Sociétés 16: 105–127.
Standing Committee on Health Report (2001). Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families. Report presented to the House of Commons: Ottawa.
Tarrow, S.(2000). ‘Mad cows and social activists: Contentious politics in the trilateral democracies’, in S. J. Pharr and R. D. Putnam (eds.), Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Torgerson, D. (1986). ‘Between knowledge and politics: Three faces of policy analysis,’ Policy Sciences 19: 33–59.
Vickers, J., P. Rankin, and C. Appelle (1993). Politics as if Women Mattered: A Political Analysis of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.Downsview: University of Toronto Press.
Young, I. M. (1997). ‘Difference as a resource for democratic communication’, in J. Bohman and W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Montpetit, É., Scala, F. & Fortier, I. The paradox of deliberative democracy: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Canada's policy on reproductive technology. Policy Sciences 37, 137–157 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:OLIC.0000048531.47103.3a
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:OLIC.0000048531.47103.3a