Institutional Changes for Democratic Dialogue

Project Information

ICDD

Grant agreement ID: 101096176

DOI

10.3030/101096176

EC signature date 12 May 2023

Start date 1 October 2023

End date 30 September 2028

Funded under

• European Research Council (ERC)

Total cost

€ 1 234 685,00

EU contribution

€ 1 234 685,00

Coordinated by

UNIVERSIDAD POMPEU FABRA
Spain

Periodic Reporting for period 1 - ICDD (Institutional Changes for Democratic Dialogue)

Reporting period: 2023-10-01 to 2026-03-31

Summary of the context and overall objectives of the project

This project takes as its starting point the crisis affecting constitutional democracies worldwide, manifested through growing lack of confidence in constitutionalism and dramatic increase in citizen dissatisfaction towards democracy. This crisis is evidenced by waning respect for checks and balances mechanisms, with polls revealing distrust in European national parliaments and governments, while Latin American surveys show decline in democratic support and growing perception that governments primarily serve select minority interests. These tensions are visible in recent social movements. These expressions of discontent reveal institutional systems incapable of solving collective problems and point to the increasing gap between political and economic elites and common citizens.
This project focuses on one cause of this crisis: the tensions between unduly restrictive constitutional structures and growing democratic demands. The project describes these tensions as "democratic dissonance"—the mismatch between what our institutions allow and what "we" the citizens reasonably expect from them. This mismatch has reached a breaking point, worsened by opportunistic ("populist") political leaders who exploit social discontent by promoting policies that further limit democracy's scope.
This particular institutional crisis has been the object of academic analysis. For example, Adam Przeworsky explored the problem of "democratic backsliding" (2019); Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Hug presented a comparative study of what they called "democratic erosion" (2018); Rosalind Dixon and David Landau examined cases of "abusive constitutionalism" (2021); Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt wrote a book on "how democracies die" (2018); Kim Scheppele explored the issue of "autocratic legalism" (2018).
The project aims to elaborate concrete institutional proposals based on a specific "regulative ideal" conceiving democracy as "a conversation among equals." This ideal connects to attractive institutional alternatives like Citizens' Assemblies. These assemblies, committed to inclusive dialogue, provide a starting point for this project's proposals. The suggestions will differ from contemporary doctrinal "solutions" that seek to reinforce the constitutional dimension (restoring checks and balances). Instead, this project aims to strengthen the "democratic engine" of constitutional structure by opening more opportunities for public discussion. This approach faces a crucial challenge: demonstrating that reinforcing constitutionalism's democratic side is possible without endangering constitutional rights—a possibility the dominant view tends to question.

Work performed from the beginning of the project to the end of the period covered by the report and main results achieved so far

1. Publications: Including a special issue in Rivista di Diritti Comparati dedicated to the discussion of Roberto Gargarella's book "The Law as a Conversation Among Equals" (with contributions from Rosalind Dixon, Sergio Verdugo, among others), with a reply by Roberto Gargarella. He also published a chapter on "Inequality" in "The Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory". Also noteworthy is the special monographic section "Democracy and Constitutionalism" edited by Ignacio Giuffré in Isonomía with an epilogue by Roberto Gargarella that replies to all the contributors (among others, Chiara Valentini, José Luis Martí, Lorena Ramírez). Equally notable are Ignacio Giuffré's articles "The Coming of Age of Deliberative Constitutionalism" in the Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, "Deliberative Judicial Review" in the Federal Law Review (forthcoming), and "On 'The Collaborative Constitution', by Aileen Kavanagh" in Toronto Law Journal (forthcoming).
2. Awards: The Principal Investigator's scholarly contributions have been recognized through an honorary doctorate from the University of Tucumán (2024), as well as the prestigious Konex de Platino Award in Political Essay (2024). Ignacio Giuffré received the ICON·S Special Mention Article Prize (2024) from the International Society of Public Law.
3. International academic engagement: The project has established a robust presence in the global academic conversation through participation in numerous conferences and seminars. These include keynote addresses at supreme courts (Mexico, Ecuador), presentations at prestigious universities (Harvard University, University of Chile, University Diego Portales, University of Valladolid, Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, among others), and participation in major international conferences. Particularly noteworthy were the two panels at the ICON-S Annual Conference 2024 in Madrid: "Deliberative Constitutionalism Under Debate" featuring Cristina Lafont, Joel Colón Ríos, Roberto Gargarella, Ana Cannilla, Chiara Valentini, Yanina Welp and Ignacio Giuffré; and "Constitutional Democracy in Conversation, Collaboration, and Crisis" with Aileen Kavanagh vis-à-vis Roberto Gargarella.
4. Seminars: The project has organised five seminar series bringing together renowned scholars to discuss key aspects related to the topic of our project.
5. Mapping of constitutional reforms and citizens' assemblies: The project has produced a systematic documentation of emblematic democratic processes across Latin America and Europe, developing a solid base that will enable comparative and normative analysis.

Progress beyond the state of the art and expected potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far)

A) Mapping of Constitutional Reforms and Citizens' Assemblies:

- Mapping of constitutional reforms and citizens' assemblies: This project offers a systematic cartography of cases in Europe and Latin America.
- Contribution: Unlike studies focused on specific cases or limited regional perspectives, this research provides one of the most exhaustive comparative mappings in the field.
- Impact: The project offers a resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, enhancing understanding of democratic innovations across contexts.

B) Development of a Four-Dimensional Analytical Framework:

- Historical and political context (institutional crises, social demands, system responsiveness).
- Formal processes (origin of initiatives, structure of citizens' assemblies, participation mechanisms, judicial oversight).
- Content of proposed amendments (expansion of rights, democratic governance reforms).
- Outcomes and impact (procedural success, substantive effects in post-constitutional phase).

C) Descriptive Findings and Conceptual Advances:

- Key insight: Citizens' assemblies and reforms have emerged in contexts of institutional crisis, characterized by the so-called "democratic dissonance".
- Challenge to assumptions: Contrary to views on citizen apathy, findings indicate high public interest and deliberative capacity in constitutional matters.
- Comparative insights: Findings show many cases partly embodied the ideal of a "conversation among equals" but were influenced by political leaders and elites, revealing tensions between democratic innovation and existing power structures.

D) Cross-Regional Comparative Analysis:

- Methodological advancement: Introduced systematic cross-regional comparison, bridging European and Latin American research traditions.
- Key findings: Identified commonalities in how democratic innovations develop across political contexts, offering insights for comparative constitutional studies.