There are few studies on Chinese deliberative institutions. This is quite understandable because most writings have so far focused on village or urban elections (Tianjian Shi 1999, Kevin J. O'Brien (1994), K. O'Brien and Lianjiang Li 2000, Oi and Rozelle 2000; Anne F. Thurston 1998, J. Howell 1998; Unger 2002, Baogang He & Lang Youxing 2002 and many others). While these studies contribute to the understanding of the introduction, development and meaning of electoral local democracy in China, their narrow focus on elections has handicapped inquiries into the deliberative aspects of local democracy. Democratization should not be understood merely as the spread of liberal democracy, but also as advocating participation, deliberation, franchise, scope, and authenticity (Dryzek 1996). More importantly, while elections are an essential element of democracy, democratic procedures need to be firmly anchored in the process of genuine deliberation to avoid the tyranny of majority rule. Suzanne Ogden (2002:257) notes the importance of ″deliberation in the Chinese political system as a means of reaching consensus″ and this deliberation ″could prove to be an important building block for democratization″. She argues, ″Consensus building may be limited largely to the elite, but the Chinese system is still more open to democratic resolution of conflicts through discussion than are dictatorial systems, where neither consensus building nor elections are institutionalized″. Drawing on and developing my work on deliberative institutions (Baogang He 2003) this paper focuses on deliberative processes, deliberative institutions, deliberative democratization and their contribution to local governance in China. The paper begins with an introduction which explains the background to recent experiments with deliberative institutions, followed by an explanation of the Chinese understanding of deliberation. It then discusses key deliberative institutions, outlines main features, and compares the impact of these institutions on deliberation. Problems associated with deliberative institutions and local strategies of dealing with these problems will be examined. The final section of the paper brings together democratic theory and Chinese practice, to the ultimate benefit of both. The paper draws on my extensive fieldwork and interviews in Beijing, Shanghai, Hanzhou in 2002; Ya'An and Wuhan in 2003; and Beijing, Hangzhou, Wenlin, and Jiaojiang in 2004, where I observed and participated in more than ten deliberative meetings. In the past three years I conducted more than twenty interviews with key figures at both national and local levels to find out their motivation and strategies in developing deliberative institutions. At the same time, I collected and analyzed all relevant minutes, documents and files on participatory and deliberative institutions.

This paper focuses on some key problems of democratic theory and how they can be solved through new institutions modeled on ″Deliberative Polling″. It then argues that many of the practical impediments to realizing these institutions can be more easily overcome, in the long run, in virtual space. The result is a realizable picture of virtual democratic possibilities that combine key values that are in great tension in most democratic institutions.The paper begins with econundrum of how to simultaneously realize two fundamental democratic values— political equality and deliberation—in the large scale nation state. It then looks at various forms of public consultation in terms of the degree to which they achieve one or another of these values. It looks especially at forms of public consultation that presently take place on the internet and finds them lacking in both political equality and deliberation. It argues that Deliberative Polling offers the best realization of both basic values.Political equality is achieved through random sampling (giving each person an equal chance of being the decisive voter) and through equality in the discussion process. Deliberation is achieved through moderated and balanced small group discussions and balanced panels of experts who respond to the questions from the participants. Various criteria for evaluating both political equality and deliberation are discussed and appliedThe paper then surveys how Deliberative Polling has been employed, both in face to face and online contexts so as to achieve these two basic values. The two first online Deliberative Polls (both conducted recently at Stanford University) are discussed as well as a third (in the US Presidential election of 2004) that will just have been completed at the time of this conference. Some discussion will be offered of whether or not the same desirable characteristics of deliberation that we find in face to face Deliberative Polls can be achieved online. Some of these characteristics include: a) participation by representative samples b) the participants becoming measurably more well informed c) deliberative opinion being significantly different from top of the head opinion d) the opinion changes being connected to the information gains e) development of greater preference structuration so that cycles undermining the collective coherence of democracy become less likely f) the process avoiding objectionable small group effects such as the ″polarization″ posited by Cass Sunstein or the pattern of group conformity that is sometimes called ″group think.″While the evidence is incomplete, there is nevertheless some considerable support for the proposition that just as these normatively desirable results seem to arise in face to face Deliberative Polls, they also seem, by and large, to arise online (with the exception of e) which has not been tested yet by appropriate ranking questions). 

According to standard and long-established ways of political thinking in the West, democracy was first and foremost an attribute of the state, because the state claims final political authority over the citizens of a particular territory. The legitimacy of the democratic state then rests on popular control combined with political equality across citizens. Popular control was normally conceptualized in aggregative terms: the preferences of citizens for leaders, parties, or policies must somehow be aggregated in order to produce collective decisions about who should lead and what they should do. Aggregation generally takes the form of the counting of votes in elections, when this conception of democracy becomes representative democracy. Political equality then means that the votes of citizens are counted equally. This conception of democracy becomes liberal democracy when it is linked to a set of rights possessed by each citizen. These rights concern most importantly freedom of opinion, expression and association, and protection against the arbitrary power of government.The theory of deliberative democracy does not necessarily reject these features, but it does lead to a difference in emphasis, beginning with a contrast between aggregation and deliberation. The traditional focus on aggregation meant that little attention was paid to how preferences are shaped; for preferences were simply taken as given, and the focus was on aggregation mechanisms. In contrast, deliberative democrats believe preferences ought to be shaped reflectively by thoughtful and competent citizens (or their representatives), and that such reflection is central to deliberation. Preferences can be transformed in deliberation. In addition, for deliberative democrats, the legitimacy of a political decision rests on the right and capacity of those affected by a decision to deliberate in participation about its content. Those affected do not merely vote, or have their preferences registered (though deliberative democracy does not have to dispense with preference aggregation and voting). This does of course raise some questions about how the deliberation of citizens is to be organized into the political system, especially when the number of those affected by a decision is large. Different answers to these questions point to different locations for deliberation. In this paper I will examine three different locations for deliberation: the institutions of the state, designed forums for deliberation by ordinary citizens and/or political advocates, and the public sphere. A deliberative democracy can be built upon practices in each of these locations. There is no precise or universally-applicable recipe for exactly what kinds of institutions and practices are best in each location. The pursuit of deliberative democracy should itself be a deliberative process to which political theorists may contribute, while allowing that any suggestions they might make require validation by a broader public, who also might have creative ideas of their own. Many lessons can be drawn from the Chinese development of participatory and deliberative institutions in recent years. Of course they may not be perfect. But deliberation is in large part a matter of learning.