There are many reasons to think of populism as the opposite of reasonable discussion. Populism appeals to base instincts, sacrificing intellectual rigour in favour of quick solutions. Its polarising speech style creates information silos which inflames prejudices instead of promoting understanding. This project challenges the dichotomy between populism and reasonable discussion. It investigates how the rhetoric of populism can be transformed to meaningful political conversations. The vision is to find practical ways in which societies can be hospitable to inclusive, reflective, and other-regarding discussions amidst deep divisions. Attention is focused on the case of the Philippines under the regime of President Rodrigo Duterte, but the lessons can be applied to various contexts where populist rhetoric has gained traction. The strategy is simple. A series of deliberative forums will be convened where citizens can reflect on the character of political talk in the Philippines, and propose possibilities for enhancing political discussions today. Findings from this citizen-driven forum will be used to forge conversations with government, media, and other stakeholders. Overall, the project aims to make an evidence-based contribution to the future of participatory communication in populist times.

<<Final Report>>http://toyotafound.or.jp/research/2017/data/Nicole_Curato_final_report_D17-R-0147.pdf

How can we set the scene for participatory futures in a populist present?

The social issue the project addresses is the corrosive aspect of populist rhetoric. It challenges the prevailing view that populism can be reduced to a relationship between a populist demagogue and morally corrupt citizens, which Hillary Clinton once referred to as ‘deplorables.’ Instead, this project envisions new values for society centred around political norms of listening, mutual respect, and empathetic understanding. It draws on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy, which aims to craft spaces conducive for reasoned discussion amidst deep disagreement. The principles of deliberative democracy are operationalised in this project by convening two deliberative forums designed to uphold norms of democratic deliberation.

The case study is in the Philippines – a country that voted populist leader Rodrigo Duterte to Presidency in 2016. Two deliberative forums were conducted in 2018. One took place in the Islamic City of Marawi and another one in Quezon City. In these forums, a diverse group of citizens were tasked to collectively diagnose their shared problems and imagine pathways for addressing these issues. Both forums took place in a fragile political context. Participants in Marawi belong to communities affected by armed conflict, while participants in Quezon City have witnessed a spate of killings due to the drug war. The project aimed to examine whether inclusive deliberation is possible in challenging times.

What have these forums achieved? These forums have demonstrated the prospects of making political communication more inclusive, other-regarding and reflective. While participants did not reach consensus at the end of the forum, they all agreed for the need to learn and listen to each other. In the Marawi forum, participants demonstrated the importance of voice and public consultation, while in Quezon City, participants expressed the value of empathy among supporters and victims in the drug war. While sceptics of deliberation worry that reasoned discussion is impossible in the age of political distrust and disinformation, these forums remind us that ordinary citizens are willing and able to engage in constructive dialogue. The challenge lies not in people’s capacity to engage in reasoned deliberation but in curating spaces that encourage such behaviour. Despite toxic discourses taking place on social media and in everyday conversations, these deliberative forums provide evidence that supporters and critics of populist leaders are rational and open to new ideas. It is these values that warrant emphasis in populist times.