Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
editorial
. 2008 Jul 1;99(4):321–323. doi: 10.1007/BF03403764

Civil Society? What Deliberative Democrats Can Tell Advocates about How to Build Public Commitment to the Health Promotion Agenda

Brian E Evoy 118,✉, Michael McDonald 218, C James Frankish 318
PMCID: PMC6975806  PMID: 18767279

Abstract

Closing the health inequity gap can be seen as an issue of justice, however what concretely best serves the interest of justice is in dispute. It is argued that standard policy-making mechanisms are inadequate to address this issue, and therefore more and better public dialogue is required. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory and practice, three public organizing considerations are offered: organizing within the state sphere, organizing within the public sphere, and using cross strategies. It is recommended that public resources be provided to involve the public in deliberations about population health promotion issues related to the wicked problem of health inequities.

Key words: Deliberative democracy, population health, health promotion, health inequity, advocacy, civil society

Footnotes

Acknowledgements: B. Evoy is a recipient of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Doctoral Research Award, as well as the Institute of Population and Public Health, Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Public Health Initiative and Public Health Agency of Canada Population and Public Health Doctoral Student Award 2007.

References

  • 1.Bradford N. Place-based public policy: Towards a new urban and community agenda for Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Woods PA. Building on Weber to understand governance: Exploring the links between identity, democracy and ‘inner distance’. Sociology. 2003;37:143–63. doi: 10.1177/0038038503037001391. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chafe R, Neville D, Rathwell T, Deber R, Kenny N, Nestman L, et al. A framework for involving the public in healthcare coverage and resource allocation decisions. Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University School of Health Services Administration; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ableson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239–51. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nutbeam D. Health promotion glossary. Health Promot Int. 1998;13:349–64. doi: 10.1093/heapro/13.4.349. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Frankish J, Green L, Ratner P, Chomik T, Olsen L, Larsen C. Health Impact Assessment as a Tool for Healthy Public Policy. Copenhagen, Denmark: WHO Series on Evaluating Health Promotion; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hamilton N, Bhatti T. Population Health Promotion: An Integrated Model of Population Health and Health Promotion. Ottawa: Health Promotion Development Division; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Williams MS. The uneasy alliance of group representation and deliberative democracy. In: Kymlicka W, Norman W, editors. Citizenship in Diverse Societies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000. pp. 124–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Gutmann A, Thompson D. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cohen J. Democracy and liberty. In: Elster J, editor. Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998. pp. 185–231. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Courtois S. Habermas’s epistemic conception of democracy: Some reactions to McCarthy’s objections. Philosophy & Social Criticism. 2004;30:842–66. doi: 10.1177/0191453704047011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Cohen J. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Estlund D, editor. Democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Limited; 2002. pp. 87–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dryzek JS. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dryzek JS. Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory. 2005;33:218–42. doi: 10.1177/0090591704268372. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin F-P. Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:239–51. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fung A. Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. J Political Philosophy. 2003;11:338–67. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Glover D. Public participation in national biotechnology policy and biosafety regulation. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies working paper; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kinsman G. The Regulations of Desire: Sexuality in Canada. Montreal, QC: Black Rose Books; 1987. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vancouver Coastal Health Community Engagement. Available online at. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goodin RE, Dryzek JS. Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society. 2006;34(2):219–44. doi: 10.1177/0032329206288152. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Available online at. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Canadian Public Health Association. Animal to human transplantation: Should Canada proceed? Public Consultation on Xenotransplantation. Ottawa: CPHA; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Canadian Institute of Public Engagement. Available online at. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kettering Foundation. Available online at. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.National Issues Forums. Available online at. 2007. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES