Basic Report

Previous Korean administrations have gradually expanded the area of ​​citizen participation for the purpose of enhancing government trust and strengthening citizen autonomy. However, the Moon Jae-in administration has a goal that differentiates itself from the previous governments in terms of the purpose and method of citizen participation. The current administration pursues deliberative democracy that the citizen can play a leading role in the whole process from the policy plan to the implementation and the performance evaluation to solve the problem in the community within a certain range. When citizens participate in the policy-making process actively, policies can be developed further so that it can meet the expectation and demands of the public. Moreover, considering that wicked problems can be solved by the power of collective citizens’ intelligence, deliberative democracy will continue to expand in the policy process.
   However, in-depth studies on how to implement deliberative democracy are still not sufficient. In this situation, most local governments are not finding a different participation plan from the existing one, and even some leading local governments are just practicing one-time deliberate democracy that utilizes participatory decision-making procedures.
   In this regard, this study not only divided the practice of deliberative democracy into a randomized deliberative process led by the government and a self-selected deliberative process led by the citizen but also tried to find ways to practice citizen-led deliberative democracy through various analyses.
   First of all, through a theoretical approach, this study tried to conceptualize deliberative democracy, deliberative process, deliberation, and mini-publics that fit the Korean situation, and then developed an analysis framework for diagnosing the current state of the deliberative process.
   By applying the analysis framework, this study found several significant points in the Korean context. First, the results of the analysis of laws and ordinances on the deliberative process showed that the legal basis for citizen participation and deliberation is not sufficient. Second, as a result of the comprehensive analysis of citizen participation in the previous administrations, they were not only designed as a procedure for practicing deliberative procedures in very general but also operated in a formal and government-led way.
   Based on the analysis, this study suggested the practical plans and guidelines for achieving citizen-led deliberative democracy as follows. First, in terms of legal and institutional perspective, the Administrative Procedure Act needs to be amended, and clear manual or guidelines for the deliberative process in local governments should be provided. Second, in terms of the public sector, the Ministry of Public Administration and Security(MPAS) proactively needs to develop core tasks related to citizen participation and share it with local governments. In addition, local governments should foster a performance management system and incentives for citizen participation. Lastly, in terms of citizen's recognition and competence, MPAS and local governments should encourage the public and provide educational programs or strengthening citizen’s capacity so that diverse citizens can participate in the deliberative process.
   The results of this study can be used as basic data for developing institutional plans for citizen-led deliberation democracy practice and for seeking support measures for strengthening civil servant education and citizen capacity. In addition, the guidelines and practical strategies provided in this study can be used in the public sector such as practicing and developing the deliberative process.