Deliberative democracy has an ambivalent relationship with disruptive and confrontational forms of political protest. The critics of deliberative democracy complain that it marginalizes this type of protest, despite its important role in realising democratic values. Its defenders reject this charge, through claiming that deliberative democracy allows for disruptive protest as a means of re-establishing a deliberative environment in the event of breakdowns. The common ground here is that disruptive protest is viewed as a departure from the dialogic modes of political conduct that are paradigmatically associated with deliberative democracy. This article takes issue with this prevailing assumption, through showing that at least certain forms of disruptive protest can be conceptualised as dialogic modes of engagement. This argument is illustrated through considering the case of civil disobedience. This form of protest can, at least in some contexts, be treated as an example of deliberative disruption, insofar as it is carried out as a reflective, respectful and dialogic mode of communication. The paper thus contributes to an account of deliberative democracy that is more inclusive than those suggested by both critics and defenders of this paradigm.

Bio: William Smith is assistant professor in the Department of Government and Public Administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research is in the field of contemporary political theory, with a particular focus on issues related to deliberative democracy, civil disobedience and international political thought. He is author of Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy (London: Routledge, 2013) and has published in a wide range of international journals, including The Journal of Political Philosophy, Political Studies, and Politics and Society.