• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

  • The Initiative
    • Programs
      • Deliberation Across the Curriculum
      • Deliberation on Campus
      • Deliberation in the Community
      • Research on Deliberation
    • Motivations
      • Why Deliberative Citizenship?
      • Why Davidson? Why Now?
    • Who’s Involved?
      • DCI Fellows Cohorts
        • 2025-2026 Fellows
        • 2024-2025 Fellows
        • 2023-2024 Fellows
        • 2022-2023 Fellows
        • 2021-2022 Fellows
        • 2020-2021 Fellows
      • DeeP Collaborative Cohorts
        • 2024-2025 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
        • 2023-2024 DeeP Collaborative Faculty
      • Advisory Council
    • History
      • What Sparked the Initiative?
    • Key Deliberative Dispositions
    • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
    • Annual Report
  • Get Involved!
    • Participate in a Forum
    • Join a D Team
    • Become a Fellow
    • Take Courses
    • Get Training
    • Come to Guest Lectures
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
      • 250th Anniversary Deliberative Forum Series on American Values
    • Past Events
  • Connections
    • The Deliberative Citizen: The DCI’s Monthly Newsletter
    • Efforts on Campus
    • Efforts in the Community
    • Efforts Elsewhere
    • Readings and Resources
      • DCI-Published Guides
      • DCI Guide to One-on-One Conversations
      • How to Disagree
      • Demonstration of Facilitation Styles
      • Deliberative Pedagogy Mini-Course
    • How We Can Help: DCI’s LET’S DELIBERATE! Partnership Opportunities
    • DCI in the News
  • DCI Blog Posts
    • Recent Blog Posts
    • All Blog Posts

Aditya Phogat

Deliberation Beyond Davidson: Breaking out of the Bubble

July 9, 2026 by Aditya Phogat

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

The idea of deliberative democracy is something that can be sustained only when there are people willing to commit themselves to the cause of responsible citizenship. To be courageous enough to speak, to listen to what one’s peers have to say, and critically engage with such “theses” and “antitheses” is the foundation of a sustainable community, and the Deliberative Citizenship Initiative appears to be in a continuous quest to cultivate such a culture of valour.

My time with the DCI has so far permitted me to explore the idea of deliberative discourse and apply it here at Davidson College through our D Teams that attempt to bring students, faculty, and community members from across the socio-political spectrum together at a single platform as equals to discuss some of the most polarizing issues the United States faces today. To be certain, the DCI’s work to foster a deliberative atmosphere in our community has certainly led to positive outcomes. Co-inhabitants of this ecosystem are less likely to engage in adversarial conflict with a zero-sum, “warrior” mindset, are more open to receiving ideas that differ vastly from their own, and most importantly, are willing to refuse to believe the worst of their fellow human beings. 

Seeing the persistence of such a mechanism here at Davidson is in startling contrast to the ugly political adversariality and ad hominemism that pervades the national system of governance here in the United States and on the global stage at large. One therefore might be forgiven for wondering if the DCI is able to prevail in a bubble of a small town where both the walls of its buildings and the polite Southern manners of its inhabitants haven’t changed all that much. Is the principle of deliberative citizenship able to operate exceptionally at Davidson because of the exceptional circumstances it is placed in? This is a question that stung me more times than I can count during my time with the DCI.

That is, until it stung less after our excursion at Duke University.

This past spring the DCI was invited to cover facilitation skills in Duke’s POLSCI 112L, Devil’s Advocate: Exploring Pluralism, Free Inquiry, and Belonging. Offering a crash course on deliberative citizenship to a hundred-odd students in an hour followed by a mock deliberation on social safety nets in a second hour certainly was a challenging task, but it also had a significant set of rewarding results. I saw students cycle through the roles of deliberator, disruptor, and facilitator as they discussed pressing problems with genuine commitment to the fundamental principle underlying deliberative discourse – critical engagement with diverse perspectives with an open mind and a set of alert ears. 

During the deliberative exercise that followed their training, I served as the facilitator for a dozen engineering students from different social and even national settings. The topic of social safety nets required them to enter into the politico-economic realm, and it was heartening to see them talk about sensitive issues without fear of judgement in an environment where their equality as individuals and the acceptance of their experiences was guaranteed in our deliberations. My discussions with individual members of my D Team allowed me to see their earnest hopefulness for the possibility of a deliberative environment on the Duke campus and in their own communities and affirmed my own trust in the principles of deliberative discourse. 

Yes, it will take effort. Yes, it will take determination. Yes, it will take a great deal of courage to get out of our own communities to bring about positive change in others. At the end of the day, however, all of it counts as we strengthen our belief that words are a better alternative to violence and attempt to institutionalize it in environments that desperately need it. For me, deliberative citizenship is not sourced from our exceptional circumstances, but rather from the will to get the job done. All we need is that will and the means to perpetuate it across communities. once we have the will and the way, we will start bringing change to the ugliness that currently plagues our public sphere.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

Personality-Based Regimes and the Crisis of Democratic Discourse in the 21st Century

February 25, 2026 by Aditya Phogat

By Aditya Pratap Singh Phogat ’29 (DCI Fellow)

“A democracy dies not only when tanks roll out, it dies when institutions cave in. When constitutional functionaries become partisan puppets. When media becomes a megaphone, not a mirror. When courts begin to delay what they dare not deny. When dissent is sedition, protest is provocation and every question is branded ‘anti-national’–then you know that the Republic is on a ventilator.”[1] -Abhishek Singhvi

The global order of the 21st century in which we live today is marked by the rise of personality-based regimes and their replacement of institutional ones. The ordinary business of the democratic state is no longer dictated by institutions and norms established by general practice of the law, but rather by the demands of both popular leaders and unelected dictators. What are the implications of the supersession of the system by individualistic leaders in the social, economic, and political spheres of life for the prospects of democratic processes, and specifically deliberative discourse? That is the question that this blog post will examine.

It would be apt to begin with an almost-empirical assertion that strong individualistic officers who weaken state institutions for some agenda ultimately cause great damage to the prospects of democracy in their countries. This is something that is very evident in the cases such as post-Cold War Russia, India, and Venezuela. The “cult of personality” leaders may also be seen today in my own country with Prime Minister Modi, who not long ago removed the credibility of the Election Commission of India, a historically apolitical body, by changing the appointment procedure of its commissioners for  his own benefit.[2]  As a matter of fact, one of the more egregious violations of the principles of democracy also happened in India in the 1970s when the-then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, “packed” the Supreme Court, disemboweled administrative structures, and had a State of Emergency declared soon after her election as a member of parliament was voided by the Allahabad High Court.[3] What soon followed after was one of the darkest periods in the legal and political history of the Republic of India that was marked by the unconstitutional withdrawal of fundamental rights and the corruption of democratic discourse throughout the country. After all, one of the more prolific slogans propagated by the government back then was “Work more, talk less!”[4]

What these examples indicate is that individual-based regimes are antithetical to the desire of a people to govern themselves. This is the very reason why the establishment of such governance coincides with the era of global democratic backsliding. Building off of this phenomenon, when such despotism is disguised under a popular mandate in a democracy, all hope for deliberative discourse is lost, for the leader in this scenario is equated to the state and any opposition posed to either them or their ideas is equivalent to an act of treason. As a result, the backsliding accelerates, and independent state watchdogs, human rights organizations, professors, and students are disarmed by punitive force. In this scenario, political leaders who are democratically elected consolidate power and declare any dissenting opinions to be “against the spirit of the nation.” Behind such leaders also stand electorates that support their populist attitudes and aid and abet this overall process. Despots are able to sustain this support by maintaining control over the narrative through social media and by removing deliberation from the national setting. Consequently, what we see at the end of the day is an environment wherein strongmen monopolize the public sphere for their personal benefit and push people into a seemingly cultural conflict against the “foreign” values of constitutional liberalism and democracy.

The reasons as to why such a global crisis festers in a world such as ours may be many, but an extremely critical factor is us forgetting that deliberation is both a fundamental right and duty when considering the interaction of a single citizen with the state mechanism. Citizens must remember that exercising their duty of dissent and differing with a leader who possesses the ability to literally exercise the power of life and death against both them and their fellow citizens is the most critical charge they have as members of the body politic of their country. In this regard, deliberative discourse–which is founded upon the principles of reasoning, agreement, and disagreement–is both an end and a means vis-a-vis democracy. An extension of  this principle, which involves citizens working together to reach reflective, sharable policy conclusions which are then taken under advisement by the  government for implementation, is termed as deliberative democracy and can be used by the political system to preserve its foundational values.[5]

The global order of the 21st century is a war against mindless violence and unwarranted tyranny. The freedom and greater good of the masses are on the losing side of this conflict. Our liberty to think differently and still be able to come to a mutually-acceptable conclusion is at risk here today. It is in the supreme interest of people worldwide to assert their rights in a cooperative fashion and not an adversarial one: as a result, it is the duty of civilization itself to preserve this possibility for its present and its future.


[1] ‘Won’t Allow India to Become Nation of One Voice, One Party, One Ideology: Abhishek Singhvi – The Economic Times’. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/wont-not-allow-india-to-become-nation-of-one-voice-one-party-one-ideology-abhishek-singhvi/articleshow/123059927.cms?from=mdr (November 8, 2025).

[2] ‘Appointing Election Commissioners: The Government Must Not Control the Watchdog’. 2023. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/appointing-election-commissioners-the-government-must-not-control-the-watchdog-8917864/ (November 8, 2025).

[3] ‘The Emergency 50 Years on | Echoes from Courtroom No. 24: Verdict Unseated PM Indira Gandhi, She Struck Back at Nation’. 2025. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/long-reads/the-emergency-50-years-on-echoes-from-courtroom-no-24-verdict-unseated-pm-indira-gandhi-she-struck-back-at-nation-10061483/ (November 8, 2025).

[4]July 6, Forty Years Ago: Talk Less, Work More’. 2015. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/july-6-forty-years-ago-talk-less-work-more/ (November 8, 2025).

[5] Layman, Daniel. 2016. ‘Robust Deliberative Democracy’. Critical Review 28(3–4): 494–516. doi:10.1080/08913811.2016.1264161.

Filed Under: Fellow Posts

Footer

Blog Post Categories

  • Announcements
  • Blog Posts
  • DCI Posts
  • Events
  • Faculty Posts
  • Fellow Posts
Image of a compass superimposed by the text "Deliberative Citizenship Initiative" and "Davidson College." Clicking on this image leads to the Initiative page.

Recent DCI Blog Posts

  • We Tried to Fix Jubilee’s “Middle Ground” – Here’s How It Went
  • A Case for Deliberation in the Natural Sciences
  • Welcoming New Staff to the DCI and DCN
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn



Copyright © 2026 · Infinity Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in