ABSTRACT
The chapter investigates the role that deliberative democracy can play in overcoming people’s estrangement from the European project. Building upon previous research showing the existence of preference gaps between the mass public and political elites in their attitudes towards European integration, the chapter examines whether and how interaction in a virtual and moderated arena can reconcile these mass–elite divides as well as elicit citizens’ support for European integration. The study relies on both panel survey data and textual analysis of the contributions made to an online deliberative forum conducted as part of the EUENGAGE project in October 2016. Using an interdisciplinary and mixed-method (quantitative and qualitative) approach, the study shows that participants’ average support for EU integration and policy scope moderately increases following deliberation. However, this increase is short-term in nature and fills the mass–elite gap only to a limited extent, with lexical analyses of textual interactions among selected groups of participants revealing a critical evaluation of politicians and their actions. Similarly, within-group polarisation is not significantly reduced as an effect of deliberation. Controlling for the characteristics and heterogeneity of the deliberative setting, it emerges that exposure to cross-cutting opinions and uninformed interaction with politicians are positively related to consensus building and a reduction of the mass–elite gap on support for EU policy scope when the issue under debate is not particularly controversial and scarcely politicised. By contrast, these conditions depress consensus and widen the mass–elite divide on a highly contentious issue like migration.
