Based on an analysis of three South African participatory policy-making fora, the
National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), the Child Labour Intersectoral
Group (CLIG), and the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC), this paper critically
examines some of the assumptions underlying “Deliberative Public Administration” (DPA)
theory, and, drawing on Habermas (1996), articulates an alternative view of deliberative politics
and of the role of civil society within it – one which shares with critics of deliberation a sort of
scepticism about the possibility of rational agreement in formal settings (where discourses are
generally among professional representatives and mostly about the accommodation of interests),
and places action aimed at reaching understanding in the informal public sphere, where the
preferences of citizens are still malleable, and it is possible for civil society groups to build
communicative power by articulating moral arguments that motivate and mobilize the public.
This form of power can then be used by civil society groups to counterbalance other forms of
(non-communicative) power impinging on the formal sphere of decision-making.