In response to the increasing conflicts over natural resources, such as minerals, several states, including Sweden, have turned to deliberative democratic practices as a means of governance. Yet, despite significant efforts to incorporate deliberative elements into Sweden's mining governance system, the system falls short of fulfilling the promises typically associated with deliberative democracy, such as effective conflict management. This paper explores this paradox by examining how deliberation has been implemented in the system's institutional design and evaluates the extent to which it fosters conditions conducive to deliberation aligned with the ideals of deliberative democracy. The findings reveal a notable expansion of deliberative practices within the institutional design, particularly through provisions requiring consultation and dialogue with actors affected by mining and related activities. However, substantial deficiencies remain, especially regarding participant selection mechanisms, the prescriptions for participant interactions and the connection between these interactions and decision-making. These shortcomings hinder the realization of ideal deliberation, offering a compelling explanation for the system's difficulties in managing escalating conflicts. In response to these challenges, the study recommends institutional reforms aimed at enhancing the system's democratic qualities. Furthermore, it highlights the need for future research to investigate various institutional designs and their impact on deliberation within different governance systems. Such research could illuminate how these designs either facilitate or obstruct effective deliberation, ultimately contributing to the advancement of democracy and the ability of governance systems to address escalating natural resource conflicts.
