Much of the restorative justice literature has criticized the state for having "stolen" from crime victims and the community the means for dealing with the harm and conflict occasioned by crime. Although there are grounds for criticizing the monopolistic and paternalistic tendencies of modern states, the pendulum should not swing so far the other way that the management of conflicts is privatized and removed entirely from the professional justice institutions of the state. This chapter discusses the need and forms for maximizing the opportunities for structuring community participation in the resolution of harms done to the community and its members while constructing minimal, yet critical limitations on the nature and form of such participation. Procedural mechanisms should govern conflict negotiation and communication, so as to mitigate power differentials and structure the normative boundaries of the process. In addition, it is essential to ensure a minimum respect for diversity in both process and outcomes. Public participation should be located within a human rights agenda as a check upon state power and to maximize democratic and civic potential. Thus, the state has a crucial responsibility to mitigate inequalities and the abuse of private power, while fostering and enhancing the conditions for public participation in deliberative justice. 11 notes