Negotiation in public administration has increasingly gained significance in decision-making and policy-making processes, particularly with the growing emphasis on democratic values. This study aims to discuss the importance of the deliberative method within the discipline of public administration and to examine the negotiating role of the state in the constitution-making process within the framework of democratic values of public administration. The research was conducted using a sequential mixed-methods design. In the first stage, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 academics, and the data were analyzed through the grounded theory approach using the Maxqda software. The analysis revealed 75 codes grouped under four categories: “actors,” “challenges encountered in the process,” “compatibility with democratic values,” and “strengthening the negotiating role.”

In the second stage, the interview findings were supported with a scale administered to 242 participants, and the quantitative data were analyzed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using SPSS software. The findings identified four structural dimensions: “compatibility with democratic values,” “strengthening the negotiating role,” “actors,” and “challenges encountered in the process.” The results indicated that participants ascribed extensive responsibilities to the state in the constitution-making process. Furthermore, fundamental democratic values of public administration—such as representation, participation, transparency, and accountability—were emphasized as critical for the inclusiveness and legitimacy of the process.

The theoretical framework developed through this study provides significant contributions toward the formulation of a deliberation-based model that can be applied not only to constitution-making but also to various political processes.