Search results

Deliberative democracy, as a rationalized discourse, is a valuable alternative which offers discursive and analytical tools in order to understand the rules that the State should follow in the task of guarantying the inclusion of the others, as well as in offering a group of subjective rights of action which facilitates the participation of the citizens. Thus, nowadays society requires deliberative democracy, provided that it means supporting the normative and vindicating the participation of the citizens, which is guided on the common rules and proceedings. This paper aims to rebuilt the core aspects of deliberative democracy in Jürgen Habermas. That reconstruction will allow understand the rationality of the deliberative democracy state model, and also understanding the right inclusion model, in equality of right, of the several ways of cultural life. ; La democracia deliberativa, como discurso racionalizado, es una alternativa meritoria que ofrece herramientas discursivas y analíticas para comprender cuáles son las reglas ha de seguir el Estado frente a la tarea de garantizar la inclusión del otro, así como ofrecer un canon de derechos subjetivos de acción que faciliten la participación ciudadana. De este modo, la sociedad actual necesita la democracia deliberativa toda vez que es una apuesta por lo normativo en la que se reivindica la participación ciudadana orientada por reglas y procedimientos comunes, en cuanto que es dependiente de procesos comu- nicativos y normativos que orientan la institucionalización del discurso público. El pre- sente artículo tiene como objetivo reconstruir los rasgos constitutivos de la democracia deliberativa de Jürgen Habermas. Reconstrucción que permitirá entender la racionali- dad del modelo de Estado democrático deliberativo, al igual que comprender el modo correcto de inclusión, en igualdad de derechos, de las diferentes formas de vida cultural.

Contributors to the debates about the compatibility of Confucianism and democracy and its implications for China's democratization often adopt definitions of democracy that theories of deliberative democracy are critical of. Attention to deliberative democracy is timely given its importance in democratic discourses and recent experiments in "deliberative" or "consultative" democracy in China. Would Confucian understanding of political deliberation help or hinder deliberative democracy? This essay compares the concept of yi in the early Confucian texts with a contemporary concept of democratic deliberation. The differences between the concept of yi in early Confucian texts and the concept of democratic deliberation show that the presence of deliberation, even when they meet stringent norms, does not guarantee that the politics would be democratic. Rather, the political environment and processes must be democratized for deliberation to be democratic. This comparative study considers how the similarities between two concepts, and other aspects of Confucian philosophy might be deployed to close the gap between early Confucian view of ideal government and deliberative democracy. At the same time, it does not simply embrace all aspects of the chosen democratic theory, but argues that Confucian deliberative democracy may differ significantly, for example, in approaching politics from the perspective of a comprehensive ethical theory. In doing so, it offers a different conception of deliberative democracy and shows how the chosen theory is limited by certain assumptions specific to its own context and that the understanding of deliberative democracy needs to be expanded and modified to approach genuine universalism.

Enthusiasm for deliberative democracy has grown in recent years, as many believe that it can create better citizens generally, and particularly increase their perceptions of political efficacy. Although the "efficacy effect" is frequently touted as a rationale for engaging in deliberative processes, there is little empirical research on the subject. This study examines the impact on perceptions of internal and external political efficacy of participation in one manifestation of a deliberative democracy process, the AmericaSpeaks 21st Century Town Meeting. Using quasi-experimental, longitudinal survey data, the study finds partial support for the claim that deliberative democracy produces the efficacy effect. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Contributors to the debates about the compatibility of Confucianism anddemocracy and its implications for China's democratization often adoptdefinitions of democracy that theories of deliberative democracy are criticalof. Attention to deliberative democracy is timely given its importancein democratic discourses and recent experiments in "deliberative" or"consultative" democracy in China. Would Confucian understanding ofpolitical deliberation help or hinder deliberative democracy? This essaycompares the concept of yi in the early Confucian texts with a contemporaryconcept of democratic deliberation. The differences between the concept ofyi in early Confucian texts and the concept of democratic deliberation showthat the presence of deliberation, even when they meet stringent norms,does not guarantee that the politics would be democratic. Rather, thepolitical environment and processes must be democratized for deliberationto be democratic. This comparative study considers how the similaritiesbetween two concepts, and other aspects of Confucian philosophy might bedeployed to close the gap between early Confucian view of ideal governmentand deliberative democracy. At the same time, it does not simply embraceall aspects of the chosen democratic theory, but argues that Confuciandeliberative democracy may differ significantly, for example, in approachingpolitics from the perspective of a comprehensive ethical theory. In doingso, it offers a different conception of deliberative democracy and showshow the chosen theory is limited by certain assumptions specific to its own context and that the understanding of deliberative democracy needs to beexpanded and modified to approach genuine universalism.

For deliberative democrats, the strength of any democracy is public deliberation, the frequent and reasoned discussion between citizens on political issues. Despite all the theoretical claims made about deliberative systems, the question remains how to empirically assess both the legitimacy and function of deliberative systems in the real world and how individual sites of deliberation interact within the larger political system. In other words, what is the legitimacy of each individual component and under which conditions can these components improve the legitimacy of the wider system? These are the central research questions for this book looking particularly through the prism of the citizen-led mini-public G1000 in Belgium, which grew out of a feeling of deep democratic crisis. Offering empirically measurable translations of philosophical concepts, the book enhances our understanding of how political systems function, and of the viability of a deliberative democracy at a larger scale. Finally, it provokes fundamental normative questions on how we want to shape our society, especially divided ones. This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners of deliberative democracy, and to those interested in democratic theory and more broadly political science, communication, sociology, and philosophy.

For deliberative democrats, the strength of any democracy is public deliberation, the frequent and reasoned discussion between citizens on political issues. Despite all the theoretical claims made about deliberative systems, the question remains how to empirically assess both the legitimacy and function of deliberative systems in the real world and how individual sites of deliberation interact within the larger political system. In other words, what is the legitimacy of each individual component and under which conditions can these components improve the legitimacy of the wider system? These are the central research questions for this book looking particularly through the prism of the citizen-led mini-public G1000 in Belgium, which grew out of a feeling of deep democratic crisis. Offering empirically measurable translations of philosophical concepts, the book enhances our understanding of how political systems function, and of the viability of a deliberative democracy at a larger scale. Finally, it provokes fundamental normative questions on how we want to shape our society, especially divided ones. This text will be of key interest to scholars, students and practitioners of deliberative democracy, and to those interested in democratic theory and more broadly political science, communication, sociology, and philosophy.

In 1996, Icelandic schools were mandated to evaluate their work.This article focuses on four schools that were selected for this case study, two primary schools and two secondary schools.They all received support from two researchers: one from Central Connecticut State University and another from the University of Iceland.These researchers coached school-evaluation teams in their self-evaluation efforts and assessed change in the schools. The schools received empowerment-based support, where the researchers taught staff to evaluate school work and take responsibility for development based on outcomes from longitudinal data collection and dissemination of evaluation information. Researcher findings include changes in teacher perceptions of administration facilitating their professional growth; systematic data collection; teacher ownership and collaboration; and shared decision-making for improvement efforts in the schools. Findings were triangulated, using different data collection methods. Results indicate that evaluation worked best when schools took a democratic stance. Program fidelity was an indication of improvement within the schools.

Deliberative democratic forums frequently involve conflicting values, policy concepts and problem definitions. Effectiveness in seeking consensus requires access to reliable information. It also poses very significant cognitive challenges due to the complexity of policy issues and the need for participants to understand alternative experiences and perceptions. Technologies such as agent-based simulation, visualisation and data mining have the potential to address some of these challenges. However, they need to be tested in realistic scenarios to allow their impact on a deliberative process to be studied by researchers from different disciplines including social science, psychology and computer science. This paper discusses the feasibility of a research infrastructure in which real-life deliberative forums can participate in experiments to help specify, test and evaluate the technologies together with researchers.

Jalil Safaei Department of Economics, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, CanadaBackground: There is a vast body of literature on deliberative, participative, or engaged democracy. In the area of health care there is a rapidly expanding literature on deliberative democracy as embodied in various notions of public engagement, shared decision-making (SDM), patient-centered care, and patient/care provider autonomy over the past few decades. It is useful to review such literature to get a sense of the challenges and prospects of introducing deliberative democracy in health care.Objective: This paper reviews the key literature on deliberative democracy and SDM in health care settings with a focus on identifying the main challenges of promoting this approach in health care, and recognizing its progress so far for mapping out its future prospects in the context of advanced countries.Method: Several databases were searched to identify the literature pertinent to the subject of this study. A total of 56 key studies in English were identified and reviewed carefully for indications and evidence of challenges and/or promising avenues of promoting deliberative democracy in health care.Results: Time pressure, lack of financial motivation, entrenched professional interests, informational imbalance, practical feasibility, cost, diversity of decisions, and contextual factors are noted as the main challenges. As for the prospects, greater clarity on conception of public engagement and policy objectives, real commitment of the authorities to public input, documenting evidence of the effectiveness of public involvement, development of patient decision supports, training of health professionals in SDM, and use of multiple and flexible methods of engagement leadership suited to specific contexts are the main findings in the reviewed literature.Conclusion: Seeking deliberative democracy in health care is both challenging and rewarding. The challenges have been more or less identified. However, its prospects are potentially significant. Such prospects are more likely to materialize if deliberative democracy is pursued more systematically in the broader sociopolitical domains.Keywords: citizen juries, patient engagement, shared decision-making, decision aids, public participation