Suchergebnisse

Typically a field for political theorists, deliberative democracy is becoming more empirical using a diverse array of methodologies for investigation of a variety of real-world settings. Yet moving forward, this field faces the three distinct challenges of booming diversity in conceptualizing deliberation, appropriate methodological tools, & development of a more unified & analytical framework. The standard conception has a strong Habermasian orientation, while more recent conceptions are closely linked to criticism of Habermasian discourse models as being impossible to achieve in the real world & having undesirable & potentially exclusionary side-effects due to its strong focus on rational discourse & consensus. Even as new directions are welcomed in empirical research, growing diversity raises issues of theoretical coherence in deliberative theory, & empirical contributions have been unable to draw a clear line between true deliberative & strategic action despite increasing methodological sophistication. Although computer assisted textual analysis can speed up data collection, empirical analyses remain time consuming & applying multilevel statistical models creates serious issues. A more unified analytical framework that enriches institutional approaches with individual-level characteristics & psychologically relevant factors would also lead to a fuller understanding of deliberative processes. References. L. Reed

Das Konzept der deliberativen Demokratie zeichnet sich durch die positive Gewichtung der Beratschlagung sowie die Relevanz der partizipatorischen Rolle des Staatsbürgers und funktionierender Öffentlichkeiten aus. In seiner von Habermas formulierten Version vermag es, drei Vorteile auf sich zu vereinen: den Normativitätsvorteil, den Pluralismusvorteil und den Legitimitätsvorteil. Als Medium politischer Öffentlichkeit bietet das Internet unbestrittene Informations- und Austauschdienstleistungen. Für eine Öffentlichkeit herstellende Zivilgesellschaft sind darüberhinaus die relative Unabhängigkeit des Netzes von massenmedialen Gesetzen sowie seine Pluralität wichtig. Diese Pluralität gilt es mit Hilfe rechtlicher und administrativer Regelungen zu erhalten. (ICE)

Introduction -- Method and Procedures: The Practical D -- Deliberative Polling": A Practicable Method -- Multiple Deliberative Democracy: Procedures for Chinese Structure -- The Operational Space for Multiple Deliberative Democratic Approaches -- Comparison among Political Participation Methods: Diversity in China's Practices of Deliberative Democracy -- Adequate Communication: Make an Informed.

The Piagetian account of development has been extremely influential in the deliberative democracy literature. It has been either explicitly or implicitly assumed by the majority of theorists working in this area. It encourages deliberative democrats to make at least four key assumptions about the development of deliberative citizens and their capacities. Firstly, that development is an organic process. Secondly, that it is a universal process. Thirdly, that it is an evolutionary or stage-centric process. And finally, that it is a process which is best encouraged through facilitative teaching methods. In this paper I will suggest that this Piagetian influence on deliberative democracy is not as positive as it is often assumed to be. It encourages a laissez faire attitude to development and does not properly explain how we can create deliberative citizens with a wide range of deliberative capacities. However, there is an alternative account of development which I believe offers a much stronger basis for the development of deliberative citizens. It was originally proposed by Piaget's great rival, the Soviet developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky. He provides four corresponding ideas about development that could also be applied to the development of deliberative citizens. Firstly, development is primarily a cultural process. Secondly it is contextual process. Thirdly, it is a revolutionary or crisis ridden process. And finally, it is a process which is best encouraged through direct and mediatory educational techniques. In this paper I will show how this alternative developmental perspective can provide a much stronger foundation for the cultivation of deliberative minds.

Der Datenbericht stellt öffentlich verfügbare Datenbanken vor, die Informationen zu deliberativen Verfahren enthalten, schwerpunktmäßig zu Verfahren mit geloster Teilnehmerschaft. Erwartet wird, dass diese Datenbanken substantielle Informationen zu den Verfahren in der Input-, Throughput- und Output-Dimension enthalten, um komparative Forschung auch mit Blick auf die Policy-Effekte von deliberativen Verfahren zu ermöglichen. Im Ergebnis liegen viele und vielfältige Informationen vor. Zugleich zeigt sich aber, dass der Datenbestand lückenhaft und durch eine eher affirmative Berichterstattung geprägt ist. Die zukünftigen Anstrengungen für eine gute Dateninfrastruktur sollten sich auf die Validierung von Fällen und Nachrecherchen zu allen drei genannten Dimensionen konzentrieren.

Der Beitrag thematisiert das Verhältnis von Legislative und Judikative. Der Verfasser stellt zunächst Vorüberlegungen zur Gewalt im ungeteilten Zustand an, also über die Bedingungen, den Zuschnitt und die Funktionen politischer Gewalt "an sich". Im Folgenden werden zwei klassische Gewaltenteilungskonzepte vorgestellt, die idealistische (Kant) und die realistische Variante der Gewaltenteilung (Montesquieu). Gewaltenteilung wird sodann in der Theorie der diskursiven Demokratie (Habermas) und der deliberativen Demokratie (Rawls) dargestellt. Im Anschluss an die Rawlssche Position zeigt der Verfasser, dass die konstitutionelle Demokratie auf ein starkes Verfassungsgericht angewiesen ist, das auch über die Kompetenz der abstrakten Normenkontrolle verfügt. Die Kritik an diesem Verhältnis von Legislative und Judikative geht von einem für den modernen Verfassungsstaat unterkomplexen, daher unangemessenen Gewaltenteilungskonzept aus. (ICE2)

This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek's (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation's influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens' Parliament and Italy'sIniziativa di Revisione Civica(Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.

Focus on the concept of deliberative democracy has increased rapidly within recent decades. However, the concept is weakly defined, if at all. 'Deliberation' is defined as an unconstrained exchange of arguments that involves practical reasoning and potentially leads to a transformation of preferences. Throughout the 1990s several innovative democratic experiments have flourished focusing on citizens' involvement and deliberation. The Deliberative Poll in focus here is, according to many parameters, the most ambitious one. The article presents the results from the Danish National Deliberative Poll on the single currency. In August 2000, 364 repres‐entative Danish citizens assembled to deliberate on Denmark's participation in the single currency. The Deliberative Poll is described as a quasi‐experiment set out to explore the empirical potentials of deliberative democracy. The focus is whether the claimed potential of deliberative democracy is present in the experimental setting. The participants' answers reflect a deliberative process dominated by considerable changes in opinion, an increase in knowledge and an improved ability to form a reasoned opinion. Mutual understanding among the participants prevailed. At the same time, self‐interest and domination were also part of the deliberative process. Thus, this article encourages the development of deliberative democratic theory in order to incorporate these features of politics.