Suchergebnisse

The work of Crocco and her colleagues, "Deliberating Public Policy Issues with Adolescents," combines two important fields—deliberative democracy and discussion as a pedagogy—with a study of policy deliberations in three classrooms. Their article yields valuable insights. As the authors note, the results are disappointing. This may be because the students were not actually asked to deliberate, if "deliberation" means discussing in order to make a decision. After all, the students could not decide US policy on immigration. Their discussion was a kind of simulated deliberation. Evidence suggests that we may see better results from real deliberations that occur within student-led voluntary associations or from simulated deliberations in which the students role-play powerful decision-makers, rather than playing themselves in a discussion that has no political impact.

In this Introduction to the Symposium, we articulate a reframing of Larry Diamond's (2010) program of "liberation technology" around the idea of "deliberation technology." Although the liberation technology program has been useful in supplying dissidents with a basic communication infrastructure during the various revolutions of the 2011 Arab Spring, we briefly examine the cases of Tunisia and Egypt in order to show how deliberative vacuums have arisen after regime change. We then introduce each of the four Symposium submissions with the hopes that a program of deliberation technology might contribute to the strengthening of democratic practice around the world.

"Die Inklusion wirtschaftlicher Interessengruppen in den politischen Prozess stellt die repräsentative Demokratie vor das Problem, dass das Parlament bei wichtigen sozialen und ökonomischen Entscheidungen übergangen wird. Ausgangspunkt dieses Beitrags ist die Frage, ob Arrangements dieser Art legitimiert werden können als eine Form deliberativer Demokratie, in der Entscheidungen getroffen werden nach abwägender Beratung zwischen denen, die davon letztlich betroffen sind. Der empirische Teil bezieht sich auf die finnische Gesetzgebung zur Arbeitszeit in den 1990er Jahren. Die Fallstudie zeigt, dass die Repräsentanten der Interessengruppen bei der Kontroverse über die Arbeitszeitfrage von anfänglicher Bekundung zum vernünftigen Kompromiss zu verhärteten Positionen wechselten. Eine für die deliberative Demokratie ideale Annahme, dass die Beteiligten nach Beratung zu einem gemeinsamen Ergebnis fänden, blieb in diesem Fall unbestätigt. Wichtigste Schlussfolgerung ist, dass selbst wenn die Einbeziehung der ökonomischen Interessengruppen in den Politikprozess nach Kriterien der wirtschaftlichen Wohlfahrt und des sozialen Friedens legitimiert werden kann, bleibt es fraglich, ob ihre Inklusion mit den Kriterien der repräsentativen oder der deliberativen Demokratie übereinstimmen." (Autorenreferat)

Philosophical Deliberations continues Rescher's longstanding practice of publishing groups of philosophical essays. Notwithstanding their thematic diversity, these discussions exhibit a uniformity of method in addressing philosophical issues and a commonality of objective: the elucidation of philosophically pivotal ideas.

Deliberative und nicht-deliberative Verhandlungen -- Deliberation, Aggregation und epistemischer Fortschritt -- Strategische Wort-Wahl in der Politik -- Deliberation im Europäischen Parlament -- Indifferenz und Inkonsistenz als Moderatoren von räumlichen Framing-Effekten -- Die Ministerienaufteilung in Koalitionsregierungen.

In a liberal democracy, the evolution of political agendas and formation of policy involves deliberation: serious consideration of political issues. Modern day political participation is dependent on widespread deliberation supported by information and communication technologies, which also offer the potential to revitalize and transform citizen engagement in democracy. Although the majority of web 2.0 systems enable these discourses to some extent, government institutions commission and manage specialized deliberation systems (information systems designed to support participative discourse) intended to promote citizen engagement. The most common examples of these are political discussion forums. Though usually considered trivial adaptations of well-known technologies, these types of deliberative systems are often unsuccessful, and present a distinct set of design and management challenges. In this article we analyze the issues involved in establishing political deliberation systems under four headings: stakeholder engagement, web platform design, service management, political process re-shaping and evaluation and improvement. We review the existing literature and present a longitudinal case study: the Norwegian Demokratitorget (Democracy Square). We define key issues in each of the four areas which need to be understood in order to design and manage a successful net-based deliberation forum.

Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin argue that Americans can revitalize their democracy and break the cycle of cynical media manipulation that is crippling public life. They propose a new national holiday - Deliberation Day - for each presidential election year. On this day people throughout the country will meet in public spaces and engage in structured debates about issues that divide the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Deliberation Day is a bold new proposal, but it builds on a host of smaller experiments. Over the past decade, Fishkin has initiated Deliberative Polling events in the United States and elsewhere that bring random and representative samples of voters together for discussion of key political issues. In these events, participants greatly increase their understanding of the issues and often change their minds on the best course of action. Deliberation Day is not merely a novel idea but a feasible reform. Ackerman and Fishkin consider the economic, organisational, and political questions raised by their proposal and explore its relationship to the larger ideals of liberal democracy.

In this Introduction to the Symposium, we articulate a reframing of Larry Diamond's (2010) program of "liberation technology" around the idea of "deliberation technology." Although the liberation technology program has been useful in supplying dissidents with a basic communication infrastructure during the various revolutions of the 2011 Arab Spring, we briefly examine the cases of Tunisia and Egypt in order to show how deliberative vacuums have arisen after regime change. We then introduce each of the four Symposium submissions with the hopes that a program of deliberation technology might contribute to the strengthening of democratic practice around the world.

How do we distinguish legitimate, democratic representation from illegitimate, undemocratic elite rule? Empirical scholars of representation typically rely on the "bedrock norm" that democratic representatives must respond to the antecedent interests of their constituents, but empirical studies of public opinion suggest that constituents' interests emerge following engagement with their representatives. The result is the "constituency paradox": representatives are supposed to respond to constituent interests, interests that representatives themselves help to create. Deliberative democratic theories seek to circumvent this paradox by distinguishing between representatives who communicatively educate their constituents from those who strategically manipulate them, but it is empirically impossible to distinguish legitimate education from illegitimate manipulation. Nondeliberative criteria requiring elite competition and popular contestation also fail to ground legitimate democratic representation. In response, I develop a model of constituency deliberation that does not rely on the bedrock norm, accepts strategic as well as communicative action, acknowledges the asymmetric but reciprocal relationship between constituents and representatives, and uses a systemic approach to assess democratic representation. This deliberative model leads to institutional reforms that avoid the bedrock norm and seek to mitigate representative manipulation by creating space for constituents to respond to representatives' claims to represent their interests.