Suchergebnisse

Deliberative democracy is a growing branch of democratic theory. It suggests understanding and assessing democracy in terms of the quality of communication among citizens, politicians, as well as between citizens and politicians. In this interview, drawing on his extensive research on deliberative practice within and beyond parliaments, André Bächtiger reflects on the development of the field over the last two decades, the relationship between normative theory and empirical research, and the prospects for practicing deliberation in populist times.

Bächtiger, A.; Steenbergen, M. R.; Niemeyer, S.: Deliberative democracy: an introduction. - S. 485-496 Niemeyer, S.; Dryzek, J. S.: The ends of deliberation: meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. - S. 497-526 Neblo, M. A.: Family disputes: diversity in defining and measuring deliberation. - S. 527-557 Naurin, D.: Why give reason? Measuring arguing and bargaining in survey research. - S. 559-575 Bara, J.; Weale, A.; Biquelet, A.: Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. - S. 577-605 Hangartner, D.; Bächtiger, A.; Grünenfelder, R.; Steenbergen, M. R.: Mixing Habermas with Bayes: methodological and theoretical advances in the study of deliberation. - S. 607-644 Karpowitz, C. F.; Mendelberg, T.: Groups and deliberation. - S. 645-662 Wesołowska, E.: Social processes of antagonism and synergy in deliberating groups. - S. 663-680

Fairfield reviews 'The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory' by Jurgen Habermas.

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

Abstract
In the mass democratic polities of today, the role of citizens remains confined largely to that of voting for members of elected legislatures. Beyond that, there is scant opportunity for 'the public' to participate in any meaningful sense in most of the tasks that make up the policy‐making process. Indeed, influencing that process is typically viewed as the sole prerogative of technocratic experts, organized interests, and elected officials. This presumption is buttressed (and rationalized) by a too‐ready acceptance of the platitude that citizens are generally uninformed, unskilled, and uninterested in the work of democratic self‐government.
We begin with a definition of 'deliberative democracy'.
We then briefly consider its connection to the concept of democracy more generally and argue that the moral authority of the former follows from that of the latter.
From both the developing and the developed worlds, we draw several examples of institutionalized deliberative participation. In some, institutionalization has been sustained; in others, it has not been sustained.
Reflecting on these examples, we consider the 'lessons learned' from these and other cases. We identify costs, difficulties and limitations associated with institutionalizing participatory public deliberation as well as the benefits and advantages thereof.
Finally, we briefly outline a proposal for an Australian experiment that might serve as a learning model for subsequent efforts there and elsewhere to 'institutionalize' participatory citizen deliberation.

Institutionalizing deliberative participation would not replace representative government, but rather would supplement it, enabling democratic governments to reflect and respond better to the values, priorities and aspirations of the people they ostensibly serve.
We offer this practice‐orientated paper as a discussion paper intended to introduce readers to the idea of institutionalizing participatory public deliberation and to generate constructive debate concerning it. We do not presume to provide a rigorous analysis of the concept or of any of the many issues surrounding it.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractWithin any adversarial rule-governed system, it often takes time for strategically motivated agents to discover effective exploits. Once discovered, these strategies will soon be copied by all other participants. Unless it is possible to adjust the rules to preclude them, the result will be a degradation of the performance of the system. This is essentially what has happened to public political discourse in democratic states. Political actors have discovered, not just that the norm of truth can be violated in specific ways, but that many of the norms governing rational deliberation can also be violated, not just without penalty, but often for significant political gain. As a result, the level of noise (false or misleading communications) has come to drown out the signal (earnest attempts at deliberation). The post-truth political condition is the cumulative result of innovations developed by actors who adopt an essentially strategic orientation toward political communications.