Suchergebnisse

Democracy in Indonesia is often carried out with the word "election". But democracy is not just the word "election", democracy has wide and many phenomena and reviews these phenomena are important. One of them is deliberative democracy. Many scientists have reviewed this idea. Both from the forum, both from the process, both from the of participants, both from the ideas themselves in Indonesia. Even though deliberative democracy has other elements. One of them is learning. It's very rare to hear the idea of learning in deliberative democracy itself. Rarely describe what learning is and why it is important. And it turns out learning has an important role in supporting the deliberate process in the public sphere / public space

This paper traces the evolution of deliberative institutions in India to understand the role of deliberation in democratic life, as well as the ways in which deliberative bodies influence, and are influenced by, entrenched social inequality. The paper first unpacks the historical roots of Indian deliberation in the pre-colonial and colonial periods, emphasizing the ways in which religious traditions fostered a culture of debate and dialogue. The paper then explores the interplay between Western liberal philosophers, most notably Henry Maine, and Indian political thinkers, including Gandhi and Ambedkar, on participatory democracy in India. The discussion then highlights the continued dialogue between Indian and Western ideas in the push for greater participatory development. Finally, the paper probes the current incarnation of state-sponsored deliberation in India -- namely, village assemblies known as gram sabhas under the constitutionally mandated system of Indian village democracy or Panchayati Raj -- and reviews the growing empirical scholarship about these village assemblies.

Deliberative Democracy is the darling of democratic theory and political theory more generally, and generates international interest. In this book a number of leading democratic theorists address the key issues that surround the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The problems faced by deliberative democracy are outlined in the context of the available empirical evidence, solutions are surveyed, and new and innovative ideas are proposed to resolve these issues.

This paper aims to contribute to the valuable conversation about the role of deliberative democracy in teacher education. I consider both using pedagogy that engages deliberative democracy in process, thereby enhancing teaching, and advancing deliberative democracy as a worthy goal in teacher education. I begin by looking at recent changes in society that have reshaped student goals, educational accountability, and the priority of democracy within higher education. I highlight these changes to issue a call for a thoroughgoing commitment to deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice, as a means and an end. I expand on the definition of deliberative democracy and the skills necessary to fulfilling it as they relate to the goals of teacher education. I close by turning to exemplary programs in teacher education and showcasing some smaller steps toward incorporating democratic practices and assignments.

From small-scale experiments, deliberative mini-publics have recently taken a constitutional turn in Europe. Iceland and Ireland have turned to deliberative democracy to reform their constitutions. Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania have also experienced constitutional process in a deliberative mode. In Belgium the G1000, a citizen-led initiative of deliberative democracy, has fostered a wider societal debate about the role and place of citizens in the country's democracy. At the same time, European institutions have introduced different forms of deliberative democracy as a way to connect citizens back in. These empirical cases are emblematic of a possibly constitutional turn in deliberative democracy in Europe. The purpose of this book is to critically assess these developments, bringing together academics involved in the designing of these new forms of constitutional deliberative democracy with the theorists who propagated the ideas and evaluated democratic standards.

In this paper I will give a short description of deliberative democracy, its advantages over the aggregative model of democracy and its strategies for overcoming the obstacles which the social choice theory puts before the defenders of democracy. I will continue with the argument that the aim of deliberative democracy should not be reaching the consensus or unanimity, but obtaining preference single-peakedness. For, there is a practical impossibility of consensus reaching and the single-peakedness criterion is sufficient for prevention against the 'paradoxes of democracy'. Through the analysis of the given explanations of the ways in which deliberation can lead to the realization of single-peakedness, I will make an attempt to defend the position which holds that acquiring singlepeakedness, in the impartial conditions of deliberation, is a goal that is as equally unreachable as is reaching of the consensus because of the multidimensionality of the alternative evaluation criterion. However, I will show that even if deliberation does not necessarily lead to a preference single-peakedness, which would prevent Condorcet's paradox from happening, in accordance with Arrow's ethical conditions of democratic choice, it nevertheless reveals why these paradoxes are created in the first place, and it is providing us with an insight into how we can redefine the alternatives so that we can obtain a true single-peakedness of our preferences.

This paper aims to contribute to the valuable conversation about the role of deliberative democracy in teacher education. I consider both using pedagogy that engages deliberative democracy in process, thereby enhancing teaching, and advancing deliberative democracy as a worthy goal in teacher education. I begin by looking at recent changes in society that have reshaped student goals, educational accountability, and the priority of democracy within higher education. I highlight these changes to issue a call for a thoroughgoing commitment to deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice, as a means and an end. I expand on the definition of deliberative democracy and the skills necessary to fulfilling it as they relate to the goals of teacher education. I close by turning to exemplary programs in teacher education and showcasing some smaller steps toward incorporating democratic practices and assignments.

Paperet er en diskussion af de to demokratimodeller, deliberativt og agonistisk. Det argumenteres at agonistisk demokrati overkommer en række grundlæggende vanskeligheder ved deliberativt demokrati. Men den måde som Chantal Mouffe har formuleret agonistisk demokrati på har en række problemer, særligt når det relateres til globalisering.

In democratic countries, deliberative democracy is proposed to rectify problems of liberal democracy. This paper explores deliberative democracy in China, conventionally regarded as an authoritarian country. After examining some deliberative practices and institutions in China and its more democratic public sphere, a conclusion is drawn that despite problems such as flawed institutional design and state domination, an immature deliberative democracy exists in China. The prospect of deliberative democracy in China is optimistically predicted, based on the public's strong democratic consciousness, the government's interest in democratic reform and the relatively moderate practices of deliberative democracy.

Deliberative democracy is usually presented as a polity in which legitimacy is achieved by deliberative participation on the part of those subject to a collective decision. But cast in these terms, the theory runs headlong into the long-recognized impossibility of directly involving more than a few members of any large-scale democracy in decision making. After canvassing the available solutions to this problem, an argument is made for conceptualizing deliberative democracy in terms of the contestation of discourses in the public sphere, and public opinion as the provisional outcome of this contestation as transmitted to the state. Legitimacy is then achieved to the degree collective outcomes respond to the balance of discourses in the polity, to the extent this balance is itself subject to dispersed and competent political control.

Deliberative democracy is usually presented as a polity in which legitimacy is achieved by deliberative participation on the part of those subject to a collective decision. But cast in these terms, the theory runs headlong into the long-recognized impossibility of directly involving more than a few members of any large-scale democracy in decision making. After canvassing the available solutions to this problem, an argument is made for conceptualizing deliberative democracy in terms of the contestation of discourses in the public sphere, and public opinion as the provisional outcome of this contestation as transmitted to the state. Legitimacy is then achieved to the degree collective outcomes respond to the balance of discourses in the polity, to the extent this balance is itself subject to dispersed and competent political control.

Epistemic democracy is standardly characterized in terms of "aiming at truth". This presupposes a veritistic conception of epistemic value, according to which truth is the fundamental epistemic goal. I will raise an objection to the standard (veritistic) account of epistemic democracy, focusing specifically on deliberative democracy. I then propose a version of deliberative democracy that is grounded in non‐veritistic epistemic goals. In particular, I argue that deliberation is valuable because it facilitates empathetic understanding. I claim that empathetic understanding is an epistemic good that doesn't have truth as its primary goal.

Abstract The word topos is greek and denotes a place. Later on, it took on the meaning of the latin locus communis-literally "common place". The English word "commonplace" is rendered in the Oxford English Dictionary as "an ordinary topic of conversation" or "an everyday saying; a platitude". In my paper i would like to stress the existential aspect of the topic, related to the "deep" topics of enemity and conflict, of friendship and love and care, themes that are reiterated and re-established in the more or less artificial settings that we call schooling and education. This leads me to the question of the transcendental, or rather the work of the transcendental in the activity of education. The main point is that the transcendental is not far away or beyond of our real life, but has its place and setting in that very life, inside the life we live. My argument here starts with a thought figure sifted from g.w.f. Hegel's logic, the finite-infinite relation presented in the first book under the heading of the doctrine of being. There is, in short, an inner and intimate relationship between the finite and the infinite, the real and the utopian, the here and the beyond. I shall argue that hegel's dialectic configures an everyday, existential and tran-scendental thinking relevant for education.ResumenTopos es la palabra griega que denota un lugar. Este término tomó posteriormente el significado del latín locus communis -literalmente, "lugar común"-. Y el diccionario de Oxford traduce la palabra inglesa "common-place" como "un tema ordinario de conversación" que viene a ser lo que se entiende en castellano por "tópico" o "lugar común". En mi artículo me gustaría subrayar el aspecto existencial de los "tópicos", tales como por ejemplo, la enemistad y el conflicto, o la amistad y amor; que son temas recurrentes y reestablecidos en los escenarios más o menos artificiales a los que llamamos escolarización y educación. Esto me conduce hacia la cuestión de lo trascendental o, mejor, al papel que desempeña lo trascendental en la actividad educativa. El punto principal es que lo trascendental no es lo que está lejano o más allá de nuestra existencia ordinaria, sino que se encuentra dentro de la misma vida que vivimos. Mi argumento comienza con la consideración de la íntima e intrínseca relación entre lo finito y lo infinito, lo real y lo utópico, el aquí y el más allá, tal como la presenta Hegel en el epígrafe dedicado a la doctrina del ser, en el primer libro de su lógica. Sostendré que la dialéctica Hegeliana configura un modo de pensar cotidiano, existencial y trascendental, que tiene una gran relevancia para la educación.

This response to Samuelsson's typology for assessing deliberative democracy in classroom discussions views his analysis through an equity lens. It offers Young's model of communicative democracy as a resource and argues that incorporating that model's emphasis on greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling into the typology can help to promote more equitable deliberative communication in the classroom. It offers specific tools, based on the author's development of deliberative pedagogy in a biology classroom, that teachers can use across disciplines and educational settings to help promote more equitable deliberative communication in classroom discussions.

Setting priorities in healthcare has become a highly politicised activity. Traditionally it has been undertaken by government and the health professions but there is an increasing imperative to involve the public. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has established a Citizens' Council as an attempt to capture the informed views of the public in shaping the Institute's social value judgements. Although, in the future, better ways of involving the public may emerge, NICE's approach represents one way in which ordinary citizens can engage in the process of prioritising healthcare.