Suchergebnisse

Recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy is analyzed, identifying three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation: republican, postmodern, & universalist. Each has its strengths & implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy to articulate a legitimate & practical politics, the respective benefits of each type must be brought together. 38 References. Adapted from the source document.

The growing literature on deliberative democratic practice finds that deliberation is a difficult & relatively rare form of communication. Each moment of a deliberative encounter raises significant obstacles in the path to stimulating greater intentional reflection on public issues. I explore these obstacles in the context of other empirical work in political & social psychology, small group communication, & public opinion. Taken together, these literatures explain why deliberation is difficult to achieve & sustain over time. They also suggest several rules that might assist practitioners in making deliberative democracy work better. Many of the obstacles to deliberative democracy raise questions about key theoretical constructs closely associated with deliberative democratic theory, including equality, legitimacy, autonomy, & reason. I conclude by suggesting that deliberative practitioners, empirical scholars, & theorists might gain from greater interaction. 190 References. Adapted from the source document.

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.

This paper inspects recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy. It identifies three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation. Each has its strengths; each has its implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy in order to articulate a legitimate and practical politics, the respective gains of these three types must be brought together.

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: 'that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question' ( Dryzek, 2001, p. 651 ). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them.Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.

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.

'Dieser Artikel widmet sich dem gegenwärtigen Diskurs über das Wesen der Demokratie und untersucht die zentralen Thesen des Ansatzes der 'deliberativen Demokratie' in ihren zwei wesentlichen Ausprägungsformen: die von John Rawls und die von Jürgen Habermas. Obwohl die Autorin mit diesen Zugangsweisen insofern übereinstimmt, als sie es ebenfalls für notwendig erachtet, eine weitreichendere Konzeption von Demokratie als jene die durch das 'aggregative' Modell bereitgestellt wird, zu entwickeln, gibt sie zu bedenken, daß diese Konzepte nicht im Stande sind, ein angemessenes Verständnis für die Hauptaufgabe der Demokratie zu vermitteln. Indem Anhänger des Konzepts der 'deliberativen Demokratie' festhalten, daß Demokratie nicht auf Verfahrensfragen zur Vermittlung von entgegengesetzten Interessen reduziert werden kann, verteidigen sie zwar zweifelsohne eine Auffassungsweise der Demokratie, die eine weitreichendere Konzeption von Politik beinhaltet. Ihre Zugangsweise ist jedoch sehr wohl - wenn auch in einer anderen Form als jene Herangehensweise an der sie Kritik üben - auch rational, wonach die wesentliche Rolle die 'Leidenschaft' und kollektive Formen der Identifikation im Bereich der Politik spielen, außer Acht gelassen wird. In dem Bestreben die liberale Zugangsweise mit jener der demokratischen Herangehensweise zu vereinen, neigen die Vertreter des Ansatzes der 'deliberativen' Demokratie dazu, die Spannungen, die zwischen ihnen existieren aufzulösen und sind somit nicht in der Lage, das konfliktreiche Wesen der demokratischen Politik zu bewältigen. Die Haupthese, die die Autorin in diesem Artikel vertritt, geht davon aus, daß demokratische Theorie die Unüberwindbarkeit von gewissen Antagonismen zu berücksichtigen hat. Sie vertritt die Meinung, daß ein Demokratiemodell in der Ausprägung des 'agonistic pluralism' dazu beitragen kann, die wesentliche Herausforderung mit der sich demokratische Politik derzeit konfrontiert sieht, besser zu bewältigen: demokratische Formen der Identifikation zu schaffen, die dazu führen können, Kräfte und 'Passionen' für demokratische Modelle zu mobilisieren.' (Autorenreferat)

The model of deliberative democracy poses a number of dificult questions about individual rationality, public reason and justification, public spiritedness, and an active and supportive public sphere. It also raises the question about what kind of civic involvement is required for the practices of democratic deliberation to be effective. The aim of this article is to examine the last question by looking at the role and value of citizenship understood in terms of participation. It argues that deliberative democracy implies a category of democratic citizens; its institutional framework calls for the activity and competence of citizenry, and consequently, the participatory forms of deliberative democracy come closest to the democratic ideal as such. Also, the model of participatory-deliberative democracy is more attractive as a truly democratic ideal than the model of formal deliberative democracy, but it certainly faces more dificulties when it comes to the practicalities, and especially the institutional design. This problem is raised in the last section of the article where the possible applicability of such a model to post-communist democracies is addressed. The major dificulty that the participatory-deliberative model poses for the post-communist democratization can be explained by a reference to the cultural approach towards democratization and to the revised modernization theory presented by Inglehart and Welzel. The problem of the applicability of such a model in the post-communist context seems to support the thesis presented here which suggests that active citizenship, civic skills and civic culture are indispensable for the development of deliberative politics.

The topic of authority only rarely figures into theories of deliberative democracy, no doubt owing to the widely held view that authority is inherently undemocratic. But deliberative democrats need a concept of authoritative decision making, not least because the scale and complexity of contemporary societies radically limit the numbers of decisions that can be made by deliberatively democratic means. I argue for an inherently democratic conception of authority, in large part by examining and rejecting the view—held by radical democrats, conservatives, and most liberals—that authority involves a surrender of judgment by those subject to authority. In contrast, I develop the view that authority, particularly in posttraditional contexts, involves a limited suspension of judgment enabled by a context of democratic challenge and public accountability. An important point is that democratic authority supports robust deliberative decision making by enabling individuals to allocate their time, energy, and knowledge to the issues most significant to them.