Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 66, Heft 1, S. 137-153
ISSN: 1467-9248
This article deals with the role of public communication in democratic decision-making, with a view to identifying communicative practices that can be expected to meet deliberative democratic standards. On the basis of two case studies, a mechanism is reconstructed through which public communication, although being poorly deliberative, can influence decision-making and achieve some of deliberative democracy's most fundamental goals, namely, to attain mutually justified decisions, to secure the free and reasoned consent of citizens and to promote substantively correct decisions. This mechanism consists in the recurrent problematisation of a situation and the concomitant generation of political demands and proposals. This argument can at least be formulated if one adopts an institutional system perspective coupled with a concept of mutual justification understood along the lines of the 'reasonable rejection test'.
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 66, Heft 3, S. 635-650
ISSN: 1467-9248
At the heart of the ideal of deliberative democracy lies an emphasis on the political autonomy of citizens participating in procedures of public justification aimed at the promotion of the common good. The recent systemic turn in deliberative democracy has moved so far away from this ideal that it relegates the deliberations of citizens to a secondary matter, legitimising forms of rule that may even undermine the normative impulses central to the project of deliberative democracy. We critically discuss this theoretical development and show how deliberative agency can effectively be exercised in complex political systems. We argue, in particular, that political parties play a central role in facilitating the exercise of deliberative agency, fostering deliberation among citizens and linking their deliberations to decisions. Instead of giving up on the possibility that citizens participate in procedures of public justification, deliberative democrats should look to parties' unique ability to enable deliberation.
Intro -- Deliberative Freedom -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Why "Dimensions" of Freedom? -- Overview of the Book -- 1. Deliberation, Aggregation,and Negative Freedom -- Beyond the Aggregation and Transformation Dichotomy -- The Negative Freedom Tradition and Democracy -- Conclusion -- 2. Republican Freedom and Discursive Status -- Domination without Interference -- Republican Freedom and Demoracy -- Deliberative Democracy beyond Republicanism -- Conclusion -- 3. Preferences and Paternalism -- Nonautonomously Formed Preferences -- Paternalism -- Collective Self-Legislation and Freedom as Status -- Conclusion -- 4. Freedom as Accommodation: The Limits of Rawlsian Deliberative Democracy -- The Accommodation of Reasonable Doctrinesand Negative Freedom -- Public Reason and Reasonableness -- Political and Moral Autonomy -- Conclusion -- 5. Freedom as Emancipation: Deliberative Democracy as Critical Theory -- The Critique of Ideology and Internal Autonomy -- Deliberation and Politicization -- Social Critics, Triggering Self-Re ection, and Public Autonomy -- Conclusion -- 6. Democratic Ethos and Procedural Independence -- The Interdependence of the Ethical and the Moral -- Deliberation and Privacy -- Democratic Ethos -- Thinking for Oneself -- Conclusion -- 7. Freedom, Reason, and Participation -- The Epistemic Dimension of Deliberative Democracy -- Reason, Freedom, and Radical Democracy -- Participation, Freedom, and Neutrality -- Conclusion -- 8. Conclusion: Toward a Theory of Deliberative Freedom -- Four Conceptions of Freedom Reinterpreted -- A Multidimensional Theory of Deliberation and Freedom -- On the Need for Institutional Reformand Economic Redistribution -- Notes -- Introduction -- Chapter 1 -- Chapter 2 -- Chapter 3 -- Chapter 4 -- Chapter 5 -- Chapter 6 -- Chapter 7 -- Chapter 8 -- Bibliography -- Index -- A -- B -- C.
In: Scandinavian political studies, Band 27, Heft 3, S. 261-286
ISSN: 1467-9477
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.
In: Deliberative Demokratie in der Diskussion
In: Deliberative Demokratie in der Diskussion
In: Theories of institutional design
New books by Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin and by Ethan J. Leib conclusively demonstrate that ambitious versions of deliberative democracy are susceptible to practical implementation in the United States. This review argues that the suggested reforms would be most potent if deployed as a simultaneous project of revitalizing both the electoral and deliberative aspects of American democratic legitimacy, and that campaigns to do so on a local level are more likely both to attract political support and achieve effectiveness than a campaign aimed at the national government.
BASE
In: Scandinavian political studies: SPS ; a journal, Band 27, Heft 3, S. 261-286
ISSN: 0080-6757
This thesis contains a critical analysis of deliberative democracy. I present the normative arguments for the theory in the context of a discussion of how to explicate democracy more generally, and I assess these arguments throughout the thesis. I defend a Habermasian interpretation of the deliberative ideal, and I argue that we should conceive of deliberative democracy in participatory, dialogical, and adversarial terms. I discuss the implications of acute moral disagreement and the necessarily mediated nature of much deliberative exchange. ; TARA (Trinity?s Access to Research Archive) has a robust takedown policy. Please contact us if you have any concerns: rssadmin@tcd.ie
BASE
In: Cambridge studies in the theory of democracy 1
It is sometimes assumed that voting is the central mechanism for political decision-making. The contributors to this volume focus on an alternative mechanism, that is decision by discussion or deliberation. The original contributions include case studies based on historical and current instances of deliberative democracy, normative discussion of the merits of deliberation compared to other models of collective decision-making, and studies of the conditions under which it tends to improve the quality of decisions. This volume is characterized by a realistic approach to the issue of deliberative democracy. Rather than assuming that deliberative democracy is always ideal, the authors critically probe its limits and weaknesses as well as its strengths
In: World political science, Band 12, Heft 2, S. 195-218
ISSN: 2363-4782, 1935-6226
Abstract
In the last few years, the Deliberative Framework has become the main model in the consolidation of democratic processes. Deliberative theorists argue that deliberation helps to promote the democratic level of our societies, and they have good reasons to support this view. This article, however, is critical with some of these claims, questioning the widespread assumption of an existing connection between deliberation and democracy. With this objective in mind, we will examine the following three questions: Who deliberates? Under what conditions does deliberation take place? What is the content of deliberation? Once the potential repressive components of deliberation are made clear, we try to reach some normative considerations regarding how to promote certain mechanisms of deliberation that are in fact more in line with deliberative emancipation ideas and, as such, better assertions for promoting democracy.
In: European political science: EPS, Band 7, Heft 2, S. 194-198
ISSN: 1682-0983
Increasing interest in applying the theory and practice of deliberative democracy to new and varied political contexts leads us to ask whether or not deliberation is a universal political practice. While deliberation does manifest a universal competence
BASE