Suchergebnisse

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.

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'.

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.

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

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

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, its character varies substantially across time and space, a variation partially explicable in cultural terms. We deploy an intersubjective conception of culture in order to explore these differences. Culture meets deliberation where publicly accessible meanings, symbols, and norms shape the way political actors engage one another in discourse. Fuller understanding of political deliberation requires comparative and historical studies of particular contexts. We look at one case from Egypt in some depth and provide shorter illustrations from Botswana, Europe, India, Japan, Madagascar, the United States, Yemen, and elsewhere. Cross-cultural learning can enrich the theory of deliberative democracy, and give democratic theory a more universal reach. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

'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)

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

This article introduces a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist in which scholars of public deliberation address the theme of "Deliberative Play" from different conceptual and empirical approaches. Here I introduce the concept of deliberative play against a background of philosophical accounts of deliberative action, the theory of metacommunication, and trends in the study of public deliberation that are endeavoring to reduce the gap between normative theories and the empirical realities of deliberative democratic practice. Articles in the special issue address several aspects of deliberative play: how storytelling activities accomplish deliberative play in online forums (Black, Wolfe, and Han); how facilitators can cue and maintain the deliberative play frame during facilitated deliberative discussions (Sprain); how playful exchanges are enabled by the structure of New England town meetings and what they accomplish (Townsend and Milburn); how alternative scenarios for action presented with pros and cons by expert consultants influence deliberative play in online discussions in Poland (Przybylska, Bucholc, and Mazur); and how online discussion interfaces would benefit from applying principles of game design (Gastil). The concluding section reflects on the results of these studies and their implications for further investigations of deliberative play.

Political liberals now defend what Rawls calls the "inclusive view" of public reason with the appropriate ideal of reasonable pluralism. Against the application of such a liberal conception of toleration to deliberative democracy "the open view of toleration is with no constraints" is the only regime of toleration that can be democratically justified. Recent debates about the public or nonpublic character of religious reasons provide a good test case and show why liberal deliberative theories are intolerant and fail to live up to democratic obligations to provide justifications to all members of the deliberative community. In a deliberative democracy, accommodations to religious minorities must be based on transformations in the current reflective equilibrium among the norms that make up the complex democratic ideal. This is not merely a conceptual enterprise of commensuration, since the need for any such transformation in standards of justification is due to changes in the nature of the polity itself, changes that in turn modify its regime of toleration.