Deliberative democratic theory has moved beyond the 'theoretical statement' stage & into the 'working theory' stage. Although this essay revisits some of the main theoretical debates, this is done via a survey & evaluation of the state of deliberative democratic theory as it is being applied in a number of research areas & as it intersects with related normative debates. Five research areas are covered: public law, international relations, policy studies, empirical research, & identity politics. 115 References. Adapted from the source document.
The most widely debated conception of democracy in recent years is deliberative democracy--the idea that citizens or their representatives owe each other mutually acceptable reasons for the laws they enact. Two prominent voices in the ongoing discussion are Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. In Why Deliberative Democracy?, they move the debate forward beyond their influential book, Democracy and Disagreement. What exactly is deliberative democracy? Why is it more defensible than its rivals? By offering clear answers to these timely questions, Gutmann and Thompson illuminat
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Debating Deliberative Democracy explores the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in deliberative arrangements. Investigates the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in d
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Political theory has taken a deliberative shift in recent years placing deliberation in a privileged position. Dryzek (2000), one of its most important promoters, even states that many of the innovations that take place in the theory of politics nowadays feed from it. Dryzek's statement gives an idea of the scope and importance that deliberative theory has attained, however this does not mean that there is total agreement regarding its limits and fallibility. The reasons that have favoured this upsurge are certainly not related to the simplicity and clarity of the theory. Neither can we resort to its ability to explain the political phenomena as the cause of its expansion. Literature gathered about deliberation is anything but conclusive (Thompson, 2008; delli Carpini, 2004). This has not hindered, however, an outbreak of normative discussions and empirical studies aimed at contrasting, making more precise or studying in depth all elements related to deliberation. ; Peer Reviewed
This article advances one of the most important debates in recent scholarship on democratic theory: the one on deliberative systems. In the wake of the systemic turn deliberative scholars agree that not all components of a deliberative system can or even need to be deliberative. However, there is little clarity about the role of non-deliberative politics in a system and to what extent these are justifiable while we seek a more deliberative society. In this paper I first illustrate the main ideas of the systemic turn, explore the distinction between 'deliberative' and 'non-deliberative' politics and investigate the main arguments justifying non-deliberative politics. Then, I build upon these arguments to shed new light on the relationship between deliberative and non-deliberative politics. I identify three distinctive actors in deliberative systems (political institutions, empowered agents, and public space actors). Finally, I argue that deliberative democrats should adopt three different approaches (intensive, moderate, and free) in order to assess whether the use of non-deliberative politics by each of these actors is legitimate.
Legal and political science cannot merge, but they should, at the very least, 'listen to each other'. This working paper is a further step in an ongoing interdisciplinary cooperation which seeks to make sense out of Louis Henkin's famous admonition. This co-operation had begun with a research project on the European comitology system in 1995 and the publication, inter alia, of two articles on deliberative supranationalism in 1997. The present article is an effort to get?/go beyond the scope of our original analyses and to explore the potential of our guiding ideas at a more general level of integration research. In Part I of this paper, Jürgen Neyer summarises strands of normative and positive political theory on which deliberative approaches to international and European governance can build. These approaches not only support coherence, social acceptance and normative recognition, they also have in important potential for the design of empirical studies. They seem to be particularly promising for the understanding of the institutional design and the political process in the EU. In Part II, Christian Joerges first summarises the objections against deliberative suprantionalism and comitology in legal science. He then presents a conflict-of-law's approach to European law which builds upon the 1997 articles and seeks to develop their normative-legal perspectives further. European law is interpreted as a new type of conflict of law which constitutionalises a European unitas in pluralitate. Comitology is interpreted as a cognitive opening of the legal system which institutionalises a second order of conflict of laws.
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.
Multicriteria evaluation (MCE) is a well-tried and effective procedure for structuring and aiding complex decisionmaking processes, especially those involving environmental considerations. Formal deliberative processes have also been successful in aiding understanding and meeting consensus in complex and difficult decision problems which involve more than one decisionmaker. Here, both approaches are combined in a new technique called 'deliberative multicriteria evaluation' to assist a group of natural resource managers to decide on a suitable option for recreation and tourism activities in the upper Goulburn–Broken Catchment of Victoria, Australia. This approach is an attempt to combine the advantages of MCE, providing structure and integration in complex decision problems, with the advantages of deliberation and stakeholder interaction provided by a 'citizens' jury'. An important outcome of the process was the discovery of some crucial aspects of the decision problem that required deeper understanding and assessment if that preferred strategy were to have the desired results. Some suggestions for improving the process are provided but, in general, the stakeholder jury was regarded as a helpful and useful procedure by the decisionmakers and one which aided them in their understanding of the issues of a complex decisionmaking problem.
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.
The epistemic dimension of democratic authority? / David Estlund -- What deliberative democracy means / Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson -- Political communication in media society : does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension / Jurgen Habermas -- Deliberative democracy and the case for depoliticising government / Philip Pettit -- Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy / John S. Dryzek -- Making deliberative democracy practical : public consultation and dispute resolution / James S. Fishkin -- Deliberative impacts : the macro-political uptake of mini-publics / Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek -- Reviving randomness for political rationality : elements of a theory of aleatory democracy / Hubertus Buchstein -- Models of democratic deliberation / Noelle McAfee -- Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism / Chantal Mouffe -- New mediation and direct representation : reconceptualizing representation in the digital age / Stephen Coleman -- The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power : radicalizing the public sphere / Lincoln Dahlberg -- Global democracy / Joshua Cohen and Charles F. Sabel -- Governance-driven democratization / Mark E. Warren -- Varieties of participation in complex governance / Archon Fung -- Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment : the cultural politics of discursive space / Frank Fischer
Citizens' adherence to deliberative civic values fulfils a vital function in deliberative democratic systems. We propose a way to measure the prevalence and variations of such values as a first step to better understanding how this works. Based on survey data, we demonstrate that, in Sweden, adherence to the values of reasoning and listening is stronger than adherence to the strategic rhetorical, non-deliberative values. This may have important implications for our understanding of how deliberation and democracy work in this particular context. There are also, however, important individual-level variations of adherence to deliberative civic values related to age, education, gender and Swedish background. Taken together, this opens up for a new research agenda where comparative analyses of deliberative civic values and how it relates to political behaviour are particularly encouraged.
