Suchergebnisse

Deliberation must be immunized against coercive power by a baseline of equality. But what does the requirement of equality mean, in practice, for organizers designing deliberative events and forums? This question is complicated by the fact that equality is fundamentally about two—at times contradictory—values. On the one hand, the value of universal moral equality, which requires abstracting from social circumstances. On the other hand, the value of equity, which requires attending to social circumstances. Deliberative institutions vary in their capacity to promote one value over the other, or in their capacity to compromise between the two. We argue that negotiating between these twin values should be done with reference to the different goals of the deliberative process (generating legitimate decisions, producing more informed opinions, promoting mutual respect, enabling accommodation, and so on), and with an eye to the trade-offs that achieving particular goals might require. Focusing on civic forums, we review existing research related to three important aspects of design—participant recruitment, the nature of the interaction, and decision-making—and discuss how different designs impact deliberation's different normative goals. We argue against a totalizing view of deliberation, where unitary institutions try to achieve all of deliberation's goals at once, and instead discuss how the trade-offs between deliberation's different functions can be resolved at the system level. We conclude by arguing that practitioners should not try to realize all deliberative goals—including equality and equity—at once, but rather should prioritize the goals they want to achieve, and select institutional rules and practices that optimally achieve these goals.

Re-linking deliberative theory with empirical political science has become a major theme in the discipline. But when philosophical concepts are to be integrated into positive political science, researchers confront both theoretical and methodological challenges. Focusing on deliberative democracy, a major theoretical challenge is the practical implementation of deliberative ideals. Comparative scholars have explored institutional contexts that favour deliberation, but they have largely neglected actor-centric and cultural variables that might affect deliberative quality as well. Focusing on legislatures in Switzerland and Germany, we show that political institutions as well as partisan strategies and status strongly affect deliberative action, while the effects of culture are less clear. Methodologically, one (frequently neglected) challenge concerns the appropriate statistical tools with which to study deliberation. On the one hand, analysing deliberative processes is demanding and time consuming; hence we tend to have only few and non-randomly selected cases at the group or context level. In addition, the real world of deliberation presents us with a complex matrix of cross-classified speakers. We demonstrate that Bayesian multi-level modelling provides an elegant way to tackle these methodological problems. Adapted from the source document.