Suchergebnisse

Democracy is an issue of major importance in theory and practice in politics throughout the world. However, democracy's study and advancement has been significantly compromised by a dichotomy between theorising about democracy, and empirical studies of democracy in practice. In addition to highlighting the need for this gap to be overcome, this book contributes to overcoming this divide, by demonstrating a number of ways that democracy in theory and practice can be synthesised; deepening our understanding of the relationship between democracy in theory and practice in the process. Different, b

In an era where citizens of liberal democracies are becoming increasingly disillusioned, dissatisfied and disenfranchised by the dominant political institutions and decision-making processes in these polities, new ideas of how to deepen democracy, re-engage citizens and enhance decision-making legitimacy are required. This book suggests that a combination of deliberative democracy and associational democracy is both a normatively desirable and an empirically plausible solution to the complex problems that are present in contemporary societies - as well as being compatible with many recent trends in governance. Author Stephen Elstub argues that by combining deliberative with associational democracy, the weaknesses of each model alone are compensated by the other, allowing the key strengths of each to manifest themselves. And he goes further by offering a detailed set of original, institutional requirements for liberal democracies that, if adopted, will enable a deliberative and associational democracy to be realised in practice. The book achieves this by starting off with first principles, considering arguments about why democracy is valuable and elaborating on why both deliberative and associational democracy - especially when combined - can enhance these normative principles which make democracy and its required revitalisation so important. Key Features Contemporary focus, concerned with recent trends in governance Presents new and innovative ideas of how to institutionalise deliberative democracy Original in its philosophical discussion of autonomy and how to promote it Covers an array of important thinkers on democracy and a myriad of concepts central to democratic theory

Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance. Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK. A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the 'Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review' (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's 'pragmatic equilibrium' approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article. Adapted from the source document.

Research Highlights and Abstract This article: Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance. Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK. A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the 'Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review' (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's 'pragmatic equilibrium' approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article.

The article argues that deliberative democracy has now entered a third generation, to which the three recent books considered here contribute. The first generation included the normative assertions of Habermas and Rawls. The second generation involved the fusing of these two first generationalists, and reconciling them with features of social complexity. The second generation has rendered deliberative democracy more practically achievable, and the three books here seize this opportunity to provide considerable institutional innovation about how to achieve the reformed deliberative theory in practice. In doing this the third generation of deliberative democracy is emerging. In the main, a more practically relevant version of deliberative democracy is welcomed, but we must also guard against jettisoning its normative ideals in the process.