Suchergebnisse

Wo steht die Theorie deliberativer Demokratie? Nach einer fast 20-jährigen Dominanz in der Demokratietheorie stellt sich auch angesichts neuer Herausforderungen nationalstaatlichen Regierens die Frage, welche Antworten sie heute bieten hat.So steht einerseits der Vorwurf im Raum, dass deliberative Theoretiker willentlich oder unwillentlich zur Rechtfertigung exekutivlastiger und expertokratischer Entscheidungsprozesse beitragen, während andererseits Ergebnisse der empirischen Deliberationsforschung die empirischen Prämissen der Theorie zu untermauern scheinen. Das provoziert konzeptionelle Fragen, die sich über die Ebenen der normativen Begründung des Modells deliberativer Demokratie wie der Diskussion seiner Institutionalisierung in nationalen, trans- und supranationalen Zusammenhängen erstrecken und interne wie externe Kritiken provozieren, die es zu dokumentieren und zu verorten gilt. Hierzu bringt dieses Buch Theoretiker und empirische Deliberationsforscher, Verteidiger und Kritiker der deliberativen Demokratietheorie miteinander ins Gespräch.Mit Beiträgen von:Prof. Dr. Nicole Deitelhoff; Dr. Martin Ebeling; Prof. Erik O. Eriksen; Prof. Dr. Dieter Fuchs; Dr. Daniel Gaus; Prof. Dr. Dirk Jörke; Prof. Dr. Claudia Landwehr; PD Dr. Markus Linden; Prof. Dr. Jürgen Neyer; Prof. Dr. Andreas Niederberger; Prof. Dr. Frank Nullmeier; Dr. Tanja Pritzlaff; Dr. Jan Achim Richter; Dr. Claudia Ritzi; Prof. Dr. Gary Schaal; Prof. Dr. Rainer Schmalz-Bruns; Dr. Thorsten Thiel; Manon Westphal M.A

While the politics of backlash is typically described as a reaction to policy decisions in favour of minority rights, immigration or globalisation, this essay focuses on the fact that backlash typically also involves a reaction against the procedural consensus liberal democracy is based upon. This challenge to democratic procedures and institutions may be even more dangerous in its effects than the substantial objectives of backlash. I use the composite definition of backlash suggested by Alter and Zürn to assess in how far the attacks on the institutions of liberal democracy have retrograde objectives in themselves or in how far they are merely instrumental to the pursuit of other retrograde objectives. The conclusion reflects on possible outcomes of backlash politics for democratic institutions and argues that in the best case, the present contestation of rules, norms and institutions could also lead to a democratic renewal of the procedural consensus.

Theories of deliberative democracy are popular for their promise that in a deliberative polity, democracy can realise both participatory politics and rational policies. However, they are also confronted with the allegation that by qualifying essentially non-democratic practices as deliberative, they inadvertently (or not) become accomplices in the trend towards post-democratic governance. A central example of such a development is the rise of non-majoritarian bodies to which governments delegate decision making, thereby de-politicising conflicts and turning democratic discourses into technocratic ones. This article adopts a systemic perspective on deliberative democracy, asking whether non-majoritarian forums can be legitimated in a democratic system and whether they can contribute to their deliberative quality. It is argued that the legitimation of delegated decision-making is not possible without a culture and practice of democratic meta-deliberation which enables reflective institutional design. Adapted from the source document.

Theories of deliberative democracy are popular for their promise that in a deliberative polity, democracy can realise both participatory politics and rational policies. However, they are also confronted with the allegation that by qualifying essentially non-democratic practices as deliberative, they inadvertently (or not) become accomplices in the trend towards post-democratic governance. A central example of such a development is the rise of non-majoritarian bodies to which governments delegate decision making, thereby de-politicising conflicts and turning democratic discourses into technocratic ones. This article adopts a systemic perspective on deliberative democracy, asking whether non-majoritarian forums can be legitimated in a democratic system and whether they can contribute to their deliberative quality. It is argued that the legitimation of delegated decision-making is not possible without a culture and practice of democratic meta-deliberation which enables reflective institutional design.

The paper considers the allegedly increasing disenchantment with politics that is diagnosed in the post-democracy debate and argues that a deliberative democratization of processes of institutional design bears the potential for a re-democratization and vitalization of democracy. I provide evidence from a citizen conference in Mainz to show that citizen deliberation on general rules and procedures does not lead to biases towards the interests of privileged groups and that citizens are not only interested in procedural questions, but also competent to answer these. Their engagement in processes of democratic meta-de-liberation could contribute to the contestation, revision and mandating of just those bodies of functional representation which are central to the post-democracy diagnosis. Adapted from the source document.