Suchergebnisse

"Die Inklusion wirtschaftlicher Interessengruppen in den politischen Prozess stellt die repräsentative Demokratie vor das Problem, dass das Parlament bei wichtigen sozialen und ökonomischen Entscheidungen übergangen wird. Ausgangspunkt dieses Beitrags ist die Frage, ob Arrangements dieser Art legitimiert werden können als eine Form deliberativer Demokratie, in der Entscheidungen getroffen werden nach abwägender Beratung zwischen denen, die davon letztlich betroffen sind. Der empirische Teil bezieht sich auf die finnische Gesetzgebung zur Arbeitszeit in den 1990er Jahren. Die Fallstudie zeigt, dass die Repräsentanten der Interessengruppen bei der Kontroverse über die Arbeitszeitfrage von anfänglicher Bekundung zum vernünftigen Kompromiss zu verhärteten Positionen wechselten. Eine für die deliberative Demokratie ideale Annahme, dass die Beteiligten nach Beratung zu einem gemeinsamen Ergebnis fänden, blieb in diesem Fall unbestätigt. Wichtigste Schlussfolgerung ist, dass selbst wenn die Einbeziehung der ökonomischen Interessengruppen in den Politikprozess nach Kriterien der wirtschaftlichen Wohlfahrt und des sozialen Friedens legitimiert werden kann, bleibt es fraglich, ob ihre Inklusion mit den Kriterien der repräsentativen oder der deliberativen Demokratie übereinstimmen." (Autorenreferat)

Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin argue that Americans can revitalize their democracy and break the cycle of cynical media manipulation that is crippling public life. They propose a new national holiday - Deliberation Day - for each presidential election year. On this day people throughout the country will meet in public spaces and engage in structured debates about issues that divide the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Deliberation Day is a bold new proposal, but it builds on a host of smaller experiments. Over the past decade, Fishkin has initiated Deliberative Polling events in the United States and elsewhere that bring random and representative samples of voters together for discussion of key political issues. In these events, participants greatly increase their understanding of the issues and often change their minds on the best course of action. Deliberation Day is not merely a novel idea but a feasible reform. Ackerman and Fishkin consider the economic, organisational, and political questions raised by their proposal and explore its relationship to the larger ideals of liberal democracy

Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin argue that Americans can revitalize their democracy and break the cycle of cynical media manipulation that is crippling public life. They propose a new national holiday - Deliberation Day - for each presidential election year. On this day people throughout the country will meet in public spaces and engage in structured debates about issues that divide the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Deliberation Day is a bold new proposal, but it builds on a host of smaller experiments. Over the past decade, Fishkin has initiated Deliberative Polling events in the United States and elsewhere that bring random and representative samples of voters together for discussion of key political issues. In these events, participants greatly increase their understanding of the issues and often change their minds on the best course of action. Deliberation Day is not merely a novel idea but a feasible reform. Ackerman and Fishkin consider the economic, organisational, and political questions raised by their proposal and explore its relationship to the larger ideals of liberal democracy.

This article aims to draw lines between the functions & definitions of collective deliberation & argumentation discussion. Individuals may argue & hold a discussion between them without having a true deliberation actually unfold. At the same time, collective deliberation may take place in a discourse in which listeners are addressed without their actual involvement in discussion. If the presence of different perspectives in a discussion does not necessarily guarantee a critical character to the discussion, the deliberation must then be organized in a specific way so that opposing arguments are made clear while pros & cons are adequately weighted by the deliberating body for the actions at stake. The function of the essential structural nature of the deliberation & its character are illustrated here at length to draw attention to both the efficacy of a properly constructed deliberation as well as the potential setbacks of a conversation or discussion improperly construed as a deliberation. 15 References. C. Brunski