Deliberative democracy

From HandWiki

Deliberative democracy (also called discursive democracy) is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. Rather than treating voting alone as the primary source of legitimacy, deliberative democracy emphasizes reason-giving, informed discussion, and public justification of choices before decisions are made. In many designs, decision-makers may be a smaller but broadly representative sample of the population, given time, information, and resources to focus on specific issues.[1]

Deliberative democracy often combines elements of consensus-oriented decision-making and majority rule. It is closely related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation is central to democratic processes. The relationship between deliberative democracy and representative or direct democracy is debated. Some theorists use the term for elected bodies that deliberate and legislate; others, including Hélène Landemore, increasingly use it to refer to decision-making by randomly selected citizens with equal formal power.[2]

Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory, with substantial academic attention expanding in the 1990s and with growing real-world implementations since roughly 2010. Joseph M. Bessette is often credited with coining the term in 1980 in the context of republican government and the “majority principle.”[3]

Overview

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it should be preceded by authentic deliberation rather than being only the aggregation of preferences via voting. “Authentic deliberation” is commonly described as discussion among decision-makers that is not systematically distorted by unequal political power—such as power derived from wealth or from organized interest groups.[4][5]

Many accounts trace important roots to classical political philosophy, while modern theory is strongly shaped by work on the public sphere and communicative rationality, especially associated with Jürgen Habermas.[6]

Deliberative democracy can be practiced within representative democracies (for example, deliberative standards applied to legislatures or courts) and within direct democratic settings (for example, citizen juries or assemblies whose recommendations influence or determine policy). One purpose is to distill more considered public judgment on complex issues; another is to produce binding decisions when empowered citizens deliberate and decide directly.[7]

Some authors argue deliberative processes can improve impartiality, rationality, and factual knowledge, potentially leading to better-justified outcomes.[8] Critics raise concerns about domination by skilled orators, strategic behavior, or inequality in communicative freedom.[9]

Characteristics

Fishkin’s model of deliberation

James Fishkin, known for designing and studying “deliberative polling,” outlines five characteristics often proposed as conditions for legitimate deliberation:

  • Information: participants have access to reasonably accurate information they consider relevant
  • Substantive balance: arguments from different perspectives are met with meaningful counter-considerations
  • Diversity: major public positions are represented among participants
  • Conscientiousness: participants sincerely weigh arguments and evidence
  • Equal consideration: arguments are evaluated on their merits regardless of who offers them[10]

Research programs in this area often report effects such as reduced partisanship, greater openness to opposing views, more respect for evidence, and stronger acceptance of outcomes among participants—though results vary by design and context.[11]

Cohen’s outline

Joshua Cohen presents deliberative democracy as involving procedural legitimacy grounded in public reasoning among free and equal citizens, under conditions that protect pluralism while requiring mutual justification. In this view, deliberation includes reason-giving, equal standing to propose and criticize, and the aspiration—where possible—toward agreement; when agreement is not reachable, majoritarian decision rules may apply.[12]

Gutmann and Thompson’s model

Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson define deliberative democracy as government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions by offering one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, aiming at decisions that are binding for a time but open to future challenge. They highlight requirements commonly summarized as reciprocity, publicity/accessibility, bindingness, and provisionality (openness to revision).[13]

Standards of “good deliberation” (Bächtiger et al., 2018)

Some recent scholarship emphasizes that standards of “good deliberation” have broadened from a narrower early focus (e.g., consensus and absence of power) toward a wider set of aims including inclusion, mutual respect, and clarifying conflict as well as seeking agreement.[14]

First generation (emphasis) Second generation (emphasis)
Respect Inclusion, mutual respect, communicative freedom
Absence of power Attention to power, inequalities, and safeguards
Equality Equal opportunity for influence
Reasons Relevant considerations; quality of justification
Aim at consensus Consensus and/or clarification of conflict
Common good orientation Common good plus constrained self-interest (fairness)
Publicity Publicity in many conditions; justified exceptions in some settings
Accountability Accountability to constituents and to participants/citizens
Sincerity Sincerity in important matters; limited social “insincerity” tolerated

History

Early examples

Consensus-oriented practices with deliberative features are documented in many societies across time. A frequently discussed early case is Athens (6th–4th centuries BCE), where deliberation and direct participation played prominent roles in public decision-making. Later democratic theorists and practitioners, including some advocates of representative systems, emphasized deliberation among elected representatives as part of responsible governance.[15]

Recent scholarship

The deliberative element of democracy became a major scholarly focus in the late twentieth century. Some accounts highlight the relationship between deliberative theory and broader debates about democratic legitimacy and public reason, with important influence from political philosophy and constitutional theory.[16]

Call for the establishment of deliberative democracy displayed at a public rally.

Debates have also emerged about the relationship between deliberation and agonism (politics as contest), with some authors arguing that the two are compatible or mutually dependent under certain conditions.[17][18]

A “systemic” approach has become influential, treating deliberation as distributed across many sites (institutions, media, civil society forums) rather than occurring in a single ideal setting.[19]

Platforms and algorithms

Some proposals extend deliberative governance to major online platforms by empowering representative deliberative groups of users to guide the design and implementation of ranking and moderation systems, aiming to reduce sensationalism, polarization, and democratic backsliding.[20][21]

Modern examples

The use of citizens’ assemblies, citizens’ juries, and other deliberative mini-publics has expanded in many countries. The OECD has documented hundreds of cases and reports rising use since 2010.[22]

References

  1. ↑ John S. Dryzek et al., “The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation,” Science 363(6432) (2019): 1144–1146. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2694.
  2. ↑ Hélène Landemore, “Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy,” Dædalus 146(3) (Summer 2017): 51–63.
  3. ↑ Akilah N. Folami, “Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing,” Temple Law Review (Winter 2013) (discussing Bessette and the term’s early usage).
  4. ↑ Jürgen Habermas, in James Bohman and William Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (MIT Press, 1997), p. 41.
  5. ↑ André Bächtiger et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 4.
  6. ↑ S. A. Ercan, “Deliberative democracy,” in D. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy (SAGE, 2014), pp. 214–216.
  7. ↑ James S. Fishkin, When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford University Press, 2009).
  8. ↑ Portia Pedro, “Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required,” Harvard Law Review 123(4) (2010): 970–972.
  9. ↑ John Dryzek, Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance (Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 66.
  10. ↑ Fishkin, When the People Speak (Oxford University Press, 2009), pp. 160ff.
  11. ↑ Dryzek et al., “The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation,” Science (2019).
  12. ↑ Joshua Cohen, “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in Bohman and Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (MIT Press, 1997).
  13. ↑ Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton University Press, 2004), pp. 3–7.
  14. ↑ Bächtiger et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 4.
  15. ↑ James S. Fishkin, When the People Speak (Oxford University Press, 2009).
  16. ↑ Dennis F. Thompson, “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 497–520.
  17. ↑ Shmuel Lederman, “Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt,” Constellations 21(3) (2014): 335. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12096.
  18. ↑ Giuseppe Ballacci, “Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt,” Theoria 66(161) (2019): 20. doi:10.3167/th.2019.6616101.
  19. ↑ D. Owen and G. Smith, “Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn,” Journal of Political Philosophy 23(2) (2015): 213–234.
  20. ↑ Aviv Ovadya, “Bridging-Based Ranking,” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University (May 17, 2022).
  21. ↑ Casey Newton, “Facebook is experimenting with letting users help write speech rules,” The Verge (Sept. 21, 2022).
  22. ↑ OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (2020), Chapter 3.

Further reading

  • André Bächtiger et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy (Oxford University Press, 2018).
  • John Dryzek, Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance (Oxford University Press, 2010).
  • James S. Fishkin, When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (Oxford University Press, 2009).
  • Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy? (Princeton University Press, 2004).
  • OECD, Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (2020).




Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Deliberative_democracy&oldid=4057910"