Abstract
Deliberative Democrats have been criticised for promoting an overly consensual style of politics. Agonistic democrats argue that this is because they allow justice to displace 'the political' while others make the opposite charge: deliberative democrats pay insufficient attention to justice and the confrontational style of politics which may be necessary to secure social justice. I argue that the deliberative model aims at strengthening democratic legitimacy, not at producing consensus and that it is centrally concerned with stimulating the exercise of citizens' capacity for judgement. The duty of civility should be regarded as a duty to make impartial judgements, not as a duty to seek compromises. Citizens cannot abdicate their deliberative capacities to any democratic procedure, but must, in the final analysis, judge whether to consent to or dissent from the outcomes of any procedure and an impartial assessment may positively require dissent in some circumstances. 1 Schumpeter took a dim view of the deliberative capacities of the average
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
