Concept Of Deliberative Democracy Research Articles

Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy, written by Christina Lafont

Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy, written by Christina Lafont

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: A SARTORIAN PERSPECTIVE

This paper attempts to analyze the concept of deliberative democracy by using Giovanni Sartori’s methodological framework. Sartori’s approach to concept analysis can be used to understand the concept of deliberative democracy in contemporary political theory. Because of the overwhelming literature on the concept of democracy, we don’t have unambiguous meanings of deliberative democracy which one can use in comparative political discourses and methods. The aim of this paper is to disambiguate and clarify the concept of deliberative democracy with the help of Sartori’s approach to concept formation and analysis. Conceptualization, Sartori argues, is intrinsically a qualitative exercise that is indispensable not merely for the intelligibility of empirical data but also for the meaningful rigorous research activity in social sciences. Furthermore, theorizing is only possible when we are clear about the concepts involved in the theory.

Features of Kazakhstan’s Democratic Tranzit Model: Conceptual and Methodological Analysis

A typologically significant characteristic of the Kazakhstan model of democratic transit is the creation in Kazakhstan of a system of “super-presidential” public, in which the constitutional and legal status, functions and powers of all branches of government act as a transformed form of implementation of the principles of identitarian democracy. One of the most relevant descriptions of the features of this form is Guillermo O’Donnell’s concept of deliberative democracy. According to G. According to O’Donnell, delegative democracies are based on the premise that election to the presidency gives the winner the right to govern without resorting to the mediation of representative institutions of power. After all, the president is elected in order to be the personified embodiment of the nation, to determine and protect its interests with authority, assuming full responsibility for the fate of the country and the people. Other political institutions, for example, parties with their factionalism and permanent conflicts, are often only hindrances in the implementation of this mission. This feature of the legitimization of the political regime becomes the ideological basis for substantiating the compatibility of liberal democratic institutions with the process of personification of a political system built for a specific person.

Democratic Citizenship Education in Digitized Societies: A Habermasian Approach

AbstractIn this article Julian Culp offers a new conceptualization of democratic citizenship education in light of the transformations of contemporary Western societies to which the use of digital technologies has contributed. His conceptualization adopts a deliberative understanding of democracy that provides a systemic perspective on society‐wide communicative arrangements and employs a nonideal, critical methodology that concentrates on overcoming democratic deficits. Based on this systemic, deliberative conception of democracy, Culp provides an analysis of the public sphere's normative deficits and argues that current political communication may be systemically distorted. Drawing on this analysis, he suggests that practices of democratic citizenship education in digitized societies must not concentrate narrowly on the effective and responsible use of digital technologies. Instead, these practices should also focus on the economic and cultural conditions that are co‐responsible for the structural problems of political communication as well as address the democratic deficits that are reflected in inadequate communicative arrangements.

On citizens' right to information: Justification and analysis of the democratic right to be well informed

On citizens' right to information: Justification and analysis of the democratic right to be well informed

Microtargeting, Dogwhistles, and Deliberative Democracy

‘Dogwhistles’ and microtargeted political advertisements are objects of widespread moral and political concern. With a few notable exceptions in the case of dogwhistles (and none in the case of microtargeting) moral criticism of these speech act types generally focuses on problematic content—that a dogwhistle is, for instance, racist, or a microtargeted advertisement misleading. I argue that these practices are additionally morally wrongful on content-neutral grounds—regardless of their content. My argument proceeds from a deliberative conception of democracy according to which only a vote which follows from an adequate deliberative process confers democratic legitimacy on its results. I claim that both dogwhistles and microtargeting threaten to prevent adequate democratic deliberation from taking place, and therefore that these practices are anti-democratic and, additionally, morally impermissible. I then discuss potential objections and how my argument relates to existing work.

Resolving the Conflict of Interests Issue within the Laws Concerning the Political Matters: Deliberative Democracy or Empowering Dewan Perwakilan Daerah?

This study examines whether the concept of deliberative democracy could offer a viable solution to the issues surrounding laws on political matters, commonly referred to as Paket Undang-Undang Politik in Indonesia. These laws, including general election regulations, have become problematic due to their close association with the drafters. Over the past two decades, presidents and the majority in the House of Representatives have formed coalitions to maintain government stability. However, this success has had a detrimental impact on the system of checks and balances during the drafting of these laws. While the Constitutional Court could potentially intervene by reviewing these laws, it has often not addressed the conflict of interest issues arising from open legal policies, especially in cases related to reviewing election laws. This paper addresses this issue by proposing a solution integrated into the drafting process to mitigate conflicts of interest in political matters legislation. The proposed approach involves incorporating an additional institution in the drafting process not directly influenced by political interests. In other countries, similar issues are tackled through practical implementations of deliberative democracy, which directly involves citizens as the decisive factor, using methods such as citizen assemblies and deliberative polling. We suggest empowering the Regional Representatives Council could offer a more practical solution to this issue.

Інструменти деліберативної демократії: можливості застосування у воєнний та повоєнний час в Україні

The concept of deliberative democracy is one of the attempts to improve and „expand” the boundaries of modern representative democracy. It exists to bring additional mechanisms for thoughtful, reasoned and broader discussion of socially important issues, as well as to use the consensus potential of deliberation to resolve conflicts and consider sensitive issues. Taking into account the considerable attention paid to this concept by the European Union and international organizations, as well as the public demand for discussion of important issues of the functioning of the state even in the conditions of full-scale Russian aggression, the article examines the possibilities and features of using the tools of deliberative democracy during the war and the expected post-war recovery. The author analyzes the results of researches on the experience of other countries traumatized by wars or violent conflicts, as well as the trends of 2022 – the beginning of 2023, which indicate the formation of initiatives in Ukraine to discuss the fundamental issues of state development, post-war reconstruction, and possible changes to the social contract. This is the basis for substantiating the relevance of the search for deliberation tools to increase the effectiveness of discussions and resolve possible resource and other conflicts. The peculiarities of the previous experience of implementing a number of public participation tools in Ukraine, in particular the problems of organizing public consultations, the work of public councils, surveys in the Diya mobile application, are also analyzed in the article. According to the results, the need to improve these tools and increase their deliberative potential is noted. In addition, the positive experience of implementing a number of other, relatively new for Ukraine, deliberative practices (in particular, dialogue and public consultations in a dialogical approach) was analyzed. The author notes that this experience can become an important basis for organizing deliberative discussions during the war and post-war reconstruction.

ВЗАЄМОДІЯ ГРОМАДЯНСЬКОГО СУСПІЛЬСТВА І ДЕРЖАВИ В УМОВАХ ДЕЛІБЕРАТИВНОЇ ДЕМОКРАТІЇ: УКРАЇНА ТА СВІТОВІ ТЕНДЕНЦІЇ

The article analyses the concept of deliberative democracy and its impact on the modern political arena, in particular in terms of interaction between government agencies and civil society. In Ukraine, where the effectiveness of communication is becoming increasingly critical against the backdrop of global political challenges, this issue is of particular importance. The article reveals the possibilities of deliberative democracy, focusing on its impact on the dynamics of relations between civil society and the state, with a special attention to Ukraine and general global trends. It examines how this democratic process can influence political initiatives and civic engagement, providing an overview of the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of deliberative methods to enhance the interaction between citizens and the state. Particular attention is paid to the role and significance of deliberative democracy in modern democratic processes, with an emphasis on the Ukrainian and international contexts. It is demonstrated that deliberative democracy, based on in-depth public dialogue and discussion between citizens and the state, can contribute to the legitimacy of legislation and democratic institutions, both in Ukraine and internationally. The article analyses the practical aspects of introducing the deliberative approach and the obstacles that may arise in its implementation. Special attention is paid to the need for dialogue between citizens and the state and its role in strengthening democracy. It is noted that the introduction of deliberative democracy can significantly improve the quality of interaction between the state and civil society, encouraging more active participation of citizens in political life. The author emphasises the importance of further research and development of strategies for integrating deliberative methods into political systems, as well as the need for international cooperation to strengthen democratic processes, both in Ukraine and internationally.

Guest Editors’ Introduction: The Challenges and Prospects of Deliberative Democracy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

This introduction argues that the use of the concept of deliberative democracy in corporate social responsibility (CSR) research needs to be theoretically extended. We review three developments that have recently occurred in deliberative democracy theory within political science and philosophy: 1) the conceptualization of deliberative systems (macro level), 2) the considerations of mini-publics (micro level), and 3) the role of online deliberation. We discuss the challenges and prospects that incorporating these three developments into future CSR-related research creates. We thereby also introduce the articles in this special issue and show how they connect to each of the three developments. On the basis of this discussion, we outline the contours for a more general program of distributed deliberative CSR that enables CSR scholars to incorporate an updated understanding of deliberative democracy theory into their future work.

Demokrasi Sebagai Diskursus dan Deliberasi Menurut Jűrgen Habermas

<p><strong>Abstract:</strong> This article attempts to reconstruct and analyse the Habermas’ view on democracy as discourse and deliberation. The concept of deliberative and discursive democracy is a model of criticism toward an attempt to narrow the conception about democracy simply as an institutional matter. The concept of deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of public discursive participation of citizens by establishing critical public sphere that is the heart of democracy. Furthermore, Habermas highlights that there is no rule of law without radical democracy. Such radical democracy is expressed through the active involvement of citizens in public sphere to express ideas that have impact on political decisions and public policy. This article accentuates that the transformation of public opinion to be a political power is an ongoing process. Therefore, an authentic democracy presupposes a critical publicity and democratic political culture. Without a voluntary citizens’ initiative in this regard, a state will have no future. To support thisarguments, the writer uses literature research method by analyzing the main work of Jȕrgen Habermas on deliberative democracy namely Faktizitӓt und Geltung (Facts and Norms), as well as some secondary literatures dealing with the thoughts of Habermas on democracy.</p><p><strong>Keywords:</strong> Habermas, deliberative democracy, discourse, pluralism, state</p>

The Failure of Deliberative Democracy in the Arab World: An Analytical Approach

This research aimed to analyze the failure of deliberative democracy and clarify the reality of democracy in the Arab World and the determinants which hinder its realization. The importance of this study stems from the wide range of cases of failure to implement democracy that the Arab World has witnessed. The researcher reviews the concept of deliberative democracy, its basic structures, and its link to political practice and the expansion of democracy. Hypotheses were formed in line with the research objectives. The research concluded that deliberative democracy in the Arab World is far from being a reality. This situation stems from the inability to implement real democracy in the region to launch deliberative democracy. Revising this situation would require changes in the intellectual and practice systems as well as in the structures and institutions. Also, it requires creating a constitutional and legal framework, a real institutional vehicle for political participation, an expansion of citizen participation, and dissemination of the deliberative approach among citizens at least at the local level. These changes would lead to the rise of deliberative democracy for public on the grounds that deliberative democracy does not emerge except within the framework of a democratic government that respects human rights.

Information and deliberation in the Covid-19 crisis and in the climate crisis: how expertocratic practices undermine self-government and compliance

At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, democracy’s promise to enable well-informed, responsible decisions gained almost unprecedented appeal. At this stage, many European governments mainly deferred to expert judgment. This is what some experts and activist groups occasionally call for in the case of an even more severe global crisis: the climate crisis. But where citizens are asked to more or less blindly follow the lead of expert judgments, politics takes what Lafont (Democracy without shortcuts: a participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198848189.001.0001, 2020) calls an ‘expertocratic shortcut’. In the first part of this paper, we delineate the perceptions of threat that characterize these two cases and that can lead to expertocratic temptations. We point out that shortcuts to democratic decisions not only constitute dead ends, but can also be used to reinforce existing power structures. In the second part, we show how and why such shortcuts are sociologically likely to cause alienation and reactance, as accountability is lost and the rationale for decisions cannot be retraced. We conclude that if a democratic system is to live up to its promise of rationality, legitimate expert involvement has to meet three requirements: political mandate and control, transparency of uncertainty and expert disagreement, linkage to inclusive and effective citizen deliberation.

Lies, Bullshit, or Propaganda?

Abstract The notion of ‘Post-truth Politics’ and of the ‘Post-Factual’ are notoriously blurry. In this article, I distinguish the concepts of lies, bullshit, and propaganda. I argue that the post-factual displays elements of all three concepts, so that it can be either understood to be in continuity with using lies and bullshit as means of political discourse; or to discontinue the basic commitments of democracy by attacking the epistemic foundations. In a second step, I argue that the common orientation towards the ideal of public reason cannot be abandoned at will, so that any Post-truth Politics is bound to fail in the end. I defend a concept of deliberative democracy which has a robust understanding of the rationality of democratic deliberation. At the same time, I argue against the assumption that the solution to ‘post-factualism’ is a return to a fictitious ‘Age of Facts’ since there are not facts without interpretation.

An Ethically Relevant Concept of Democracy

Abstract The meaning of democracy has traditionally been linked to the institutionalisation of public use of reason as jointly exercised by individuals who act in accordance with moral duty rather than one’s desires. For this reason, the meaning and value of democracy are always closely linked. Popular theories of democracy, however, have only treated democracy as instrumentally valuable – merely some disposable means towards achieving and solving problems of justice, freedom, equality, etc. This has called into question the usefulness of having democracy in the first place. My aim is to show that deliberation should be taken into account in ethical analyses of democracy. Thus, I demonstrate that the concept of deliberative democracy is ethically relevant – i.e., deserves moral consideration, enables us to treat democracy as inherently valuable (or something close to it), and subsequently preserves the value of democracy both in our political and moral theorising and in our ordinary dealings.

Democracy, Interpassivity, and the Cognitocratic Fallacy

Conceptions of deliberative democracy attach a particularly important role to the cognitive or epistemological competence of the agents of the political process. Such competence is viewed as a primary or even exclusive prerequisite qualifying one for the exercise of political power. The belief is amply illustrated by the contemporary debate between, on the one hand, the advocates of the broad participation of the people in democratic governance, and, on the other, the proponents of the deliberative ideal which presupposes that political power should be entrusted only to the people endowed with appropriate cognitive abilities. In my analysis of such cognitocratic conceptions, I stress the perils of the ascription of a prominent role to cognitive competence in the political process. In opposition to the cognitocratic approaches, both in their universalist and egalitarian, as well as elitist or meritocratic versions, I claim that they are marred by what I call the cognitocratic fallacy, and I argue that a more adequate understanding of governance in democratic systems should instead be based upon a political rather than epistemological capital. I also claim that the concept of political ability should be seen as potentially universal and that the potential may be activated through actual participation in democratic politics.

Deliberative democracy: modernization or crisis of democracy?

This article is devoted to the advantages and disadvantages of the model of advisory (deliberative) democracy. Its basic provisions are revealed, the contribution to its development of J. Besset, J. Habermas, J. Cohen, R. Dahl, J. Fishkin is characterized. It has been established that the model of advisory democracy offers tools for active participation of the population in the discussion of important political issues in the period between elections. When discussing problematic issues, the right to vote is given to all those who are influenced by the decisions of public authorities (the principle of equity participation). At the same time, the dialogue should be free, equal, reasoned and aimed at reaching consensus.
 The main problems of deliberative democracy are highlighted, including the difficulty of reaching a general consensus in a socially heterogeneous society, leveling important social differences in the process of compromise, unpreparedness of citizens for a rational dialogue, the presence of cultural barriers in implementing advisory procedures in non-Western countries. Forms and methods of informal participation of citizens in the discussion of political issues in the United States, as well as in Germany, Spain, Belgium, Iceland, Poland and other European countries are considered. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the use of advisory procedures in the world is characterized by a variety of deliberative tools and the breadth of its application: from solving problems of education and ecology, medicine and the local budget to the adoption of a new constitution.
 It is established that the concept of deliberative democracy takes into account both negative realities (alienation of political power from society, low level of public confidence in the political elite) and positive achievements of today (the idea of "good governance", information technology, ideological and legal pluralism). In view of this, it is concluded that the model of advisory democracy is a promising attempt to modernize democracy in the modern world, rethink the democratic principles of government, adapt the classical theory of democracy to modern needs and challenges.

Keeping the personality in the information societies

The purpose of the paper is to define how the sociopolitical thought of J. Habermas – his theory of communicative action and the concept of deliberative democracy – guarantees the protection and keeping of an independent human personality in modern information societies. In order to solve this problem, the author seeks to determine what is meant by a “personality”. Analyzing this issue, the author distinguishes two different understandings of a personality among J. Habermas’s works: philosophical-personalistic and public-sociological. When integrating these understandings, the author gives an original socio-philosophical definition of a personality, in which the personality retains both individualistic and social traits. It is especially emphasized that for the affirmation of the personality and his/her development, an equal, subject-subject dialogue with Others is necessary. The paper reveals that the development of personality, first of all, is interrelated with the maintenance of a cultural, normative and valuable “life-world”, which is violated by the mechanisms of systematic technocratic regulation in modern times, in a society. The principles of this regulation are justified in a system-functional approach. The advantages of J. Habermas’s approach, capable of ensuring the development of a genuine normative essence of personality, are determined

Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy

Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy

Government Effectiveness from a Citizen View: Linking Public Participation and Information Sources

Recently, evaluations of government effectiveness gained a lot of scholarly attention and developed into a major research area in public and performance management research. This study builds on the rather new approach away from analyzing mere macroeconomic government performance indicators towards addressing the issue on a rather perceptional, citizen-based level. By combining the concepts of deliberative democracy and open government with media and communication theories (media richness, media malaise and virtuous circle), we argue that different forms of (i) getting engaged in decision-making processes and (ii) receiving public information can determine individually perceived government performance. Subsequently, interaction terms are established in order to analyze (iii) whether political participation possibilities can be linked to the consultation of different sources of information and in turn play a decisive role in influencing government effectiveness. Using data from the World Value Survey, multilevel regression estimates delivered significant outcomes for both interaction and main effects indicating that individual information source usage and patterns of political participation depend on each other and consequently affect levels of perceived government effectiveness.