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