Deliberative Model Research Articles

Collaboration Matters: Honey Bee Health as a Transdisciplinary Model for Understanding Real-World Complexity.

We develop a transdisciplinary deliberative model that moves beyond traditional scientific collaborations to include nonscientists in designing complexity-oriented research. We use the case of declining honey bee health as an exemplar of complex real-world problems requiring cross-disciplinary intervention. Honey bees are important pollinators of the fruits and vegetables we eat. In recent years, these insects have been dying at alarming rates. To prompt the reorientation of research toward the complex reality in which bees face multiple challenges, we came together as a group, including beekeepers, farmers, and scientists. Over a 2-year period, we deliberated about how to study the problem of honey bee deaths and conducted field experiments with bee colonies. We show trust and authority to be crucial factors shaping such collaborative research, and we offer a model for structuring collaboration that brings scientists and nonscientists together with the key objects and places of their shared concerns across time.

Bringing Democratic Theory into Didactical Practice. Concepts of Education for Democracy Among Norwegian Pre-service Teachers

Democracy is highlighted in the Norwegian school system. This article investigates how pre-service teachers in social studies understand the more theoretical concept of democracy, and in what ways they intend to operationalize it with future pupils. Three ideal types are used to locate perspectives in the data: pure liberalist, majority rule and deliberative models of democracy. The findings indicate that perceptions of democracy in the sample are most commonly associated with core aspects of liberal democracy through a general focus on elections and voting, majority rule and individual civil liberties. A striking finding is the highly apparent internalization of participation as a norm and ideal in itself. However, ideas of contents and didactical implications of participation varies among respondents. As many also display a seemingly restricted interpretation of the political sphere, this might imply a thin understanding of democratic participation. The article further points out that translating concepts from political science into pedagogical notions is not a straightforward endeavor.

Shared decision making: a need for honesty?

In this analysis we challenge the conceptual honesty of ‘shared decision making’, arguing that, although it is held up as an ideal decision-making standard, it is used too often to describe (and justify) decision-making practices that are not shared at all. This is problematic because, if the legitimacy of a decision relies on it being ‘shared’, but it is not in fact shared, the decision loses legitimacy, or is falsely legitimised by the appearance of being shared. We argue that the realities of clinical practice mean that genuinely shared decision making is not completely impossible but difficult to achieve in a sincere and just manner. We articulate an intentionally controversial stance, with the aim of generating thought and debate. Shared decision making has been offered as a way of better respecting patient autonomy, leading to management plans or actions that are in tune with patient values and therefore improving concordance. It provides a platform for respecting autonomy while avoiding abandoning patients to their autonomy, by giving them information without assistance in interpretation; this allows them to arrive at informed decisions that are in accord with their beliefs, values, and preferences. This ideal accords with the deliberative model of the clinician/patient relationship put forward by Emmanuel and Emmanuel being morally preferable to a paternalistic or informative/commercial relationship.1 In arguing that shared decision making is the pinnacle of patient-centred care, Barry and Edgman-Levitan describe it in the following terms: ‘… the clinician offers options and describes their risks and benefits, and the patient expresses his or her preferences and values. Each participant …

Os orçamentos participativos na imprensa regional: um estudo de caso

Information and communication are essential for the democratic process, regardless of the model of democracy. However, in the deliberative model, the sharing and listening of different points of view acquires a central role for debate and decision-making. In this sense, the set of experiences called Participatory Budgeting ( PB ) which establish with the participation of citizens, co-decision mechanisms to determine the destination of a percentage of the public budget, can constitute an interesting field of analysis to study the importance of access to information for deliberation. On the other hand, despite the growing assertion of new media, as digital media, traditional media such as newspapers, radio and television continue to play a key role in shaping citizens’ image of the world. Thus, considering the local nature of the PB , we intend to study the news in the local press, based on a case study of a municipal deliberative PB . The selected object of study is the information about participatory budget published in local and regional newspapers, based on the case study of Odemira’s PB, one of the oldest of this kind of experience in Portugal. In this first step of the research, a con-tent analysis of the articles published in these media was carried out, with a quantitative approach to the number of news sto- ries published and their characteristics (publication periods, distribution by titles, themes or sources). The goal of this investigation was to verify the volume and conditions of the published information as well as the topics addressed, and the sources cited, to understand the framework of the PB in the local press. This analysis of the articles of six local and regional newspapers in the Alentejo region over a period of six years, corresponding to the lifetime of Odemira’s PB, reveals these publications’ fragility to function as effective public spheres, demonstrating the scarce presence of civil society as a source. A work that should be extended with a deeper analysis of the news discourse.

The Intuitive-Override Model: Nudging Judges Toward Pretrial Risk Assessment Instruments

The development, implementation, and use of risk assessments are some of the most important and controversial issues facing criminal justice systems today. The recent push for judges to use risk assessments in their pretrial release decision making has met with resistance on several fronts, including from judges themselves. We conducted in-depth interviews with judges in a diverse set of courts that were using the Public Safety Assessment (PSA), a risk assessment developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. Interview questions aimed to gain insight into how judges define and assess risk, as well as how they perceive the potential for bias and disparate impacts for communities of color in the use of risk assessments. In this manuscript, we frame our analysis with Guthrie and colleagues’ intuitive-override model and suggest that risk assessment instruments can help judges engage both intuitive and deliberative models of decision making. Our findings indicate that judges perceive a tension when reconciling the actuarial aspect of the PSA and their experience-based inclination to learn about defendants’ lives as a way of assessing risk through determinations of culpability and blameworthiness. We conclude by discussing the PSA through a review of legal scholarship that challenges risk assessments on ethical and moral grounds, and recommend the creation of researcher-judge feedback loops along with increased transparency of model development as key features to improve the accuracy, adoption, and understanding of risk assessments.

Deliberative Democracy and Constitutionalism: The Limits of Rationality Review

Recent political evaluation of rights-based constitutional review of legislation and governmental policy in South Africa suggests that our most fundamental political ideal – constitutional democracy – is internally conflicted. Democracy and constitutionalism are perceived by some to serve opposing interests. Those who think differently must demonstrate the internal coherence of constitutional democracy on two levels. The first concerns the institutional design of constitutional review, that is, the procedures, powers and composition of the designated body for exercising this function. The second concerns the extent to which the substantive normative standards employed in the course of constitutional review are necessary to facilitate democratic accountability. The article addresses the latter aspect. A deliberative understanding of democracy provides a fruitful vantage point from which to evaluate the democratic function of standards of constitutional review. The deliberative model grounds democracy in the duty of public justification through discursive engagement. Seen from this perspective, democratically informed standards of constitutional review must comply with two basic conditions, namely maximising deliberative equality and participation, and compelling justificatory accounts for collectively binding decisions in terms of a constitutionally entrenched, integrative value system. Of all the standards employed by the courts for the purpose of constitutional review (such as rationality, reasonableness, fairness, proportionality), a deferential rationality standard is most problematic in this respect. It can lead to a narrow instrumentalist perspective for the evaluation of governmental objectives, which is incapable of facilitating substantive forms of democratic control that could meaningfully enrich the deliberative basis of democratic decision making.

Prediction in ecology: promises, obstacles and clarifications

In the current context of global change and a biodiversity crisis, there are increasing demands for greater predictive power in ecology, in both the scientific literature and at the science–policy interface. The implicit assumption is that this will increase knowledge and, in turn, lead to better decision‐making. However, the justification for this assumption remains uncertain, not least because the definition of ‘prediction’ is unclear. We propose that two types of prediction should be distinguished: corroboratory‐prediction is linked to the validation of theories; and anticipatory‐prediction is linked to the description of possible futures. We then discuss four families of obstacles to prediction, linked to the specific features of ecosystems: 1) they are historical entities, 2) they are complex, 3) their dynamics are stochastic, and 4) they are influenced by socio‐economic drivers. A naïve understanding of ecological science suggests that the two types of predictions are simply two phases in a sequence in which scientists first improve their knowledge of ecological systems via corroboratory‐predictions, and then apply this knowledge in order to forecast future states of ecosystems via anticipatory‐predictions in order to help policy makers taking decisions. This sequence is however not straightforward, partly because corroboration and anticipation are not affected by the obstacles to prediction in the same way. We thus invite to reconsider the role of ecological prediction as a tool in a deliberative model of decision‐making rather than as external scientific information aimed at enlightening the political process. Doing so would be beneficial for both the policy‐relevance of anticipatory‐prediction and the theoretical‐relevance of corroboratory‐prediction.

Viewpoint: Do any of us truly have the capacity to consent?

Life was simpler in the old days. A patient would turn up to their doctor seeking to find out what was wrong with them. The doctor, a professional with several years of study and immeasurable experience, would consider the symptoms. The doctor would hopefully examine the patient and, based on all of this, consider a differential diagnosis. ‘This is your diagnosis’ , they would confidently say. Then either ‘take these pills’ or ‘have this test’ . There was no room for negotiation, no informative or deliberative models of consultation, and no shared decision making. Autonomy was a phrase that would only have been used in relation to cars. Nowadays, from the novice medical student, to the nascent doctor stalking the wards, to the …

PATIENT RIGHTS - ARE HIS RIGHTS REALLY RECOGNIZED?

Patient rights are a movement which originated in the Human Rights Declaration from December 1948. Patients' rights vary in different countries and in different jurisdictions, often depending upon prevailing cultural and social norms. Different models of the patient-physician relationship - which can also represent the citizen-state relationship - have been developed, and these have informed the particular rights to which patients are entitled. In North America and Europe, for instance, there are at least four models which depict this relationship: the paternalistic model, the informative model, the interpretive model, and the deliberative model . The physician's role is important in guiding treatment and hence in the implementation of economic health principles. The pioneering initiative of Cittadinanzattiva’s Tribunal for Patients’ Rights, active in Italy since 1980, can be considered the first building block of this project. The Tribunal for Patients’ Rights mobilizes common citizens and users as actors of health policymaking in concrete ways and presently involves some 5,000 people as permanent activists nationwide. Keywords: patient rights, health care financing, patient rights tribunal Normal 0 21 false false false RO X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:Table Normal; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:Calibri,sans-serif; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Times New Roman; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

It’s not cricket: examining political discussion in nonpolitical online space

ABSTRACTScholars of digital democracy share enthusiasm about the potential the Internet provides for democratic communication among citizens. Many applaud the prospect of an expanded, digital, public sphere; others are more cautious about whether the Internet may foster deliberative democracy. We attempt to provide a third alternative view by (1) focusing on everyday political talk in nonpolitical online forums and (2) expanding research beyond a singular deliberative model to attend to multiple frameworks for democratic discussion online. In this paper, we examine online political discussion of six globally prominent political issues in two transnational cricket forums. Our findings suggest that deliberative discussion coexists with liberal individualist and communitarian forms of communication in online sports forums. We discuss the implications of our findings for the future of mediated political discussion research.

Parliamentarizing the Estate Diet

This article examines the transformation of estate assemblies into parliaments by analysing the case of the late 19th-century Diet of Finland. Furthermore, it positions the procedural discussions of the peripheral Finnish Diet within a wider European debate on parliaments and parliamentarism. While parliamentary government and the dissolution of Europe’s last four-estate representation were largely out of the question in the Finnish Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire, revisions and innovations on Diet rules and practices formed an essential means to introduce elements of modern parliaments within the obsolete estate system. By analysing Finnish Diet and press discussions, the article re-examines the significance and reception of the Swedish Riksdag institution of plenum plenorum, the joint discussion of all four estates, in Finland. The article highlights a struggle between two concepts of deliberation. A liberal group organized around the newspaper Helsingfors Dagblad used plenum plenorum to challenge their Fennoman opponents’ consensual idea of deliberation and the Diet’s deliberative model, which was based on committee negotiation. The Dagbladists advocated plenum plenorum in order to transform the estates into a single debating parliamentary assembly.

Debating Europe, transforming identities: assessing the impact of deliberative poll treatment on identity

Although there is a considerable amount of talk about transformative power of deliberation on identity, the debate in literature remains highly theoretical in underlying the benefits of deliberative model for EU Integration. So far, little empirical evidence is available on the actual impact of deliberation.Can deliberation enhance European identity?We specifically address this question by using deliberative polling quasi-experiment that involved random sample of 348 European citizens in 2 days deliberationon issuesof Europeanconcern.The comparison of citizens’ sense of belonging to both EU and nation states before and after deliberation, allowed us to explore the effects of deliberation on identity and further test it against the control group. The analyses show that when European citizens are enabled to deliberate on European issues beyond national borders their exclusive national identity decreases and they become more community minded. The observed transformation of identities is further analyzed in order to explore the relationship between European and national identity. The analyses indicate that even after deliberative treatment in which European identity has been activated the relationship between multiple identities remains compatible.

10-year experience of expert patient programme Catalonia. Impact and results

The experience of these 10 years of the Expert Patient Programme Catalonia (EPPC) has led us to being able to affirm that one of the key elements in the Integrated Care model, with a vision of future, it is the Person Centred Care. This element represents the walk to a paternalistic model of a deliberative model where the shared decision making among all the implicated agents, persons, families, caregivers and professionals it will be principal. It makes 10 years, in 2006, the Expert Patient Programme was born within the framework of a project of chronic pathologies management, in order to implicate the person in its welfare process. Objectives : - Share responsability to the person in the promotion of the selfcare - Improving the outcomes in healht of the person - Utilization of the healthcares in a more suitable way - Improving the quality of life and the personal satisfaction of the subjects Object population : Initially, the EPPC went adressed to persons with more prevailing chronic diseases at level of our population (Heart failure, COPD, diabetis type 2 ...). In the present, it has been extended with the vision of the person centred care, in other processes in the area of health promotion and prevention ( smoking cessation, obesity, caregivers...). Involved interested main ones : The EPPC promotes the active participation of all the implicated agents in its implementation as a nail factor of success (patients, expert patients, proffessional welfare patients, associations, families, community, local agents and managing) Outcomes and impact : RESULTS 2006 - June 2015 1st half Number of patients participating: 5206, Expert from which 340 have been Patients who have led in group. Coverage: 236 Primary Health Teams in Catalonia and 5 Hospital Joined within Catalonia and with the involvement of various Healthcare providers of the Catalan Health System. Diseases: Chronic Heart Failure, COPD, Diabetes Mellitus Oral type 2, Fibromyalgia, Anticoagulant Therapy, Breaking the tobacco habit, Anxiety, Chagas disease in its chronic stage,Breast Cancer Survivors, Depression and Obesity. Number of groups: 506. Professional Number of healthcare participating: Total number ace observers 902: 614 nurses, 234 family doctors and 54 social workers Impact : Improvement self-care Health problem / N / Start / Final/ 6months follow up / 12 months follow up - Heart failure / 338 / 25,65 (24,72-26,59) / 20,99 (20,14-21,84) / 21,85 (21,06-22,64) / 21,27(20,48-22,06) - COPD / 418/ 20,72 (19,91-21,52 )/ 17,02 (16,35-17,68)/ 17,04 (16,43-17,66)/ 16,96 (16,28-17,64) - Diabetis type 2_diet /4,62 /4,99 4,93 /4,84 - Diabetis type 2_exercice /4,41 /4,95/ 4,78/ 4,64 - Diabetis type 2blood glucose / 2,31 / 2,47 / 2,42 / 2,42 - Diabetis type 2-foot care / 3,01 / 4,07 / 4,12 / 4,14 Improvement health results Diabetis type 2 (N= 172 ) Start 6months follow up 12 months follow up HbA1c 7,35 7 7,05 CT 182,58 - 181,85 HDL 46,46 - 47,38 LDL 106,61 - 109,87 Reduce use of services 1 year before intervention (%) Health problem / N / Primary Care Team visits / Emergency visits /Hospital admissions - Heart failure / 338 / 39,18 / 43,75/ 50 - COPD / 418 / 26,09 / 14,29 / 14,29 Improvement Quality of life (X, CI95%, sd) Health problem / N / Start / Final / 6months follow up /12 months follow up - Heart failure / 338 / 30,6 (28,04-33,16 / 27,61 (25,21-30,01) / 27,18 (24,86-29,51) / 27,33 (25-29,65) - COPD / 418 / 4,93 (2,32) / 4,28 (1,57) / 4,13 (2,01) /4,24 (2,02) - Diabetis type 2 / 172 / 76,48 (73,95-79,01) / 76,38 (73,68-79,08) / 73,98 (71,27-76,68) / 71,90 (69,33-74,48) Satisfaction (X, sd) Health problem N Final ( x¯) Score (0-5 points) Heart failure 338 4,66 (0,60) COPD 418 4,62 (0,58) Diabetis type 2 172 4,68 (0,52) These 10 years of implementation of the Expert Patient Programme Catalonia has demonstrated us that this initiative favors the persons implication in tis welfare process, promotes the advance in strategies of person centred care on the part of organizations, favors the good use in the healtcare of utilization. The EPPC is recognized like some community assets and the person who exercises the paper of expert patient transforms into an agent of health. Conclusions : Given the outcomes obtained along these years in 2011, EPPC was recognized like one of the 32 strategic projects of the Health Plan 2011-2015 of the governmentof Catalonia and the year 2013 like one of the best practice at European level.

Beyond Empathy: Strategies and Ideals of Democratic Deliberation

This paper problematizes empathy-centered approaches to deliberation, challenging the feasibility of such approaches as well as the suitability of empathy as a central goal or ideal in models of democratic deliberation. With the deliberative turn in democratic theory came a new emphasis on empathy. Empathy on the part of citizens – the ability to engage in perspective taking and to feel empathic concern for others – is often cited as crucial for the success and improvement of democratic discourse. I first identify several limits to achieving empathy in practice. I then show that even when achieved, empathy does not sustain deliberative practices. In place of empathy, I propose a “difference approach” to improving democratic deliberation. I argue that differences rather than commonalities are a more democratic resource for helping citizens cultivate greater openness and better listening practices. The difference approach better reflects the ideals of the deliberative model of democracy.

THE CONCEPT OF «THE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY – COMMON RESOURCE SYSTEM» AS «MIDDLE WAY» FOR UKRAINE

The article is a continuation of previous works devoted to clarifying issues which are related to the methodology of property research, the development of theoretical and methodological basis for practical implementation of transformation of the system of property under the modern conditions of Ukrainian economy’s change. The processes of creating social-oriented market economy and increasing informatization of management should be determined by internal logic of the system of property. The author considers the formation of algorithms of property system reform based on scientifically grounded socio-economic concept to be the key problem. Explaining the concept of "the system of property – common resource system," the author demonstrates its fundamental theoretical basis – methodological institutionalism. Also the author gives practical examples of its display in the works by famous scientists and in real functioning of alternative social systems. Under the conditions of transformation crisis in Ukraine and the urgent need for large-scale reforms in all spheres of public life, to ensure the stability of social system and progressive movement in the direction of development the concept of "SP - CRS", which is society consolidating idea, can be offered. Laying this concept as a basis for reformation of social system, one can obtain a tool for intensive formation of self-management, which implements deliberative model of the democracy and management and brings the society closer to noosphere stage.

BETWEEN CONSENSUS AND DISSENSUS: INSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE BEYOND THE DICHOTOMY DELIBERATION VS. AGONISM

Currently, the tension between constitutionalism and democracy has been directed to critiques related to supremacy of judicial review. These approaches indicate that the democratic fragility of Constitutional Courts in comparison to Parliaments requires more popular participation in issues involving Constitutional content and, therefore, constitutional interpretation must be opened to institutional dialogue instead of judicial monopoly. However, for this dialogue to happen it is necessary the possibility of dissensus externalization. In the contemporary democratic theory, two main traditions analyze the role of consensus and dissensus. Habermasian deliberative theory evidences rational consensus between subjects through a communicative action. Nevertheless, the overvaluation of consensus is considered an obstacle to the emergence of institutional mechanisms of dissensus. Conversely, Chantal Mouffe’s agonism seeks to reinforce the constitutive role of dissensus in societies. However, her approach is limited to the presentation of an agonistic principle without answering the issues related to the creation of institutional spaces. In the face of these irreconcilable approaches, this paper argues the possibility of a establishment of democratic decisions, which involves institutional dialogue, such as the proposals of the critics of judicial review, in a panorama which consensus and dissensus are in opposite sides. It demonstrates that a rereading of habermasian model of the Democratic State of Law and the presentation of normative proposals to the agonistic approach put consensus and dissensus beyond a dichotomist and confrontational dispute perspective as they are commonly treated. In this sense, it presents arguments showing that an adequate interpretation of Habermas' thought includes consensus in procedures and dissensus in content. On the other hand, it exposes that aversive conception of democracy goes beyond the deliberative model deconstruction presented by Mouffe and connects poststructuralist ontology with the creation of discussion’s spaces. In conclusion, these reformulations and advances inside deliberative and agonistic theories indicate that the role of consensus and dissensus in contemporary societies cannot be reduced to the dispute of the prevalence of one over the other. Beyond this dichotomy, it is necessary to put these two essentials elements in both traditions in order to promote the dialogue between institutions to overcome the dispute among powers, under which they were constructed, and exert their democratic function.

13 Communicative Power and the Public Sphere

Abstract A deliberative model of politics has recently been criticized for not being very well equipped to conceptualize public spheres in world society. A first critique is that this model assumes a conception of public spheres that is too idealistic, because it presupposes counterfactual conditions of communication in public discourse that do not meet empirical real word conditions. Secondly, it assumes an antiquated notion of a shared “we” of political actors. Because of this it does not take into consideration the “digital turn” and the ego-centering and depersonalizing effects of social media like Facebook, twitter, and blogs, which have led to a rapid decline of the public sphere. And a third critique states that the deliberative model ignores the fact that politics, and especially protests and revolutions, are not seminar-like debates but spontaneous, chaotic and sometimes violent expressions. So it is not just unreceptive for the “digital space” but also for gathering and protesting in real public places surrounded by military troops. I will argue that all of these critiques fall short. A deliberative model of politics allows us to address the tension between the ideal and the real, the “old media” and the so-called digitalization of public spheres as well as peaceful discourse and violent uprisings. Especially the concept of communicative power, a notion also used by Hannah Arendt, reveals the potential for future participation in digital spaces and public places.

A single-case study of carer agency

This paper highlights the role of single case methods in focussing on the learning needs of a marginalised group. It analyses the role of carer agency to help healthcare professionals view key incidents as inclusive learning opportunities for professionals, patients and carers. Through circumstance, one of the authors found himself to be in the position of primary carer for his elderly father whilst sumultaneously engaged professionally in dialogue about clinical pedagogy. The paper presents a pst hoc research design, using participant observational data of a single-case study, triangulated with reference to professional practice and current research literature. The primary data source for this paper is the carer's autoethnographic narrative that was constructed during, and then reflecting back on a period of extended participant observation. The importance of carer agency in sustaining patient care is discussed as a factor in shared decision-making, facilitating a deliberative model of physician-patient relationships. The paper showcases the high degree of resonance with the research literaure that can be generated from a single case study, whose teaching value goes beyond its clinical generalizeability.

Криза «мозаїчного» мультикультуралізму та деліберативна модель демократії

У статті проаналізовано основні проблеми сучасного полікультурного суспільства, а також виявлено негативні сторони політико-філософської парадигми мультикультуралізму, що ведуть до кризи в поліетнічному соціумі. Продемонстровані недоліки «мозаїчного» мультикультуралізму на прикладах концепцій Ч. Тейлора та У. Кімлики. Виявлені основні помилки мультикультуралістів щодо інтерпретації культури, яка представляється стабільною цілісністю. і в розумінні суспільства, що розглядається як конгломерат монолітних одиниць. Проаналізовані негативні наслідки такого підходу: соціальна фрагментація та підміна особистої самоідентифікації груповою приналежністю. З опорою на теорію С. Бенхабіб розкривається комунікативна природа культури, що розуміється як сукупність наративів з проникними межами. Обґрунтовано необхідність дотримання принципів деліберативної демократії, що має сприяти вищому ступеню інтерсуб’єктивності процесів взаєморозуміння та спонтанної самоорганізації в суспільстві. Проаналізовано концепцію Ю. Габермаса, яка розглядає деліберативну теорію демократії як синтез важливих елементів республіканської та ліберальної моделей, крайнощі яких можуть бути згладжені в рамках деліберативної теорії. Представлено обгрунтування деліберативної концепції демократії, як найбільш відповідної моделі умовам багатошарового плюралізму.

Digital spaces, public places and communicative power

The deliberative model of politics has recently been criticized for not being very well equipped to conceptualize current developments such as the misinterpretation of political difference, the digital turn, and public protests. A first critique is that this model assumes a conception of public spheres that is too idealistic. A second objection is that it misconceives the relationship between empirical reality and normativity. Third, it is assumed that deliberative democracy offers an antiquated notion of a shared ‘we’ of political actors and because of this, fourth, fails to take into consideration the ‘digital turn’, in particular the de-personalizing effects of social media that have led to a rapid decline of the public sphere. And a fifth critique states that the deliberative model ignores the fact that politics is not, and especially protests and revolutions are not, seminar-like debates but spontaneous, chaotic and sometimes violent expressions. I will argue that all of these critiques fall short in a variety of ways. A deliberative model of politics allows us to address the tension between the ideal and the real, the ‘old media’ and the so-called digitalization of public spheres as well as peaceful discourse and violent uprisings. Especially the concept of communicative power, a notion also used by Hannah Arendt and Jürgen Habermas, reveals the potentials for future participation in digital spaces and public places.