Model Of Deliberative Democracy Research Articles

A Deliberative Democracy Framework for Analysing Trust in Journalists: An Application to Italy

In the current public sphere, the “deliberative model of democracy” may represent both the necessary benchmark and the best lens through which to view developments in the public debate. Democracy can never become really deliberative without the active participation of news media. The assumption of this article is that if news media are to disseminate knowledge, trust in them is crucial. This article examines an aspect neglected by studies on media trust: trust in journalists. It presents the results of a longitudinal survey carried out in May and September 2020 in Italy, right at the end of the first mass Covid-19 lockdown (Wave 1) and after the first pandemic summer (Wave 2), therefore a time when there was a great need for quality information. The main findings reveal that the use of social media decreases trust in journalists; furthermore, those who mainly rely on political institutions’ social media accounts for information place less trust in journalists than those who mainly rely on journalistic sources on those platforms. Instead, the use of traditional media (radio, television, newspapers) increases trust in journalists.

Seeing the Whole Picture. Towards a Multi-perspective Approach to News Content Diversity based on Liberal and Deliberative Models of Democracy

ABSTRACT By providing diverse news content, news media are key for a well-functioning public sphere. However, agreement on how to measure news content diversity is lacking. Research often refers to democratic theory as normative reference point, but different models of democracy understand news content diversity differently. Our study makes a unique, innovative contribution to this field: (1) We develop a methodological framework for measuring news content diversity, that is a set of comprehensive measuring instruments that derive different operationalizations of topic and actor diversity each from liberal and deliberative democratic theories. (2) Considering that a good public discourse requires more than diversity, we analyze news content diversity in the context of four other journalistic standards: neutrality, rationality, discursivity, and civility. (3) We prove the applicability of our measuring instruments by means of a standardized content analysis of six German news media as a case study. The different quality profiles of these outlets our analysis reveals are explained by their different functions in the media system. Our study shows how important a multi-perspectival normative approach to news content diversity is, both empirically and theoretically. Future studies on news content diversity should make their normative foundations transparent and derive their indicators purposefully therefrom.

Deliberative Democracy, Epistemic Injustice, and Epistemic Disenfranchisement

In this paper, we explore some links between deliberative democracy, natural testimony, and epistemic injustice. We hope to highlight the exclusionary effects of some cases of testimony-related epistemic injustice within the deliberative democratic framework and, in particular, two subtle ways of epistemic injustice that are not often highlighted in the political domain. In other words, we hope to highlight two specific mechanisms of epistemic exclusion within the democratic deliberative process that are not explicitly noticed in the relevant literature. In section 1, we present the deliberative model of democracy and the deliberative process. We then introduce the notion of epistemic (dis)enfranchisement, which we distinguish from formal enfranchisement, and explain the role that natural testimony plays in establishing citizens‘ epistemic enfranchisement. In section 2, we introduce Fricker‘s notion of testimonial injustice and two further testimony-related forms of epistemic injustice which seem to have been largely neglected in the debate so far, namely, discursive injustice and testimonial void. We also point out negative epistemic consequences of positive identity-prejudicial stereotypes. In section 3, we argue that these testimony-related forms of epistemic injustice can lead to epistemic disenfranchisement, which, we note, is an obstacle to deliberative democracy that warrants serious consideration.

Перспективы развития делиберативной демократии в условиях цифровизации коммуникативных технологий

The article examines new opportunities and limitations for the development and implementation of the idea of deliberative democracy, which appear as a result of the large-scale spread of digital communication technologies in society. The evolutionary path of the deliberative model is analyzed, its relationship with various communicative theories and technologies is shown. The idea of deliber-ation is analyzed as an attempt to overcome the crisis of the representative model of democracy, manifested at different stages of the development of post-industrial society. The main emphasis is placed on the potential and possible social effect of synchronizing the deliberative model with the digital infrastructure in the context of the crisis of the modern liberal model of democracy, the result of which is the political passivity of citizens, the growth of distrust of democratic institutions and principles. Various approaches to assessing the role of digital platforms in the development and dissemination of democracy in the modern world are considered. As a result of the study, the factors determining the prospects for the integration of the deliberative model into the digital com-munication space are identified: overcoming theoretical differences between different models of deliberation; the quality of legislative regulation of the activities of digital platforms; functional features of digital platforms and the quality of software. The conclusions obtained allow us to form a theoretical basis for the approbation of deliberative procedures in the digital communication space, and can also serve as an orientation for expert assessments on electoral issues.The purpose of the study is to identify the conditions under which the digitalization of the political and communicative space can contribute to the development and implementation of mechanisms of deliberative democ-racy. The main objectives of the research are to study various concepts and models of deliberative democracy and compare them with modern digital reality. The results of the study were obtained using the methods of comparative, critical, systemic and structural-functional analysis, theoretical modeling and scenario method.

Threat or corrective to democracy? The relationship between populism and different models of democracy

AbstractThe phenomenon of populism and its relationship with modern democracy has gained considerable attention in recent years. This article aims at advancing our understanding of how populism affects different models of democracy and tests the proposed arguments empirically. Building on a large scholarly literature on populism and democracy, we take stock of existing arguments and theorize which democratic models may be affected by populism in a positive or negative way. Moreover, we move beyond the normative debate and analyse the effect of populism in power on different models of democracy empirically. We do so by merging data on populist governments in Europe and Latin America from 1995 until today with the Varieties of Democracy dataset, which enables us to capture the relationship between populism and different democratic models in these regions. Despite mixed‐theoretical expectations, our results suggest a rather negative impact of populism on the electoral, liberal and deliberative models of democracy.

Transformation of Markers of the Deliberative Democracy Theory in Modern Political Science

The article studies the features of the transformation of markers of the theory of deliberative democracy in modern political science. It has been established that a feature of this model of democracy is the possibility of its definition as a process and form of politics aimed at transforming the individual interests of political subjects by organizing a rational discussion and reaching consensus on the problems that determine the subject field of political decisions. It is substantiated that the initial model of the theory of deliberative democracy by J. Bessett is based on the concept of institutionalized order, norms of public opinion and consensus, which are the source of the organization of the process of deliberation in a democratic political process. As one of the effective ways of making political decisions, deliberative democracy in the concept of J. Bessette functionally relies on discussion and discourse that form a space for competition of opinions and beliefs and public opinion in the status of resource support for the political course. In J. Bessette’s model of deliberative democracy, the status of the subject of discussion and discourse is assigned to politicians and experts and did not provide for the acquisition of such a status by all citizens. It has been proved that modern versions of the theory of deliberative democracy, built around the idea of deliberation occurring with the participation of political institutions, civil society institutions and citizens, pay special attention to such markers as procedures, forms and results of deliberation. Meaning discussion, dialogue and discourse as forms of deliberation, delibe-rative democracy is modelled as a forum in which reasoning, ideas, opinions, preferences are transformed in the process of public discussion and approach rationality. According to the ideal model of deliberative democracy, political discussion (discourse, dialogue) should be oriented towards the development of a justified rational agreement on social norms. Only the result of a discussion in the form of consensus, reached in real actual political discourse, makes the social norm justified, substantiated and true. Achieving consensus in the deliberative model of democracy acts as a strategic skill based on intellectual and psychological techniques and technologies, the admissibility of which is derived from the procedures of the public political process and the virtues of political subjects. One such technique is the listening technique. It is substantiated that discussions about the relationship between deliberation and legitimacy, which is reflected in the procedural principles of democracy (interaction and publicity; accountability; collective mind), have become an important direction in the transformation of markers of deliberative democracy. Democratic practices of relying on a deliberative model of legitimacy should take into account the vulnerability of political behaviour (participation, activity) to quasi-deliberative forms of organizing discussion and the conditional possibility of attaining consensus on the common good. Its search, not its achievement, is a resource of democracy that maintains interest and ensures inclusion in public problems that can be solved by means of politics.

The Ideal Dimension of Law

The main theme of the article is ideal dimension of law. Author argue for a dual nature thesis – which contends that law necessarily comprises both a real or factual dimension and an ideal or critical dimension – and demonstrates how the ideal dimension (which refers primarily to moral correctness) implies the truth of non-positivism. The key provisions of the conception represented in article are substantiated in a polemic with other well-known representative of non-positivism – John Finnis.
 Particular attention is paid to determine relation between the real and ideal dimensions of law, which involves answering five questions. First, is there an outermost border of law? Second, is legal argumentation based exclusively on authoritative reasons or does it also include non-authoritative reasons? Third, what is the relation between human rights and legal systems? Forth, is democracy to be understood exclusively as a decision procedure or also as a form of discourse? Fifth, do legal system comprise only rules expressing a real “ought” or also principles expressing an “ideal ought”? These five questions are answered by the following five theses: the first with the Radbruch formula; he second with the special case thesis; the third with the thesis that constitutional rights are to be understood as attempts to positivize human rights; the fourth with the deliberative model of democracy; and the fifth with principles theory. All five theses turn on the same point: the claim to correctness.

Audience participation in public service media. From an instrumental to a purposeful vision

Audience participation has become a buzzword in Public Service Media policies, strategies and debates. Different types of audience involvement—for example, adding social media to programs or media co-creation projects with young people—have been linked to the achievement of societal objectives such as increasing the diversity of media content. Yet, audience participation has failed to live up to its promises in the practice of public broadcasters. This article addresses the challenges of the implementation of audience participation in a Public Service Media context, especially in the phase of content creation. We critically question the underlying assumption in Public Service Media scholarship and media theories that more audience participation is automatically better for the achievement of societal objectives. Insights from political theory on participatory and deliberative models of democracy are adopted to move from an instrumental to a more purposeful vision on audience participation in Public Service Media.

The possibility of democratic socialism in Habermas

In keeping with the radical openness of his theory of democracy, Habermas avoided pre-determining the ideal mode of economic organization for his favoured model of deliberative democracy. Instead of attempting a full-blown derivation, in this article, I propose adapting the Rawlsian method of comparing different political–economic regimes as candidate applications of his theory of justice to Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy. Although both theorists are seen as endorsing liberal democratic world views, from the perspective of political economy, the corollary of their conceptions of democracy would arguably veer elsewhere: in Rawls’s case, into the territory of property-owning democracy or democratic socialism, and in Habermas’s, into any political–economic regime which guarantees the real exercise of full political and discursive liberties against the background of legitimate lawmaking. The ultimate aim of this article is to discuss whether a concrete conception of democratic socialism, if any, is compatible with Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy.

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ФУНКЦІОНУВАННЯ ГРОМАДЯНСЬКОГО СУСПІЛЬСТВА В УМОВАХ ДЕЛІБЕРАТИВНОЇ ДЕМОКРАТІЇ

The purpose of the research: to clarify features of civil society as a sociopolitical phenomenon. Results: scientific principles of conceptual researches of civil society, deliberative democracy and their interdependence are analyzed and systematized, the essence of deliberative democracy in the processes of realization of the power potential of civil society is also covered. Conclusions: the functioning of civil society mechanisms in the deliberative democracy is an important dimension that exists as a system of an active political position of citizens and enables their direct participation in political life, as well as ensures full realization of citizens’ rights and freedoms. The power of civil society is systemic and is characterized by the formation of a relatively stable synergetic structure, according to which a constant exchange of structural elements is implied and includes: matter, information and energy with their «environment», i. e. the state. The model of deliberative democracy serves as a basis for the implementation of an effective system of strategic communications. Significance: highlighting the characteristics of civil society in deliberative democracy is a significant topic in the civil society study because now there is a need to deepen knowledge about the theoretical and practical foundations of its institutions in modern democracies and states of law.

An agent-based model of deliberative democracy and polarization

ABSTRACT In this paper, we examined the effect of deliberative democracy on the polarization of opinion. Through three case analyses, we find that deliberative democracy has two major components – provision of information and group discussion. Polarization of opinion can be explained by several theories: social identity theory, social comparison, and confirmation bias. We constructed a deliberative democracy model that reflected these mechanisms of polarization. We found that deliberative democracy actually decreased polarization of opinion when group discussion was a strong factor. Our study provides guidelines for an institutional design incorporating deliberative democracy, with emphasis on the composition of unbiased group discussions.

Disruptive or deliberative democracy? A review of Biesta’s critique of deliberative models of democracy and democratic education

ABSTRACT Gert Biesta criticises deliberative models of democracy and education for being based on an understanding of democracy as a ‘normal’ order, which involves certain ‘entry conditions’ for democratic participation. As an alternative, Biesta introduces the idea of democracy as ‘disruption’ and the associated subjectification conception of education both of which he draws from the work of Jacques Rancière. This paper challenges Biesta’s critique of deliberative democracy by demonstrating that the ‘entry conditions’ for deliberation serve an important normative function. It is also suggested that Biesta’s critique dismisses some important dimensions of the deliberative model. The paper further contests Biesta’s conceptions of democracy and education by arguing, first, that his position involves certain contradictions that are problematic especially from a normative perspective. Second, the paper argues that Biesta’s conceptions of democracy and education might result in dismissing crucially important questions concerning the long-term evaluation and improvement of democratic and educational institutions.

An Agent-Based Model of Deliberative Democracy and Polarization

In this paper, we examined the effect of deliberative democracy on polarization of opinion. Through three cases analyses, we find that deliberative democracy has two major components – provision of information and group discussion. Polarization of opinion can be explained by several theories: social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978), social comparison (Isenberg, 1986), and confirmation bias (Kahneman, 2012). We constructed a deliberative democracy model that reflected these mechanisms of polarization. We found that deliberative democracy actually decreased polarization of opinion when group discussion was a strong factor. Our study provides guidelines for institutional design incorporating deliberative democracy, with emphasis on composition of unbiased group discussions.

Lýðræðisleg gildi, samræða og hlutverk menntunar

Ákvæði grunnskólalaga um að búa eigi nemendur undir þátttöku í lýðræðisþjóðfélagi er hér skoðað í ljósi hugmynda Sigrúnar Aðalbjarnardóttur. Skólastarf í anda þessa ákvæðis veltur óhjákvæmilega á því hvaða skilningur er lagður í lýðræði, hvað það þýði að búa og starfa í lýðræðisþjóðfélagi. Kynnt eru til sögunnar þrjú lýðræðisviðhorf sem fela í sér ólíka sýn á borgarana og mismunandi hugmyndir um borgaravitund nemenda sem búa skal undir þátttöku í lýðræðissamfélagi. Því er haldið fram að í menntunarkenningu og menntunarstarfi Sigrúnar sé samræðuhæfni lykilhugtak sem felist einkum í því að fást farsællega við félagslegan ágreining og mynda samstöðu um sameiginleg gildi. Samkvæmt Sigrúnu beinist samræðan síður að því að meta vægi raka og réttmæti gilda, en það krefst ræktunar gagnrýninnar hugsunar og rökræðufærni. Færð eru rök fyrir því að bæði samstaða um lýðræðisleg gildi og gagnrýnin rökræða sé nauðsynleg til að takast á við þær áskoranir sem lýðræðissamfélagið stendur nú frammi fyrir.

The Idea of Freedom in Radical and Delibe-rative Models of Democracy

Basing on the idea of freedom brought by I. Berlin we can derive to classical models of democracy: liberal and republican. Refl ection on postmodern theories of democracy – radi-cally plural and deliberative – points that they do not strongly differ from the traditional ones, but rather give them new challenges. Radical democracy of Ch. Mouffe and E. Laclau praising pluralism and negative freedom is a deconstruction of a liberal model, while delib-erative project of J. Habermas, praising community and negative freedom, remains in a republican tradition. In the end of the article the author also presents the understanding of the educative role of society and tradition in both classical and postmodern models of democracy.

Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference

ABSTRACT The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.

Minority Claims in Multicultural Societies: A comparative study of case law

The whole essay consists of eight sections: 1) What is the best way for democracy to deal with multicultural clashes? Firstly, I explore Awad’s adaptation of Habermas’ model of deliberative democracy to the multicultural question. Then, I will try to reject this kind of model, as it is presented by Awad. 2) Two egalitarian theses about justice in immigration will be showed: a) restrictions on immigration should be compensated by development aid; b) such material compensations would further equality of opportunity at a global level. 3) I explain some difficulties in the task of defining minorities the solution to which seems to require an appeal to the liberal value of equal respect, rather than a mere request for recognition of differences. 4) After answering to these questions: “Is religion a public or a private matter? What role can religion play when it comes to the emergence of a European solidarity?”, I will argue that the “Islam problem” could be an indicator of the disparity between liberal and illiberal strands of neo-European secularism. 5) As in 2009 the Swiss voted to ban all future construction of Islamic minarets in their country, this section looks closely at all the issues raised by the minarets ban, inside and outside the E.U. 6) Subsequently, I will analyse what values are at stake in the issues of religious accommodation, and what principles can the main parties – as well the citizens – involved employ in attempting to resolve them. 7) The final section challenges how the role of emotions could lead to suboptimal political outcomes for the parties involved. To a large extent emotions have been instrumental in determining outcomes in the recent and on-going struggle between Greece and Germany as regards to the terms of the Greek bailout. 8) In a brief excursus I reconstruct the relationship between “biopolitics” and liberalism: the aim is to propose the singular analogies with the ideas of “governance” and “Rule of Law” in the liberal tradition, casting a new light on the interpretation offered by Michel Foucault.

СОВЕЩАТЕЛЬНАЯ ДЕМОКРАТИЯ КАК ОСНОВА ДЛЯ РАЗВИТИЯ ГРАЖДАНСКОГО ОБЩЕСТВА

The article is devoted to the benefits of the public discussion, which form the basis of the model of deliberative democracy. Institutions operating within this type of political system can also be effectively used for the development of civil society.

Norms and Practice of Public Sphere Deliberations in the Philippines: A Case Study of Naga City’s Public Market Reform

Abstract This paper analyzes how the local public market enterprise in the Philippines was reformed through public deliberations and benchmarked with Habermas’ model of deliberative democracy. The findings reveal that the normative model and the public market reform experience of Naga City fit well – although the model should be complemented by empirical observations such as leadership and facilitators to support the periphery and iterative procedures for a functioning deliberative democracy. In addition, the study shows that considerations of the public sphere deliberations and procedural minima led to sustainable results and civic renewal, consistent with the long-term governance approach of Naga City. Case study research design and discourse analyses were adopted. Review of transcripts, face-to-face interviews with key stakeholders, and use of secondary data were utilized in reconstructing the reform process.

Интернет-дискуссия как форма электронного участия: российская специфика

Авторский подход, изложенный в статье, предлагает теоретически и технологически обоснованные способы дискурс-анализа повседневных дискуссий граждан в интернете для понимания степени их делиберативности и увязки результатов дискуссий с существующим политическим процессом. В качестве теоретической основы используется теория коммуникативной этики Юргена Хабермаса в рамках его модели делиберативной демократии, т.е. демократии, основанной на нормативной и морально-этической необходимости обсуждения различных точек зрения в публичном пространстве современного общества для их последующего сближения. Для тестирования предлагаемого авторами методологического подхода использовались интернет-дискуссии по вопросам уничтожения антисанкционных продуктов и повышения пенсионного возраста в России. Был проведен дискурс-анализ более пяти тысяч постов, сделанных участниками дискуссии на интернет-форумах в разных российских городах. Кодировался ряд важных параметров интернет-дискуссий с точки зрения их делиберативности. Согласно результатам исследования, анализ текущих интернет-дискуссий как делиберативных практик дает возможность выявить важные нюансы, касающиеся интерпретации значимых событий, которые трудно получить с помощью традиционных социологических методик исследования общественных настроений или с применением таких автоматизированных методов исследования, как анализ тональности высказываний вне прямой связи с их морально-этическим обоснованием. Эмпирические данные, полученные в результате дискурс-анализа, послужили основой для проведения эксперимента по использованию алгоритмов глубинного машинного обучения реккурентной нейросети, с тем чтобы обучить ее предсказывать позиции участников дискуссий на основании их высказываний. Эксперимент выявил возможности, условия и ограничения применения технологий искусственного интеллекта для более глубокого понимания результатов общественных дискуссий.
 Благодарность. Работа выполнена при поддержке РНФ, проект №18-18-00360 «Электронное участие как фактор динамики политического процесса и процесса принятия государственных решений». Авторы благодарят студентов Даниила Волковского (СПбГУ) и Петра Бегена (Университет ИТМО) за участие в эмпирических исследованиях, которые представлены в данной статье.