Deliberative Democratic Theory Research Articles

The Forum, the System, and the Polity: Three Varieties of Democratic Theory

The theory of deliberative democracy is here furthered in terms of three images that locate its essence in respectively a single forum, a deliberative system, and an encompassing polity featuring particular integrative norms. The first two are ubiquitous, though contested, the third is stated here. Deliberative theorists need to contemplate how practices that make sense in each image connect to the other two. Forums only make sense when linked in a system that can synthesize very different deliberative virtues (notably, justification, reflection, and inclusion). Any system’s democratic qualities can only be evaluated in terms of the polity. While judgment in terms of the conditions of normative integration in the polity is therefore primary, particular forums can promote deliberative authenticity in a system, and systems enable inclusive application of deliberative ideals. Deployed in this way, the three images help solve internal disputes and respond to critics.

‘We haven’t even buried the dead yet’: Ethics of discursive contestation in a crisis situation

Disasters are often described as exceptional moments that demand global solidarity. A ‘state of humanitarian exception’ emerges as citizens foreground norms of compassion and cooperation while contestatory discourse – the argumentative, blame-seeking and fault-finding forms of speech – are stigmatized as inappropriate interventions in a society seeking to recover from a distressful crisis situation. This article critically unpacks these representations of post-disaster situations empirically and normatively. By analysing the discussions in the public sphere over the first 100 days after Typhoon Haiyan battered Central Philippines, the article examines the moral force behind the ‘discourse of compassion’ and its ‘ethical boundary work’ that places the ‘discourse of contestation’ outside the scope of acceptable conduct. It proposes that the discourse of compassion’s ethical boundary work is only democratically acceptable when one takes a short view of a crisis situation. Drawing on deliberative democracy theory, the article argues for the importance of contestatory discourse in fostering inclusive discourse formation and ensuring that the state of humanitarian exception does not become the rule.

Message received? Examining transmission in deliberative systems

ABSTRACTWith the systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory, there is renewed and broadened emphasis on the inclusion of all affected by a political decision in the making of those decisions. The key enabler of inclusion at a system level is transmission: theoretically, a deliberative system is more democratic if it can foster the transmission of claims and ideas across different sites, especially between informal sites of public deliberation and the more formal institutions of political decision-making. Yet little is known about the mechanisms of transmission in deliberative systems. How, and to what effect, is transmission facilitated in practice? This paper draws on case studies of three promising mechanisms of deliberative transmission: institutional, innovative and discursive. We discuss the key factors that enable or hinder different forms of transmission, and reflect on the ways in which they might be strengthened in deliberative systems. Our analysis suggests that the systemic turn in deliberative democracy should go hand-in-hand with a nuanced understanding of how transmission occurs across different sites. As such, our discussion has important implications for deliberative scholars and practitioners as they go about conceptualizing, studying and steering deliberative democracy at the large scale.

熟議民主主義論による「分析の視点」からみた図書館づくり住民団体の活動

熟議民主主義論による「分析の視点」からみた図書館づくり住民団体の活動

University and deliberative democracy. Towards citizenship education

Deliberative democracy represents one of the most relevant political theories and it has acquired a growing importance within political debates and practices. However it presents some crucial problems in relation to the very high standards of rationality required to citizens for the deliberative process, in particular regarding the problem of public ignorance and the capabilities’ deficit. Amid these problems this article argues in favour of the necessity of education to political life as an unavoidable precondition for deliberative democracy. Since the theory is mainly concerned with the participation of adults within society, the task of offering possible solutions to these questions evidently stands on the shoulders of university education. The article calls for a fundamental ethical and social role of university within society without which the gap between the abstract theory of deliberative democracy and its real practices would determine its complete rejection and any form of democratic participation would ultimately be meaningless, if not dangerous.

The ICRC Interpretive Guidance on DPH in the Domestic Legal Orders Sociological and Democratic Legitimacy

The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (the ‘Interpretive Guidance’) issued by the ICRC in 2008 recommended two interpretive standards on the use of force against individuals in armed conflicts. While one standard defines ‘direct participation in hostilities’ by reference to ‘functional membership’ such that anyone with a continuous combat functions in an organised armed group will lose her/his civilian immunity and be subject to attack on a continuous basis, the other standard requires that the kind and degree of force used in the attack be graduated according to military necessity. This article surveys the court decisions, military manuals and legal or policy documents in different domestic jurisdictions since the publication of the Interpretive Guidance to illustrate the different levels of the adoption of these standards in domestic legal orders. It then uses Franck’s theory of legitimacy to identify the possible legitimating factors that gave these standards the capacity to induce their adoption by domestic actors. Lastly it uses Habermas’ theory of deliberative democracy to examine whether and how the governance by these transnational standards of the people subjected to them may be justified by their democratic legitimacy.

Does the public want mini-publics? Voter responses to the Citizens’ Initiative Review

Deliberative democratic theory has proposed the use of mini-publics to discern a more reflective public opinion, which can then be conveyed to policymakers or back to the wider public. In 2009, the legislature in the State of Oregon (USA) created one such process in the Citizens’ Initiative Review to help the public make informed choices on statewide ballot measures. This study investigated how the public conceptualizes and assesses the Citizens’ Statements that Citizens’ Initiative Review panels place in the statewide Voters’ Pamphlet. We pose a series of research questions concerning how the public perceives the role of the Citizens’ Initiative Review in initiative elections. We investigate those questions with usability testing sessions held in the final weeks before the 2014 election. Forty interviews were conducted in Portland, Oregon, and 20 were held in Denver, CO, where a pilot version of the Citizens’ Initiative Review was held. Online survey data collected in Oregon and Colorado followed up on the themes that emerged from the usability tests to obtain more general findings about these electorates’ views of elections and the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Key results showed that voters found the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements to be a useful alternative source of information, although they required more information about the Citizens’ Initiative Review to make robust trust judgments about the process. Voters were uncertain of the value of the vote tally provided by Citizens’ Initiative Review panelists, but reading the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statement inspired some to vote on ballot measures they might have skipped.

Politik Deliberatif dalam Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan: Analisis Structures and Meanings Atas PP RI No. 28/2008

The atmosphere of Indonesian democratic decentralization presents an interesting phenomenon about the strength of demand at the local level participation. Participation was on its way, legally enshrined in both the legal basis, namely PP RI No. 8 Year 2008 about stage, preparation procedures, control and evaluation of Regional Development Plan (in legal terminology known as Musrenbang). That's where the participation is so arranged that it gains the spirit of development planning in local areas level with the hope that it will combine top-down and bottom-up approaches. This study focuses on efforts to analyze the two legal basis from the perspective of theory and practice of deliberative democracy in which participation based on inter-subjective communication is at the heart of modern democratic state.In search of the analysis, the findings are somewhat surprising. Those are that in Musrenbang, the nuance was still top-down so that they are not worthy to be equated with the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. That top-down shade includes the initial planning, control and evaluation of which are still very elitist. In terms of the arrangement of initial planning for development either RPJPD, RPJMD or RKPD is conducted by the Regional Development Planning Agency. In terms of control, officials from the home affairs ministry level to regent/mayor including Bappeda are involved. In all the stages, the people are involved but only to give input. While in the case of the evaluation, the greatest authority remains in the hands of the relevant authorities at every level of government. People have the chance to evaluate only as far as they have accurate information. In other words, people will find it hard to participate and evaluate the planning that has been done since the standard of accuracy of the information is still determined by the government.As a result, using the structures and meanings analysis, this thesis research confirms that the standards of deliberative democracy need to thrust into the legal basis governing participation in development planning so that decisions resulting in better planning could reflect the aspirations of the people. However, democracy is essentially regierung der regierten (rule of those who governed).

Communicative Ethics and the Claims of Transcendental Phenomenology: Exploring the Foundations of Intersubjectivity

The Communicative ethics theories developed by Jurgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel supports models of deliberative democracy that are broadly influential in many fields. A central claim of these theories is that the foundations of knowledge can be deduced from a transcendental analysis of the intersubjective exchange that occurs in logico-linguistic pragmatic discourse. For that reason, they have each been critical of the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and his followers (especially Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty), who look for foundations of knowledge in the pre- and extra-linguistic aspects of lived experiences. For Habermas and Apel, the phenomenological project is solipsistic. Nonetheless, Dan Zahavi’s interpretation of Husserl’s theory of transcendental intersubjectivity suggests that Husserlian phenomenology and communicative ethics are similar in that they agree that knowledge and meaning emerge in intersubjectivity (i.e., in interactions among individuals). They differ, however, in their claims about how intersubjectivity occurs. Zahavi shows how Husserl anticipated and defended against the claims of Habermas and Apel. For phenomenology, the lived experience of one person by another is a precondition to language and objective knowledge. This essay draws from several works in which Zahavi develops his reading of Husserl. It describes the epidemiological commitments of communicative ethics and Husserl’s defense of the phenomenological approach. This is a significant argument that holds implications for revising theories of deliberative democracy.

Mark bevirʼs a theory of governance from the vantage of political philosophy

This paper offers a critical commentary on Mark Bevirʼs recent book A Theory of Governance from the perspective of normative political philosophy. It explores three ways in which Bevirʼs analysis can be brought into dialogue with political philosophy. First, it considers the role of generalizations in successful explanations of social phenomena. Second, it explores how a decentred theory of governance can help identify solutions to important social problems. Third, it explores the relation between Bevirʼs account of governance and theories of deliberative democracy.

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.

From public reason to deliberative democracy

In this paper I shall investigate the relationship between public reason and deliberative democracy, mainly as it is presented in Rawls?s later political theory. Against the critics who claim that Rawls has no deliberative democratic theory, I shall argue that he presented a complex view of public deliberation that contains a set of formal and substantive requirements derived from the idea of public reason. My main aim in this paper is to defend and further elaborate the thesis that Rawls?s later political theory is crucially important for deliberative democracy. Furthermore, in light of the recent literature on deliberative democracy, I examine the relevance of Rawls?s view for addressing some current problems, but also look at some limits of the public reason perspective.

Democracia deliberativa: uma análise do decreto nº 8.243

O propósito deste artigo é identificar aproximações entre elementos da teoria da democracia deliberativa e o Decreto n. 8.243 da Presidência da República do Brasil, de maio de 2014, que institui a Política Nacional de Participação Social (PNPS) e o Sistema Nacional de Participação Social (SNPS). Diversos autores consideram a democracia deliberativa adequada à contemporaneidade de valorizar e criar condições de uma participação direta do cidadão na definição de políticas públicas e de práticas de administração pública. Considerando os objetivos e as diretrizes de fortalecer e articular mecanismos e instâncias democráticas de diálogo e criar condições de atuação conjunta entre administração pública federal e sociedade civil, observaram-se nesse Decreto diversos elementos democrático-deliberativos importantes para a consolidação da democracia brasileira. Observou-se também a coerência entre o Decreto e as perspectivas democráticas previstas na Constituição Federal de 1988, que prevê que o cidadão pode exercer seu poder democrático diretamente ou por meio de representantes eleitos.

Teaching Deliberative Democracy Deliberatively

The author argues that university faculty can create courses that explore deliberative democracy theory and practice while also making the structure of the course deliberative and participatory for undergraduate students. Challenging norms within higher education requires thinking differently about one’s pedagogical approach and to connect courses with wider public issues.

Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has shifted the focus away from seeking to design separate, internally deliberative ‘mini-publics’ and towards a new appreciation of their external, systemic quality. Yet, so far, such accounts have not gone beyond recognising a potential for mini-publics to contribute to deliberative systems. In this paper, we argue that a systemic conceptualisation of mini-publics must recognise their fundamentally ambivalent character: Since mini-publics have the potential both to foster and to undermine systemic deliberation, it is insufficient to celebrate their positive potential alone, and vital to develop frameworks that allow for a critical evaluation of mini-publics’ systemic role. To this end, we propose a framework based on the systemic qualities of deliberation-making, legitimacy-seeking and capacity-building, and conclude that key to mini-publics’ quality, when judged against these criteria, is not just their own features, but the degree of ‘co-development’ of all system components.

Leaders’ Response to Terrorism: The Role of Epideictic Rhetoric in Deliberative Democracies

New initiatives in deliberative democracy theory allow for a broader understanding of the different rhetorical practices that influence deliberation in real life settings. This solves the “problem” rhetoricians have long had with deliberative theory: that political communication is reduced to rational deliberation, disregarding a lot of non-deliberative forms of communication that are essential for the formation of public opinion and political decisions. This article elaborates on the role of epideictic rhetoric and provides an example as to how we might benefit from combining the two theoretical traditions. Often reduced to ceremonial practice, the epideictic genre has long been overlooked in political communication research. However, epideictic rhetoric plays a crucial role in shaping collective identity and values, thereby influencing citizens’ and politicians’ inclinations and scope of action in future deliberation. The article is concluded by a case study of the Norwegian Prime Minster Jens Stoltenberg’s address to the nation after the terrorist attack in Oslo on July 22nd 2011. By enforcing collective values such as democracy, solidarity, and openness towards other cultures the Prime Minister’s speech contributed to what became one of the dominant frames through which the attack and related issues were interpreted and debated.

ASPECTOS DA TEORIA DA DEMOCRACIA DELIBERATIVA, OS DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS E DELIMITAÇÃO NA ESFERA DA FUNDAMENTALIDADE MATERIAL

O conceito de legitimidade que vem sendo formado desde a Política de Aristóteles ao questionar a virtude em obedecer aos comandos conduzindo à alma, introduz no cenário jurídico-político a legitimidade como cerne de sustentação do regime democrático, do sistema jurídico bem como da atuação da Administração Pública. Para isso, ocorreram grandes transformações tanto no Estado constitucional desde sua concepção liberal até a atual conjuntura democrático deliberativa quanto na conquista dos direitos e garantias fundamentais. Desta forma, por meio da cooperação entre os cidadãos, poderá se verificar como o Poder Judiciário e a Administração Pública atuam como fiscais da aplicação do texto constitucional bem como da solução de conflitos de interesses público versus interesses privado, sem que haja a priori a prevalência de quaisquer deles, utilizando-se como critério a ponderação no caso concreto sempre que houver necessidade de restrição de um em face do outro, com a aplicação desta cooperação dos cidadãos que serão diretamente afetados por meio da teoria da democracia deliberativa.

Reassessing the Rhetoric Revival in Political Theory: Cicero, Eloquence, and the Best Form of Life

This paper provides a critical assessment of what Bryan Garsten has called the ‘rhetoric revival’ in political theory and advances an interpretation of an underappreciated strand of this tradition: Cicero’s ideal of the perfect orator. It argues that, even though the theorists of the ‘rhetoric revival’ have given an important contribution to question the rationalist assumptions of the prevalent theories of deliberative democracy, they have fallen short of acknowledging the broader scope of Cicero’s conception of eloquence, which considers it not only a civic art of public discourse, but also the concrete manifestation of what he considers the best form of life: the union of the vita activa and the vita contemplativa. In the figure of the orator perfectus Cicero expresses an ideal that, blending together the cultivation of the self and political commitment, brings to the fore the ethical and existential dimensions of politics, in a way that the merely deliberative perspective promoted by the theorists of the rhetoric revival is unable to do.

Más allá de Habermas: la realidad de los medios de comunicación

Existe una necesidad fundamental de incluir a los medios de comunicación en cualquier teoría de la democracia, pero es todavía más importante en una teoría que requiere, como su elemento esencial, la deliberación de ciudadanos libres e iguales en la esfera pública. En este ensayo sostengo que los medios de comunicación siguen la racionalidad sistémica, se están volviendo más independientes y complejos, y –junto con los subsistemas económico y administrativo– están subordinando los espacios del mundo de la vida a la lógica sistémica. La tarea será proveer, a la teoría de la democracia deliberativa, de una estructura teórica para el análisis de los medios con el fin de ofrecer caminos prácticos para la emancipación del mundo de la vida de la lógica sistémica.

Towards deliberative and pragmatic co-management: a comparison between inshore fisheries authorities in England and Scotland

ABSTRACTIn seeking to answer the question ‘who should be included in fisheries co-management?’, a constructive critique of the existing co-management literature is provided by filling the gaps of Habermas’s deliberative theory of democracy with Dewey’s pragmatism. Three conditions for ensuring democratic co-management are extrapolated from the theories: actors’ authority over decision making (empowerment), actors’ diversity (membership), and the right to self-nomination (procedures for external inclusion). The theoretical insights developed are supported with two examples of co-management institutions for inshore fisheries in the UK: Scottish Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) and English Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authorities (IFCAs).