1.6. Deliberative democracy

Since the 1990s another theory of democratic participation has become quite popular (see Eriksen 2000, 47): Deliberative democracy (see Winkler, 2006). Basically, this theory attempts to strengthen representative democratic systems but it is also increasingly discussed in relation to supranational polities (e.g. in the context of the EU).

The theory of deliberative democracy emerges from a rich history of debates on normative conceptions dealing with questions of inclusion of citizens in policy-making and the necessity to develop vibrant political public spheres for political debates. The approaches put forward by e.g. Rawls, Habermas, Cohen or Fishkin provide broad outlines for a model of normative justification for public deliberation. In their theories, these authors recognise and stress the importance of deliberative dialogue for a more inclusive and fair society. Some foci accentuate the significance of public reasoning about a problem of common concern (Cohen & Fishkin) others the existence of a non-coercive communication sphere (Habermas) or the emphasis on fairness of the deliberative process and mutual respect among participants (Rawls).

However, deliberative democracy is also subject to some substantial criticism as for instance expressed by Chantal Mouffe. She considers too many shortcomings in the deliberative view of democratic participation. Mouffe points out that proponents of deliberative democracy deny the dimension of “ineradicability of antagonism”, which is supposed to be a constitutive element of political life. Accordingly, it appears to be a “naïve assumption” that there is something like a political public sphere enabling rational consensus since pluralism has an inherently conflicting nature. Mouffe holds that “a well functioning democracy calls for a vibrant clash of democratic political positions. (…) Too much emphasis on consensus and the refusal of confrontation, lead to apathy and dissatisfaction with political participation” (Mouffe, 2000, p. 13ff.).

Apart from such critique, deliberative practices have played a crucial role in modern public discussion programmes, though (e.g. citizen juries or study circles) (see Gastil, 2000, p. 357). One major objective of deliberative democracy is that individuals are prepared and willing to be “moved” by reason. Citizens may change their opinions and preferences as a result of the reflection induced by deliberative communication (see Dryzek, 2000, p. 31).


References:

Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: University Press.

Eriksen, E. (2000). Deliberative supranationalism in the EU. In: E. Eriksen & J. Fossum (Eds.). Democracy in the European Union. Integration through deliberation?(pp. 42-65). London; New York: Routledge

Gastil, J. (2000). Is Face-to-Face Citizen Deliberation a Luxury or a Necessity? Political Communication, 17, 357-361.

Mouffe, C. (2000). Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism. Political Science Series Vol. 72. Vienna: Institute of Advanced Studies.

Winkler, R. (2006). PhD? thesis. Electronic Participation: Potentials and constraints of online debates and online consultations at the EU’s interactive platform Your Voice in Europe (interim report).

Next: Democracy models and the concept of opportunity structures Previous: Critical Discourse Analysis (Theories)