An Epistemic Conception of Democracy

Cohen, Joshua

doi:10.1086/292815

Cited by 419 publications

(177 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…En lugar de la equidad de las condiciones ideales, el asunto se torna en la confiabilidad de un procedimiento (dados algunos estándares independientes). Este tipo de estándar es presupuesto por el teorema de Condorcet tal y como se ha utilizado para defender la democracia deliberativa (Cohen, 1986;Estlund, 1993b). El problema estriba en que este estándar de objetividad no es necesariamente operativo en la deliberación misma.…”

Section: Justificación Política Y Antinomias De La Razón Pú-blicaunclassified

La madurez de la democracia deliberativa

Bohman

2016

Co-herencia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reviso tres maneras diferentes como los ideales de la democracia deliberativa han cambiado a la luz de las preocupaciones prácticas sobre su viabilidad, es decir, haciendo cada vez más importante el problema de cómo este ideal puede acercarse a sociedades caracterizadas por profundos desacuerdos, problemas sociales de enorme complejidad e instrumentos inoperantes en sus instituciones existentes. En primer lugar, las teorías de la democracia deliberativa enfatizan el proceso mismo de la deliberación, y no sus condiciones y procedimientos ideales y contrafácticos. En segundo lugar, los demócratas deliberativos se interesan cada vez más en los problemas de la institucionalización, en hacer del voto, la regla de mayorías, la representación, los tribunales y el derecho constitucional, instituciones más deliberativas, en pro de una mayor democracia directa. En tercer lugar, los deliberativistas se ocupan de examinar y comparar los diferentes escenarios y procedimientos de la deliberación, señalando problemas empíricos y obstáculos que no siempre pueden anticiparse al recurrir únicamente a argumentos conceptuales.

show abstract

Section: Justificación Política Y Antinomias De La Razón Pú-blicaunclassified

La madurez de la democracia deliberativa

Bohman

2016

Co-herencia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But understanding why they are misplaced can itself add to the legitimacy of a decision (Mill 1991(Mill [1861, 282). It can help people to see more clearly why the decision went one way rather than another, and hence increase their confidence in the epistemic merits of the decision (Cohen 1986;Estlund 2007;Luskin et al 2014). …”

Section: Why Take a Deliberative Approach?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative democratization: a framework for systemic analysis

O'Flynn

Curato

2015

Policy Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the transition literature, 'free and fair elections' is often treated as the most important indicator of democratic quality. In this paper, however, we argue that 'free deliberation among equals' is in many respects a more telling measure. On the face of it, this argument might strike one as implausible. After all, the decisive moment in many transitions is the signing of a pact between elements in the government and opposition who are more concerned to protect their own interests than to explain themselves to others. Yet while pacts may not be particularly deliberative, they still occasion a great deal of deliberation across society as a whole. We argue that the different sites where deliberation occurs can be understood as forming a deliberative system. To give substance to this idea, we then outline a systemic framework that may be used to describe and evaluate the deliberative capacity of transitional regimes. Finally, we turn to the cases of Venezuela and Poland to illustrate the empirical application of this approach. Both transitions were founded on a pact. Yet differences in the nature of those pacts and the broader deliberative systems in which they were located tell us a lot about where those countries are today. The comparative study of democratic transitions is one of the most vibrant areas of academic study in politics. The reasons why are obvious enough. The huge social and political upheavals that lead to the collapse of authoritarian regimes need to be explained. We need to know more about the conditions under which transitions to democracy are likely to occur and about the conditions under which democratic deepening is likely to take hold. These questions are not merely academic but have crucial policy implications. The international community spends billions of dollars every year on democracy promotion across the globe.Yet while lives are put at risk in both wars and popular demonstrations waged in the name of democracy, the fact remains that many transition countries fail to make the democratic grade.Despite the best efforts of the democracy promotion community to devise more effective policies, many countries seem to be stuck in what Thomas Carothers terms a 'grey zone'.They display some of the attributes of democratic political life, including opposition parties, civil associations and periodic elections, but they are also marked by persistent abuses of the rule of law, widespread corruption, low levels of public participation between elections, poor institutional performance by the state, and low levels of trust in government (Carothers 2002, 9-10; see also Rose and Chin 2001).Granted, assessing a transition's democratic quality is notoriously difficult. In no small part, what makes it so difficult is the fact that 'transition' and 'democracy' can be defined in different ways. Consequently, scholars can have very different, and sometimes competing, ideas about which factors are important in assessing how far a country has or has not come (Diamond et al. 2014, 87-98). In this ar...

show abstract

“…In the deliberative democracy, political decisions are to be made through a collective procedure of argumentation where arguing consists in exchanging reasons, oriented to the goal of rationally convincing others, instead of strategic participation oriented to impose personal political preferences or desires on others (Manin, 1987 ; and it is supposed to lead us, at least ideally, to rational consensus.Deliberation assumes, as we have seen, both the existence of rightness (or impartiality, or some other equivalent) in political decisions, and the possibility to know which is the right (or impartial) decision (Cohen, 1986, Estlund, 1997: 174; Christiano, 1997).…”

Section: The Assumptions Of Deliberationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Has the Deliberative Model of Democracy an epistemic value?

Garcı́a

2013

pnrm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumenLa democracia deliberativa es un ideal normativo de democracia. Este modelo no solo constituye una propuesta para la regeneración de la legitimidad de nuestras instituciones, sino también un mecanismo para la toma de decisiones. Se basa en dos dimensiones: una dimensión procesal de acuerdo con la cual el modelo exige la inclusión y una capacidad igual de influir en la decisión final de todos los afectados (Cohen, 1989;Bohman, 1996; Habermas, 1992…) y una dimensión sustantiva donde las decisiones políticas se toman a través de un procedimiento colectivo a través de la argumentación y el debate público. Si estas condiciones se respetan, las decisiones serán más racionales y mejores. Este artículo tiene dos objetivos. En primer lugar presentaré los elementos clave de esta concepción epistémica de la legitimidad política. En segundo lugar voy a mostrar los retos a los que se enfrenta. Por un lado, el carácter contrafáctico de muchos de sus propuestas y por el otro, los problemas obvios del evidente sesgo consensualistade este modelo. AbstractDeliberative democracy is a normative ideal of democracy.This model is a proposal for the regeneration of the legitimacy of our institutions, but also a mechanism for decision making. It is based on two different dimensions: a procedural dimension, where the model demands the inclusion and an equal capacity to influence the final decision of all those affected (Cohen, 1989;Bohman, 1996; Habermas, 1992 ...) and a substantive dimension where the political decisions are made through a collective procedure of argumentation and public discussion. If these conditions are recognized, the decisions will be more rational and better. This paper has two aims. First, I will present the key elements of this epistemic conception of political legitimacy.Secondly, I will show the challenges it faces. On the one hand, ResumoA democracia deliberativa é um ideal normativo de democracia.Este modelo não só constitui uma proposta para a regeneração da legitimidade das nossas instituições, mas também um mecanismo para a tomada de decisões. Baseia-se em duas dimensões: uma dimensão processual de acordo com a qual o modelo exige a inclusão e uma capacidade igual de influir na decisão final de todos os afetados (Cohen, 1989; Bohmam, 1996; Habermas, 1992…)

show abstract

An Epistemic Conception of Democracy

Cited by 419 publications

References 0 publications

La madurez de la democracia deliberativa

La madurez de la democracia deliberativa

Deliberative democratization: a framework for systemic analysis

Has the Deliberative Model of Democracy an epistemic value?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About