Deliberating in the Real World

Abstract

This book attempts to solve two problems in deliberative democratic theory and practice: How can agreements reached inside deliberative forums be legitimate for those who did not take part? And why should people with strongly-held views participate in the first place? The solution involves rethinking deliberative theory, but also draws on lessons from practical experience with deliberative forums in Britain’s National Health Service. The book discusses the competing representation claims that different participants make, the pros and cons of different approaches to democratic accountability, and different conceptions of rationality and public reasoning. It concludes by rejecting the idea that we can have authentic, legitimate deliberation in any one forum. Instead, authentic, legitimate deliberation can only result from linkages between different kinds of institutions, drawing on different kinds of participants, at different points of a decision-making cycle. That is, it promotes a macro, society-wide view of deliberative democracy quite different from the micro, deliberative-forum view which dominates thinking on the subject in the UK. The book sketches the outline of such a deliberative system, suggesting how various institutions in civil society and elected government might link together to create public decisions, which are both more rational and more democratic.

Rating the debates: The 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system

“…Their potential in this regard is enhanced if they are seen as part of a wider deliberative system in which the notion of a continuum of deliberative potential is a foundational assumption (Chambers, 2009;Dryzek, 2010;Goodin, 2005;Hendriks, 2006;Mansbridge, 1999;Mansbridge et al, 2012;Parkinson, 2006;Thompson, 2008). The idea of a deliberative system suggests that the norms of deliberative democracy emerge from an institutional tapestry rather than a single body or practice.…”

“…They have, in the terms of Hendriks (2006) and Parkinson (2006) respectively, a more significant 'mixed' or 'intermediate' dimension. That is because, being broadcast to millions of citizens, they link elite policy proposals directly to public opinion.…”

Les élections sont-elles essentielles à la démocratie ?

“…Voir aussi Landemore, 2013McCormick, 2011 ;Sintomer, 2011Sintomer, et 2012Sutherland, 2008. 7. Relevons toutefois Thompson, 2002, et Parkinson, 2006 Les théories délibératives de la démocratie et les débats qui se sont noués autour de celles-ci ont été déterminants à cet égard 8 . Ils ont exploré la question de savoir s'il est possible et désirable d'élaborer des décisions publiques par l'échange d'arguments -plutôt que par la négociation ou la simple agrégation des préférences -et d'associer les citoyens, et pas seulement leurs représentants, à une telle délibération.…”

“…La désignation par le sort serait en effet, comme telle, dépourvue de toute force d'autorisation. C'est la raison pour laquelle certains auteurs (Parkinson 2006, 41 ss.) excluent de donner un pouvoir de décision à une instance qui, comme un mini-public désigné par le sort, n'a pas été autorisée par une élection.…”

Democratic inclusiveness, climate policy outputs, and climate policy outcomes

“…18 This concern for inclusiveness as part of the core of democracy is evident in the institutionally focused, empirically based theories of pluralism. 19 It has also been a key tenet of the resurgence of normative theory through the emergence of participatory 20 Similarly, deliberative democracy is first and foremost a normative theory of democratic legitimacy, 29 defining democratic legitimacy not by a specific set of representative institutions or electoral processes, but by all affected citizens' "participation in authentic deliberation" about the political decisions they are subject to. 30 As such, it goes beyond the earlier participatory theories by not only stipulating participation as such, but a demanding normative ideal of even deeper inclusiveness.…”