Deliberative Democracy

Abstract

We define deliberation minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values, and interests regarding matters of common concern. Deliberative democracy incorporates the requirements that deliberation take place in contexts of equal recognition, respect, reciprocity, and sufficiently equal power for communicative influence to function. These aspirational ideals have inspired a flourishing field, with theoretical and empirical research across many disciplines, and many democratic innovations and practices in many countries and cultures. We survey the evolution of the ideals of deliberative democracy, their numerous sites in deliberative systems, the places of these sites within broader political arenas, and the many critics, criticisms, and revisions the concept and practice of deliberative democracy have attracted.

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

“…Benhabib 1996), the ideal is blind to many systematic differences, such as structural injustices. Consequently, 'second generation' ideals of deliberative democracy, which are generally more realistic and attuned to actual political challenges, have been introduced within the tradition (Bächtiger 2018). For instance, Beauvais (2018), Beauvais and Bächtiger (2016) and Young (2011) have suggested that the abstract ideal of universal moral equality underlying the 'first generation' ideal of rational deliberation should be complemented with more situated ideals of equity and justice.…”

“…The latter are rooted in the recognition of the significant differences between different social groups in their access to wealth and power as well as their physical, cognitive and linguistic styles and abilities (Beauvais 2018). The later representatives of the deliberative tradition have thus adjusted the deliberative ideal by making it more sensitive to the pluralist aspirations and dimensions of modern democracies (Bächtiger et al 2018). For example, as Bächtiger et al (2018) point out, the sole focus on reasons and argumentation has evolved into the criterion that arguments ought to give and respond to appropriate 'considerations', including emotionally rooted expressions and differing styles of communication.…”

“…The later representatives of the deliberative tradition have thus adjusted the deliberative ideal by making it more sensitive to the pluralist aspirations and dimensions of modern democracies (Bächtiger et al 2018). For example, as Bächtiger et al (2018) point out, the sole focus on reasons and argumentation has evolved into the criterion that arguments ought to give and respond to appropriate 'considerations', including emotionally rooted expressions and differing styles of communication. 4 However, while I agree with Biesta and the later representatives of the deliberative tradition on the need to acknowledge the problems that the deliberative model potentially gives rise to, rather than rejecting the normatively significant 'entry conditions' altogether, a more fruitful strategy might be to recognise and highlight what Bächtiger et al (2018) refer to as the aspirational character of the deliberative ideal.…”

“…For example, as Bächtiger et al (2018) point out, the sole focus on reasons and argumentation has evolved into the criterion that arguments ought to give and respond to appropriate 'considerations', including emotionally rooted expressions and differing styles of communication. 4 However, while I agree with Biesta and the later representatives of the deliberative tradition on the need to acknowledge the problems that the deliberative model potentially gives rise to, rather than rejecting the normatively significant 'entry conditions' altogether, a more fruitful strategy might be to recognise and highlight what Bächtiger et al (2018) refer to as the aspirational character of the deliberative ideal. This means acknowledging that the deliberative ideal cannot be achieved fully in practice, and thus its primary purpose is to provide standards toward which to aim through concrete political and institutional practices.…”

State of the world 2018: democracy facing global challenges

“…Second, arguments, reason and facts should undergird public debate prior to decision-making and "[p]ost-truth politics is the antithesis of deliberative democracy." 23 This measure declines precipitously in countries where disinformation and populism is on the rise such as Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, India, Poland, and the United States of America.…”