Is Deliberative Democracy Feasible? Political Disengagement and Trust in Liberal Democratic States

Abstract

Is Deliberative Democracy Feasible? Political Disengagement and Trust in Liberal Democratic States *Liberal democratic states throughout the world are experiencing declining rates of political participation. Many political scientists and political philosophers have attributed this decline to an erosion of social capital: those bonds of reciprocity and trust which used to exist among citizens but which now, as a result of profound social, political, and cultural change, do not (e.g. Macedo et al, 2005; Putnam, 2001; Halpern, 2005; Whiteley, 2012).Does deliberative democracy represent a feasible strategy for the reform of liberal democratic states experiencing declines in political participation? Looking at work on democracy among Anglo-American political philosophers over the past twenty years, it seems that the answer is 'yes' (e.g. Bohman, 2000;Cohen & Sabel, 1997;Dryzek, 2000;Fung, 2004; Goodin, 2008; Gutmann & Thompson, 1998& 2004 Mansbridge, 1999a; Mansbridge et al, 2012; Young, 2000). Deliberative democracy is held by many of its defenders as both a philosophically persuasive model of democracy which improves upon the traditional aggregative representative model and a feasible program for the reform of existing liberal democratic states (e.g. Bohman, 1998; Fishkin, 2011). Deliberative democrats argue that reconfiguring democracy as a process of 'public reasoning' among free and equal citizens can re-connect citizens with one another, and with the institutions which govern them, by resolving the wider challenge of diversity, and increasing the opportunities available to citizens to influence political decisions (Dryzek, 2012; Parkinson, 2012). Moral and political diversity can lead to fragmentation, conflict, and exclusion, so contemporary democracies need to ensure that the rules governing the process of policy formation and decision making are open, transparent, and encourage inclusion among all those who have a stake in the outcome (e.g. Bohman, 2000; Cohen, 2009;Fung & Wright, 2003; Gutmann & Thompson, 1998). Ensuring inclusion is crucial for democratic theory and practice. It is crucial for democratic theory because a regime which silences the voices of a proportion of its constituent members fails to ensure political equality. It is crucial for democratic practice because the systematic exclusion of citizen voices from democratic processes reinforces the separation of the people from the business of governance (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004; Mansbridge, 1999b). The more that citizens feel peripheral to the democratic system, the less they see its activities as relevant to them and the less they understand it (Fishkin, 1991;Fung, 2004;Fung & Wright, 2003). Deliberative democrats argue that in emphasizing the need for collective deliberation among citizens on matters of policy and principle, their approach can ensure social unity and political stability in circumstances of diversity, produce democratically legitimate outcomes in the face of disagreement, and offer a response to democratic decline by r...

Ideology and Deliberation: An Analysis of Public Support for Deliberative Practices in Finland

“…From a theoretical perspective, deliberation has been accused of harbouring an elitist notion of democracy that does not appeal to common people, and of promoting liberal values over more conservative ones (Blattberg 2003;Parvin, 2015). Empirical evidence also suggests that ideological predispositions affect support for deliberative practices.…”

Democracy Without Participation: A New Politics for a Disengaged Era

“…Liberal deliberative democrats drawing on Rawls's later work require citizens to be able to participate, and to actually participate, in particular, and quite demanding, forms of deliberation (Cohen 2009;Gutmann and Thompson 2004;Mansbridge et al 2012;Parvin 2015). Non-liberal deliberative democrats reject as exclusionary the Rawlsian preoccupation with establishing a constrained form of public reasoning (Benhabib 1996;Dryzek 2001;Habermas 1996).…”

“…Theories of deliberative democracy require that individuals possess the opportunity to participate in appropriate forms of deliberation with others and that they take up this opportunity (Parvin 2015). This is a demanding requirement which has led to a split in the literature characterised by Simone Chambers (2009) as being between supporters of deliberative democracy, who argue for a thoroughgoing and holistic conception of deliberative democracy as a system which operates at all levels of citizens' lives, from explicitly political participation through to 'everyday talk' (Mansbridge et al 2012;Cohen 2009), and democratic deliberation, who focus less on establishing deliberative democracy as an alternative to traditional representative democracy, and more on the incorporation of more deliberation into traditionally conceived representative democratic systems through the use of mini-publics (Fishkin 2009;Fung 2015).…”

“…Deliberative democracy embodies a vision of democracy in which individuals engage actively with one another within and through a network of civil associations, groups, and organisations which mobilise political action, provide political information, and communicate collective concerns to decision makers (Habermas 1996;Fraser 1990;Parvin 2015). But civil society has withered in liberal democratic states throughout the world in ways that are directly challenging to the feasibility and persuasiveness of such a vision.…”

The Ethics of Political Participation: Engagement and Democracy in the 21st Century

“…Others still have argued that we need to expand the opportunities open to individuals to contribute to the democratic system, especially as political participation is declining disproportionately among citizens of a low socioeconomic status. More generally, the changing patterns of political participation observed by political scientists over the past half-century challenge many of the normative approaches to democratic reform popular among political philosophers, as they seem to require wider and richer forms of political participation at a time when citizens do not seem willing or able to engage in even the most minimal forms of participation required by representative democracy (Parvin 2015(Parvin , 2016.…”