Deliberation's Legitimation Crisis: Reply to Gleason (original) (raw)
Related papers
Developing deliberative democracy: A research report and a research agenda
In the last few years, deliberative democracy has developed rapidly from a "theoretical statement" into a "working theory" . Scholars and practitioners have launched numerous initiatives designed to put deliberative democracy into practice, ranging from deliberative polling to citizen summits (see Fung 2003;. At the same time, deliberation has made inroads in empirical (or positive) political science as well. A small but growing body of literature has tried to tackle this question of the connection between the normative standards of deliberation, how well they are met, and the empirical consequences of meeting them. Empirical research has peered into a variety of real-world settings, such as international negotiations Risse 2000; Ulbert and Risse 2005; Panke 2006), national legislatures (Steiner et al. 2004; Mucciaroni and Quirk 2006), mediation processes (Holzinger 2001), ordinary citizens before elections and referenda (Kriesi 2005), social movements (Della Porta 2005), everyday talk (Searing et al. 2007), and formal settings such as deliberative opinion polls (Luskin et al. 2004). Efforts in this field have been accompanied by increasing methodological sophistication, not least involving several attempts to quantify the quality of deliberation (e.g., Holzinger 2001; Steenbergen et al. 2004).
Introduction: Democratizing Deliberation
In the mid-20th century most people had come to think of democracy as the biannual trip to the ballot box punctuated by occasional protests and letters to the editor and supplemented with membership in a special-interest group. During the latter part of the century this conception of democracy started wearing thin, especially with Watergate's breach of public confidence in the political system. 1 A quiet revolution within democratic theory and practice began to take place as scholarly attention turned to civil society and the importance of public deliberation about matters of common concern. By the 1990s, political theorists in academia and practitioners of community forums around the world were using the language of deliberative democracy to describe their new focus. Even with this transformation, the theory and practice of deliberative democracy did not always converge. Instead, first-generation deliberative theorists hypothesized a rather narrow conception of deliberation as rational discourse that could guarantee the legitimacy of democratic procedures and decisions, putting theory at odds with the rich but messy world of deliberation in practice. Deliberative democracy in turn became stereotyped as impractical and divorced from action. But during the past decade another generation of thinkers and practitioners has started developing ideas about deliberative democracy that are open to more forms of political talk, practical on a wider scale, and better connected with collective action. In so doing, theory and practice have together arrived at more robust forms of deliberation than had been proposed in the original generation of deliberative theory. This latest turn is the subject of this collection of essays. The authors whose work is collected in this volume have each contributed to deliberative theory in their own ways. Combined, however, they represent a trend within deliberative theory towards a " democratized " conception of deliberation. If, as John Dryzek has argued, the 1990s saw a " de
Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy
P roposed as a reformist and sometimes even as a radical political ideal, deliberative democracy begins with the critique of the standard practices of liberal democracy. Although the idea can be traced to Dewey and Arendt and then further back to Rousseau and even Aristotle, in its recent incarnation the term stems from Joseph Bessette, who explicitly coined it to oppose the elitist or`a ristocratic'' interpretation of the American Constitution. 1 These legitimate heirs to the tradition of``radical'' democracy have always tempered their vision of popular and inclusive participation with an emphasis on public discussion, reasoning and judgment. It is now also tempered by concerns for feasibility. In developments over the last decade, proponents of deliberative democracy have moved further away from participatory conceptions of citizenship and the common good and towards the very institutions they originally rejected as impossible locations for public reasoning. This new, practical emphasis on feasibility is perhaps the most striking feature of the recent boom in theories of deliberative democracy that I will survey here. Far from being merely à`r ealistic'' accommodation to existing arrangements, I show that this concern with feasibility leads to a richer normative theory and to a fuller conception of the problems and prospects for deliberation and democracy in the contemporary world.
The promise (s) of deliberative democracy
Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 2002
This essay explicates the promise that deliberative democracy, because deliberation generates more inclusive, just, and reasoned public policies, is a sufficient and superior account of democratic legitimacy. This essay also reviews the critiques engendered by social, cultural, and discursive plurality, critiques threatening to render deliberative democracy's promise(s) infelicitous, and suggests some avenues for reconfiguring public delieration in light of these challenges.
Evaluating Deliberative Democracy
The potential advantages and disadvantages of a deliberative democratic body have been the subject of a number of works of political theory. Its likely rationalising influence has been referenced as the possible solution to deep social disputes, while the inclusion of regular citizens in the deliberative process could potentially help re-enfranchise those disillusioned with purely representative politics. Nevertheless, a number of possible obstacles to such a body have been identified, from impracticalities of scale, to the distorting effect of the media, the commitment required by citizens, and the possible domination of deliberation by rhetoric.
Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy , 2022
Research on deliberative democracy has been flourishing over the past decades. We now know more about the conditions that enable or hinder inclusive and consequential deliberation, and how different actors, such as politicians, activists, and citizens, perceive and experience deliberative practices. Yet there are still many unknowns that drive research in deliberative democracy, especially as the field continues to develop in new directions and seeks to offer remedies for the problems democracies face today. This chapter unpacks what deliberative democracy research is, what it involves, and how we might go about conducting it. It discusses how the normative theory interacts with empirical research and how the deliberative ideals shape the practice and purpose of research. The chapter makes a case for methodological and epistemological diversity and outlines thirty-one different methods for theorizing, measuring, exploring, or applying deliberative democracy.
Introducing Deliberative Democracy: A Goal, a Tool, or Just a Context?1
Human Affairs, 2008
Introducing Deliberative Democracy: A Goal, a Tool, or Just a Context?The concept of deliberative democracy is presented within a wide spectrum of variety of its operationalizations. Since the applicability of the principle of deliberation to the functioning of human society is of the author's primary interest, dilemmas of deliberative democracy related to different problems associated with deliberation in practice are described in some detail. The key questions raised aiming at elucidating the "ontology" of deliberativeness are as follows: is it only a tool for solving the problems of society and politics? Is it a context within which other processes decide on the running of society? Or does it embody a goal of democracy?