Deliberative Democracy

Strictly, for circulation amongst first semester Political Science (Hons) students, at Hindu College,
University of Delhi. October 2018
What Is Deliberative Democracy

The central idea of deliberative democracy is that the basis of democratic legitimacy is the
public deliberation of citizens. This idea should be seen in contrast to the idea that
democratic legitimacy issues from the mere aggregation of preferences. According to the
theory of deliberative democracy, the preferences of citizens cannot be seen as given, they
are rather transformed in the political process, ideally in a public process of deliberation
among free and equal citizens. The will of the people, thus, is not found in the private and
self-regarding expression of preferences or interests rather citizens must justify their political
claims to one another in public deliberation and form their common opinion and will on
this background. Hence, the core of the theory of deliberative democracy is that citizens
must give each other reasons for their political preferences and political decisions must be
rationally acceptable.
The basic theoretical ideas behind this conception of democracy has been propounded by
Jürgen Habermas‟s work „The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere‟ but many
other commentators on the subject also draw from John Rawls. However the most
influential work making “deliberative democracy” a common reference point for democratic
theory has been Joshua Cohen‟s “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”. Interestingly,
Joshua Cohen was a student of John Rawls. It is however not to miss out on the fact that
the term "deliberative democracy" was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette in his 1980
work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.
Most fundamentally, deliberative democracy affirms the need to justify decisions made by
citizens and their representatives. Both are expected to justify the laws they would impose
on one another. In a democracy, leaders should therefore give reasons for their decisions,
and respond to the reasons that citizens give in return. But not all issues, all the time, require
deliberation.
1. Its first and most important characteristic, then, is its reason-giving requirement.
The reasons that deliberative democracy asks citizens and their representatives to
give should appeal to principles that individuals who are trying to find fair terms of
cooperation cannot reasonably reject. The reasons are neither merely procedural nor
purely substantive. They are reasons that should be accepted by free and equal
persons seeking fair terms of cooperation. The moral basis for this reason-giving
process is common to many conceptions of democracy. Persons should be treated
not merely as objects of legislation, as passive subjects to be ruled, but as
autonomous agents who take part in the governance of their own society, directly or
through their representatives.
In deliberative democracy an important way these agents take part is by presenting
and responding to reasons, or by demanding that their representatives do so, with the
aim of justifying the laws under which they must live together. The reasons are
meant both to produce a justifiable decision and to express the value of mutual
respect. It is not enough that citizens assert their power through interest-group
bargaining, or by voting in elections. Assertions of power and expressions of will,
though obviously a key part of democratic politics, still need to be justified by reason.
2. A second characteristic of deliberative democracy is that the reasons given in this

process should be accessible to all the citizens to whom they are addressed. To justify
imposing their will on you, your fellow citizens must give reasons that are
comprehensible to you. If you seek to impose your will on them, you owe them no
less. This form of reciprocity means that the reasons must be public in two senses.
First, the deliberation itself must take place in public, not merely in the privacy of
one‟s mind. In this respect deliberative democracy stands in contrast to Rousseau‟s
conception of democracy, in which individuals reflect on their own on what is right
for the society as a whole, and then come to the assembly and vote in accordance
with the general will. The other sense in which the reasons must be public concerns
their content. A deliberative justification does not even get started if those to whom it
is addressed cannot understand its essential content.
This does not mean that the reasons, or the bases of the reasons, are inaccessible.
Citizens are justified in relying on experts if they describe the basis for their
conclusions in ways that citizens can understand; and if the citizens have some
independent basis for believing the experts to be trustworthy (such as a past record of
reliable judgments, or a decision-making structure that contains checks and balances
by experts who have reason to exercise critical scrutiny over one another)
3. The third characteristic of deliberative democracy is that its process aims at

producing a decision that is binding for some period of time. In this respect the
deliberative process is not like a talk show or an academic seminar. The participants
do not argue for argument‟s sake; they do not argue even for truth‟s own sake. They
intend their discussion to influence a decision the government will make, or a
process that will affect how future decisions are made. At some point, the
deliberation temporarily ceases, and the leaders make a decision.
4. The fourth characteristic of deliberative democracy is its dynamic nature. Although

deliberation aims at a justifiable decision, it does not presuppose that the decision at
hand will in fact be justified, let alone that a justification today will suffice for the
indefinite future. It keeps open the possibility of a continuing dialogue, one in which
citizens can criticize previous decisions and move ahead on the basis of that
criticism. Although a decision must stand for some period of time, it is provisional in
the sense that it must be open to challenge at some point in the future. Deliberative
democrats care as much about what happens after a decision is made as about what
happens before. Keeping the decision-making process open in this way—recognizing
that its results are provisional—is important for two reasons. First, in politics as in
much of practical life, decision-making processes and the human understanding
upon which they depend are imperfect. We therefore cannot be sure that the
decisions we make today will be correct tomorrow, and even the decisions that
appear most sound at the time may appear less justifiable in light of later evidence.
Even in the case of those that are irreversible, like the decision to attack Iraq,
reappraisals can lead to different choices later than were planned initially. Second, in
politics most decisions are not consensual. Those citizens and representatives who
disagreed with the original decision are more likely to accept it if they believe they
have a chance to reverse or modify it in the future. And they are more likely to be
able to do so if they have a chance to keep making arguments.
5. One important implication of this dynamic feature of deliberative democracy is that

the continuing debate it requires should observe what we call the principle of the
economy of moral disagreement. In giving reasons for their decisions, citizens and
their representatives should try to find justifications that minimize their differences
with their opponents. Deliberative democrats do not expect deliberation always or
even usually to yield agreement. How citizens deal with the disagreement that is
endemic in political life should therefore be a central question in any democracy.
Combining these four characteristics, we can define deliberative democracy as a form of

government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives), justify decisions in a
process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally
accessible, with the aim of reaching conclusions that are binding in the present on all
citizens but open to challenge in the future.

Deliberative Democracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deliberative Democracy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deliberative Democracy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strictly, for circulation amongst first semester Political Science (Hons) students, at Hindu College,

University of Delhi. October 2018

What Is Deliberative Democracy

2. A second characteristic of deliberative democracy is that the reasons given in this

3. The third characteristic of deliberative democracy is that its process aims at

4. The fourth characteristic of deliberative democracy is its dynamic nature. Although

5. One important implication of this dynamic feature of deliberative democracy is that

Combining these four characteristics, we can define deliberative democracy as a form of

You might also like