As Democratic Public Deliberation: New Perspectives

Author: Dentrice
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-09-01
Features: The theory of deliberative democracy is seen as a response to the flaws of these institutions and norms, posing a challenge to contemporary representative systems. Although political division of labor is necessary in such a complex society, deliberative democracy provides an alternative way of division. This division increases the opportunities for citizen participation and is considered feasible and popular. At the same time, in this division, citizen participation becomes an essential part of important dialogue, which makes the form of political authority more legitimate. As advocated by liberal theory, deliberative theory focuses on establishing institutions to resolve conflicts, but it must be recognized that preferences and value orientations can change through collective deliberative procedures. Deliberative politics promotes political dialogue aimed at increasing mutual understanding: citizens are committed to resolving conflicts through discussion rather than other methods, which relies on rational deliberative models rather than strategic or instrumental models.
Smith and Wells emphasized three core features of deliberative democracy: it promotes more reliable legitimate political authority systems, wiser judgment, and more active citizen identification. The legitimacy of authority stems from two aspects of deliberative theory: inclusivity and democratic dialogue. Inclusivity includes attendance and the expression of opinions: every citizen can participate in political dialogue and has the equal right to be heard. Democratic dialogue promotes mutual respect and guides the expression of the public interest. Overall, inclusivity and democratic dialogue provide a more legitimate and credible political authority system. The second key feature of deliberative democracy is that it promotes wiser judgment. By absorbing others' knowledge and experience, the deliberative environment enables citizens to broaden their limited perspectives and correct fallible views; deliberation can reduce "bounded rationality." Finally, deliberative democracy provides a more positive understanding of citizen identification, recognizing that political participation has the potential to transform values and citizen preferences in the process of interacting with others.
Therefore, the theory of deliberative democracy can be seen as providing three criteria for judging existing political systems: inclusivity, deliberation, and citizen identification. However, the question remains: how to institutionalize democratic dialogue. Smith and Wells distinguished between various approaches to institutionalizing democratic deliberation. One approach questions state mechanisms and focuses on various groups in civil society, believing them to be the natural venues for deliberative politics. Although an active civil society is an important component of deliberative politics, the state system cannot be simply overlooked. The second approach supplements representative mechanisms with secondary associations, and the third approach suggests institutionalizing group representation and legitimizing the rule of majority decision-making through deliberation. Smith and Wells acknowledge the value of these proposals but argue that there are no empirical cases that have verified these ideas. Even if there are a few cases, they are concentrated on testing mainstream institutions, such as town meetings, factory democracy, environmental plans, and constitutional conventions.