Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy is grounded in an ideal in which people come together, on the basis of equal and mutual respect, to discuss the political issues they face and, on the basis of those discussions, decide on the policies that will then affect their lives.

In this volume, we define deliberation itself minimally to mean mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values and interests regarding matters of common concern. ... We define deliberative democracy as any practice of democracy that gives deliberation a central place.

We conceptually contrast deliberative democracy to aggregative democracy, which is normally based on the counting of votes. That deliberative and aggregative democracy contrast conceptually does not make them antithetical in practice. At least in established liberal democratic states, both deliberation (talking) and aggregation (voting) are usually important for democratic decision-making at different stages. Citizens and representatives discuss the issues before them, then sometimes come to agreement or, when conflict remains after discussion, make the decision by a vote. The role of the deliberation before the vote is to help the citizens to understand better the issues, their own interests, and the interests and perceptions of others; forge agreement where possible; and, in the instances in which agreement in not possible, both structure and clarify the questions behind the conflict and the eventual vote.

Like many human ideals and almost all democratic ideals, the ideals that animate deliberative democracy are aspirational - ideals that cannot be achieved fully in practice but that provide standards toward which to all, all other things equal. Many common criticisms of deliberative democracy fail to recognize that aspirational quality of deliberative ideals. The deliberative democracy in its ideal form cannot be achieved perfectly in the world of practice does not undermine its use as a standard toward which to strive ...

I suggest defining deliberation in the public sphere minimally and broadly as "mutual communication that involves weighing and reflecting on preferences, values and interests regarding matters of common concern" (adapted from Dryzek 2000, 76). ...

...

Although minimalist, this definition of deliberation does not encompass some forms of talk or expression on matters of common concern. The term deliberation has at its root the idea of weighing alternatives. Thus, by the definition suggested here, everyday talk that is unreflective and does not attempt to weigh the aspects of an issue does not count as deliberation. One-way talk in which no one disagrees or presents another possibility does not count as deliberation. One-way expressions of solidarity ... does not count as deliveration or deliberative. ...

In short, a communicative process that include little or no reflective interactive weighing is not by itself deliberation. Such a process may nevertheless play an important role in a larger deliberative system ... smaller unreflective and non deliberative acts can figure crucially in the weighing and reflecting functions of a larger deliberative interaction. Such acts may, for example, bring out considerations that otherwise would have never been heard, which can then be weighed elsewhere in the deliberative system.

...

Defining deliberation

The word deliberation has distinct normative connotations. In its very character, the word is thus "evaluative-descriptive." The term itself derives from the Latin root liber (scale) and thus connotes some weighing of pros and cons. Thomas Hobbes wrote that "deliberation is simply the weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of the action we are addressing (as if on a pair of scales)" (1998 [1642], 152). The word also has the connotation of a deliberate - that is, well considered and not hasty - process.

...

The first word in the definition - mutual- distinguishes deliberation between two (or more) people from deliberation solely in the mind of one individual (what Robert Goodin [2000] calls "deliberation within"). Although any mutual deliberation will include deliberation within the minds of the individuals involved, the word mutual requires some two-way communication. On a system level, deliberation can include one-way commnication, but the system will be deliberative only if that communication is reciprocated somewhere in the system.

The second component of the definition - weighing and reflecting - captures some of the elements of care and throughful consideration central to the constellation of meaning that in ordinary language adhere to the term deliberation. These terms usually have normatively positive connotations, because stopping to reflect, to weigh options, and to act carefully usually improves outcomes. Compares with many components of other definitions of deliberation, however, these terms are relatively neutral normatively.

The final component of the definition - specifying that the object of reflection be preferences, values, and interests on matters of common concern - distinguishes talk on matters that involve a collective form from talk that is relevant only to individuals or dyads.

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law.

While deliberative democracy is generally seen as some form of an amalgam of representative democracy and direct democracy, the actual relationship is usually open to dispute.[1] Some practitioners and theorists use the term to encompass representative bodies whose members authentically and practically deliberate on legislation without unequal distributions of power, while others use the term exclusively to refer to decision-making directly by lay citizens, as in direct democracy.