Deliberative democracy


Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. Deliberative democracy seeks quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue.
It often shows characteristics of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting and decision by majority, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law that is produced. Deliberative democracy is related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes.
The distance between deliberative democracy and the concepts of representative democracy and direct democracy is debatable. While some practitioners and theorists use deliberative democracy to describe elected bodies whose members propose and enact legislation, Hélène Landemore and others use deliberative democracy to refer to decision-making by randomly-selected lay citizens each with equal power.
Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory, which can be traced back to ancient times. It received academic attention in the 1990s, and implementations since 2010. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.

Overview

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the balance of ready-set opinion expressed by voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.
The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics. The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.
Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies.
In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such as legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions. Populist deliberative democracy can use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill an authentic public opinion about societal issues for other decision-makers to consider, such as in a citizens' assembly or the deliberative opinion poll.
Populist deliberative democracy can, like direct democracy, result directly in binding law.
If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called elite deliberation.
James Fearon and Portia Pedro believe deliberative processes most often generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts, resulting in more morally correct outcomes. Former diplomat Carne Ross contends that the processes are more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums if citizens know their debates will impact society. Some fear the influence of a skilled orator.
John Burnheim critiques representative democracy as requiring citizens to vote for a large package of policies and preferences bundled together, much of which a voter might not want. He argues that this does not translate voter preferences as carefully as deliberative groups do, if they are given the time and the ability to focus on one issue.

Characteristics

Fishkin's model of deliberation

, who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy through deliberative polling for over 15 years in various countries, describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:
  • Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
  • Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
  • Diversity: The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
  • Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
  • Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them
Studies by James Fishkin and others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy. Desirable outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds. Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Cohen's outline

, a student of John Rawls, argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include:
  1. An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
  2. The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
  3. A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
  4. The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
  5. Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.
Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":
  1. It is free in two ways:
  2. # The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
  3. # The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
  4. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
  5. Participants are equal in two ways:
  6. # Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
  7. # Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
  8. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.
In Democracy and Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.

Gutmann and Thompson's model

and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it 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 decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".
They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:
  1. Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
  2. Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
  3. Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
  4. Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.

    Standards of good deliberation – from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018)

For Bächtiger, Dryzek, Mansbridge and Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed:
First generationSecond generation
RespectUnchallenged, unrevised
Absence of powerUnchallenged, unrevised
EqualityInclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence
ReasonsRelevant considerations
Aim at consensusAim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
Common good orientationOrientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
PublicityPublicity in many conditions, but not all
AccountabilityAccountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
SinceritySincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality