Deliberative democracy
Deliberative democracy is a political concept that emphasizes the importance of discussion and consensus-building in the decision-making process, as opposed to relying solely on voting. The roots of this approach can be traced to ancient Greek and German philosophical traditions, where rational discourse in the public sphere was valued. Introduced as a term in the 1980s by theorist Joseph M. Bessette, deliberative democracy seeks to enhance electoral democracy by fostering authentic dialogue among diverse groups, including marginalized voices.
This model aims to overcome issues related to conflicts of interest in traditional voting processes and encourages participants to engage in informed, balanced discussions. Key characteristics of a legitimate deliberative process include representation of diverse opinions, respect for pluralism, and a commitment to rational consensus. While the concept has gained traction, it faces challenges, particularly in contemporary political arenas where distrust and special interests often overshadow meaningful deliberation.
Advocates argue that reforming legislative bodies to embody deliberative democratic principles could better reflect public insight and address pressing societal issues. Additionally, the advent of technology has played a pivotal role in embedding deliberative practices within society, influencing governance and public policy debates. Historical and modern examples illustrate that deliberative democracy can be an evolutionary process, driving significant social changes through sustained public engagement.
On this Page
Deliberative democracy
The groundwork for deliberative democracy was laid in the works of Greek and German philosophers seeking processes ensuring rationality in the public sphere, building on expanding scientific knowledge. Academics proposed in the 1980s that deliberative democracy is a process to supplement or replace voting. Deliberative democracy is the process of building a consensus by deliberating on issues and, ultimately, letting the consensus stand or majority rule, fulfilling the public’s will to validate the legitimacy of law and order. Various models of deliberative democracy have been proposed and adopted by various political movements. Their common thread is deliberative democracy overcomes the short shrift and conflicts of interest in voting. Better there be authentic discussions and deliberations because this process organized by political factions builds an inclusive process for the marginalized, isolated, ignored, discriminated, dissenting, and excluded people. The deliberative process is as valid to a democracy as the results.
Background
The underpinnings of deliberative democracy are found in the ideas of Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929), and centuries earlier in the writings of Pericles: "Instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it is an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all." The creation of Parliament and its reliance on deliberative debate led English philosopher Edmund Burke (1729-1797) to declare, "Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, the of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole." Concomitantly, deliberative democracy was spreading in France following the French Revolution when assemblymen argued the desire of the nation, the national will, must be expressed through deliberation and discussion, not bound mandates. This became known as populist deliberative democracy (though Burke argued that only the rich have the temperament, time, and education for deliberative democracy, and none of them considered the participation of women and minorities in the process), and got its greatest boost when America’s founding fathers incorporated deliberation into the ingredients of its populist democracy. Elitist deliberative democracy is applied to legislatures and courts because a cabal of leaders ruling legislatures and courts pass bound mandates by single judges or majority rule.
Theorists define characteristics for legitimate deliberation—participants must have relevant information; there must be substantive balance with reasoned arguments on all sides of an issue; participants must represent the diversity of opinions and weigh them carefully, giving equal consideration to merits of arguments regardless of who proposes them as long as they are informed arguments, balanced, conscientious, substantive, and comprehensive. Others highlight the need for independence; that deliberation is ongoing and the deciding factor; there is respect for pluralism, respect for and transparency in the deliberative procedure and for those making arguments; prior norms can be set aside; and rationality motivates consensus. Deliberative democracy must be reciprocal, seeking fair terms of cooperation, understandable to all, binding, and participants in deliberative democracy must be open to changing their minds.
Deliberative Democracy Today
It was not until 1980 that Joseph M. Bessette coined the term deliberative democracy. It has not been considered without controversy. Aristotle’s Rhetoric presented the cases for and against democracy by deliberation. His generation disdained civic speakers as untrustworthy and slick. Many of the same arguments dominate discussions of deliberative democracy in the twenty-first century, citing how deliberators talk about each other, rather than the substantive matters at hand, with confreres tight within the grip of special interests. These characteristics exist today, making legislatures and parliaments soporific. The US Congress and the United Kingdom’s Parliament are seen as rife with conflicts of interest and not true bodies of deliberative democracy. "Outsider" candidates dominated the 2016 US presidential campaign because citizens were exasperated with political leaders forsaking deliberative democracy for special interests. The European Parliament is the institution closest to embodying the precepts of deliberative democracy. Its members, elected by universal suffrage from member states, represent the people of Europe; it focuses its legislative efforts on justice, domestic affairs, taxation and fiscal matters, and environmental policy. The Parliament garners its strength and independence from association with citizen groups, nongovernmental organizations, and unions representing the people of Europe and resists the influence of special interests and liberal or conservative political agendas.
Advocates for reformulating America’s legislatures into deliberative democratic institutions argue the public is far more insightful and exhausted than the passel of elected officials with the "wicked problems" of the country. Voters turned to outsider candidates for just this reason, i.e., citizens see the democracy as shattered and want to be the deus ex machina about unemployment, underemployment, mass incarceration, the environment, and other issues. Deliberative democracy is gaining traction in theoretical and practical discussions in university studies.
Democracies with strong executive branches of government are recognized by some as the strong suit of deliberative democracy, combining accountability with deliberation. The executive branch is inundated with public comment and marked by accountability, combining democracy and deliberation, exchanging reasoned ideas from acquiring new information.
Political theory has become a reality show theme in Western democracies. Many research centers, think tanks, and policy institutes deliberate on social and political policies and strategies for economic, military, technology, social, and cultural matters, looking to pilot reforms.
The public reacts to deliberations by calling, texting, emailing, and using social media to be heard. Technology is more responsible for embedding deliberative democracy into society than any other phenomenon. It affects governance and governance styles, and in combination with rallies and demonstrations, deliberative democracy can drive officeholders out and change public policy. Modern examples include the end of Prohibition, women’s suffrage, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the civil rights movement, the formation of the European Union, the access to abortion services, and the decriminalization of recreational drugs and access to medical marijuana. These years-long social and public policy changes demonstrate that deliberative democracy is an evolutionary process in which patience is a virtue and impatience is what gets things done.
Stanford researchers James Fishkin and Larry Diamond developed a method of informed, moderated deliberative democracy called Deliberate Polling. This method aims to unite people from diverse backgrounds in discussions of issues that matter to the public without the interference of the political labels associated with those issues. The goal is to reduce the polarization of political debate by encouraging participants to see issues from a variety of perspectives. Fishkin and Diamond’s research indicates that this approach to deliberative processes can improve negative views and diversify political perspectives. Their method has been tested over 150 times in fifty countries.
Bibliography
"The Deliberative Democracy Lab." Stanford University, deliberation.stanford.edu. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.
Elster, John, editor. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge UP, 1998.
Ercan, Selen A., and John S. Dryzek. “Conclusion: The Reach of Deliberative Democracy.” Policy Studies, vol. 36, no. 3, 2015, pp. 359–61, doi:10.1080/01442872.2015.1065971. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.
Fishkin, James S. When the People Speak. Oxford UP, 2009.
Levine, Peter. "Deliberative Democracy - Civic Theory and Practice." Tufts University, Civic Theory and Practice, 26 Jan. 2022, sites.tufts.edu/civicstudies/2022/01/26/deliberative-democracy. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.
Levine, Peter. We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For: The Promise of Civic Renewal in America. Oxford UP, 2013.
O’Flynn, Ian. Deliberative Democracy. Polity Press, 2022.
Roald, Vebjørn, and Linda Sangolt. Deliberation, Rhetoric, and Emotion in the Discourse on Climate Change in the European Parliament. Eburon Academic Publishers, 2012.
Sunstein, Cass R. "Deliberative Democracy in the Trenches." Daedalus, vol. 146, no. 3, 2017, pp. 129–39, www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/12‗sunstein.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.
"What Is Deliberative Polling?" Stanford University, deliberation.stanford.edu/what-deliberative-pollingr. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.