Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis
Abstract: My paper focuses on presenting and analyzing some of the most important theoretical models of deliberative democracy and to emphasize their limits. Firstly, I will mention James Fishkin‟s account of deliberative democracy and its relations with other democratic models. He differentiate...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
AXIS Academic Foundation Press
2015-07-01
|
Series: | Argumentum: Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://www.fssp.uaic.ro/argumentum/Numarul%2013%20issue%202/10_V_Tutui_tehno.pdf |
id |
doaj-62d78a133d5941c7a425bfbaac0da082 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-62d78a133d5941c7a425bfbaac0da0822020-11-25T00:17:11ZengAXIS Academic Foundation PressArgumentum: Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric1583-27672069-573X2015-07-01132179205Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical AnalysisTutui ViorelAbstract: My paper focuses on presenting and analyzing some of the most important theoretical models of deliberative democracy and to emphasize their limits. Firstly, I will mention James Fishkin‟s account of deliberative democracy and its relations with other democratic models. He differentiates between four democratic theories: competitive democracy, elite deliberation, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Each of these theories makes an explicit commitment to two of the following four “principles”: political equality, participation, deliberation, nontyranny. Deliberative democracy is committed to political equality and deliberation. Secondly, I will present Philip Pettit‟s view concerning the main constraints of deliberative democracy: the inclusion constraint, the judgmental constraint and the dialogical constraint. Thirdly, I will refer to Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson‟s conception regarding the “requirements” or characteristics of deliberative democracy: the reason-giving requirement, the accessibility of reasons, the binding character of the decisions and the dynamic nature of the deliberative process. Finally, I will discuss Joshua Cohen‟s “ideal deliberative procedure” which has the following features: it is free, reasoned, the parties are substantively equal and the procedure aims to arrive at rationally motivated consensus. After presenting these models I will provide a critical analysis of each one of them with the purpose of revealing their virtues and limits. I will make some suggestions in order to combine the virtues of these models, to transcend their limitations and to offer a more systematical account of deliberative democracy. In the next four sections I will take into consideration four main strategies for combining political and epistemic values (“optimistic”, “deliberative”, “democratic” and “pragmatic”) and the main objections they have to face. In the concluding section, I will argue that any theoretical model is confronted with the “the paradox of democratic deliberation”: the legitimacy of political decisions demands for the „raw‟ opinion of the citizens, while the epistemic rightness of political decisions demands for a „filtered‟ public opinion. And, I my opinion, this paradox reveals a deep inconsistency in the core of the deliberative model which suggest that the deliberative procedure should not be conceived as an authentic alternative to the classical theories of democratic legitimacy. https://www.fssp.uaic.ro/argumentum/Numarul%2013%20issue%202/10_V_Tutui_tehno.pdftheoretical modelsdeliberative democracyepistemic valuespolitical valuesparadox of democratic deliberation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Tutui Viorel |
spellingShingle |
Tutui Viorel Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis Argumentum: Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric theoretical models deliberative democracy epistemic values political values paradox of democratic deliberation |
author_facet |
Tutui Viorel |
author_sort |
Tutui Viorel |
title |
Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis |
title_short |
Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis |
title_full |
Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis |
title_fullStr |
Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Theoretical Models of Deliberative Democracy: A Critical Analysis |
title_sort |
theoretical models of deliberative democracy: a critical analysis |
publisher |
AXIS Academic Foundation Press |
series |
Argumentum: Journal of the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric |
issn |
1583-2767 2069-573X |
publishDate |
2015-07-01 |
description |
Abstract: My paper focuses on presenting and analyzing some of
the most important theoretical models of deliberative democracy
and to emphasize their limits. Firstly, I will mention James
Fishkin‟s account of deliberative democracy and its relations with
other democratic models. He differentiates between four democratic
theories: competitive democracy, elite deliberation, participatory
democracy and deliberative democracy. Each of these theories
makes an explicit commitment to two of the following four
“principles”: political equality, participation, deliberation, nontyranny.
Deliberative democracy is committed to political equality
and deliberation. Secondly, I will present Philip Pettit‟s view
concerning the main constraints of deliberative democracy: the
inclusion constraint, the judgmental constraint and the dialogical
constraint. Thirdly, I will refer to Amy Gutmann and Dennis
Thompson‟s conception regarding the “requirements” or
characteristics of deliberative democracy: the reason-giving
requirement, the accessibility of reasons, the binding character of
the decisions and the dynamic nature of the deliberative process.
Finally, I will discuss Joshua Cohen‟s “ideal deliberative
procedure” which has the following features: it is free, reasoned, the
parties are substantively equal and the procedure aims to arrive at
rationally motivated consensus. After presenting these models I will
provide a critical analysis of each one of them with the purpose of
revealing their virtues and limits. I will make some suggestions in
order to combine the virtues of these models, to transcend their
limitations and to offer a more systematical account of deliberative
democracy. In the next four sections I will take into consideration
four main strategies for combining political and epistemic values
(“optimistic”, “deliberative”, “democratic” and “pragmatic”) and
the main objections they have to face. In the concluding section, I
will argue that any theoretical model is confronted with the “the
paradox of democratic deliberation”: the legitimacy of political
decisions demands for the „raw‟ opinion of the citizens, while the
epistemic rightness of political decisions demands for a „filtered‟
public opinion. And, I my opinion, this paradox reveals a deep
inconsistency in the core of the deliberative model which suggest
that the deliberative procedure should not be conceived as an
authentic alternative to the classical theories of democratic
legitimacy. |
topic |
theoretical models deliberative democracy epistemic values political values paradox of democratic deliberation |
url |
https://www.fssp.uaic.ro/argumentum/Numarul%2013%20issue%202/10_V_Tutui_tehno.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT tutuiviorel theoreticalmodelsofdeliberativedemocracyacriticalanalysis |
_version_ |
1725380597597077504 |