Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Deliberative democracy: Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that emphasizes the importance of public deliberation in decision-making. It is based on the idea that citizens should have the opportunity to discuss and debate issues before decisions are made, and that these discussions should be informed by reason and evidence._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Egalitarianism on Deliberative Democracy - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 147 Deliberative Democracy/Egalitarianism/Dryzek: (...) sceptical egalitarians, defend more traditional accounts of democracy against the deliberative turn. Cf. >Deliberative Democracy/Social Choice Theory, >Deliberative Democracy/Diversity Theories. ShapiroVsDeliberation: In Shapiro's pithy (1999)(1) terms, 'enough about deliberation, politics is about interest and power'. In this light, those interested in improving the quality of democracy should seek the equalization Gaus I 148 of power; here, issues of democracy become linked to distributive justice. Such sceptics can point to the rather embarrassing fact that deliberation cannot be a complete theory of democracy because its advocates do not specify how collective decisions get made (Saward, 2000)(2). Przeworski : if so, then deliberative democrats might have to retreat to more familiar aggregative mechanisms, and the deliberative/aggregative dichotomy is proven false, for then democracy is necessarily aggregative, and votes have to be taken (Przeworski, 1998(3): 140—2). GoodinVsDeliberative democracy: Goodin (2000)(4) points out that deliberation is an activity that can never realistically involve more than a handful of people. Saward: Saward (2000) believes that such considerations mean that egalitarians should therefore oppose deliberation's aristocratic leanings that would exclude those with non-deliberative preferences; far better, in this light, to extend democracy in more direct fashion (for example, by greater use of referenda). FishkinVsVs: Deliberative democrats can reply to the sceptics who charge that deliberation can only be an elite activity in several ways here. In Fishkin's (1995)(5) deliberative opinion polls, articipants for a deliberative forum are selected at random from the population, and complete a uestionnaire at the end of the process. Citizens' juries too are recruited by random selection, but conclude with a policy recommendation crafted and agreed upon by the jurors rather than a questionnaire (Smith and Wales, 2000)(6). Fishkin argues that a deliberative poll represents what public opinion would be if everyone could deliberate; the same might be said for citizens' juries. >Democracy/Fishkin. Dryzek: Alternatively, deliberative democrats could allow that deliberation can coexist with a variety of mechanisms for reaching binding decisions, be they voting in referenda, elections, or the legislature, the decisions of courts, consensus among stakeholders in an issue, or even administrative fiat. More radically, they might think about ways in which the deliberative contestation of discourses in the public sphere can generate collective outcomes not only in its indirect influence on public policy, but also via cultural change and paragovernmental action (Dryzek, 2000)(7). 1. Shapiro, Ian (1999) 'Enough of deliberation: politics is about interest and power'. In Stephen Macedo, ed., Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagæement. New York: Oxford University Press, 28-38. 2. Saward, Michael (2000) 'Less than meets the eye: democratic legitimacy and deliberative theory'. In Michael Saward, ed., Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Association and Repesentation. London: Routledge, 66_77. 3. Przeworski, Adam (1998) 'Deliberation and ideological domination'. In Jon Elster, ed., Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 140—60. 4. Goodin, Robert E. (2000) 'Democratic deliberation within'. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29: 81—109. 5. Fishkin, James (1995) The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 6. Smith, Graham and Corinne Wales (2000) 'Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy'. Political Studies, 48: 51-65. 7. Dryzek, John S. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, John S. 2004. „Democratic Political Theory“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications_____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Egalitarianism Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Egalitarianism
> Counter arguments in relation to Deliberative Democracy
