Deliberative democracy
• an attempt to reconnect a strong (demanding) conception of the moral ideal of
democracy with the problem of political outcome
• democracy as process
- neither just an institutional system of government
- nor a pure act of resistance or interruption
• a constructive normative conception
first stage (theoretical foundations, 1980’s, 1990’s):
- Joshua Cohen, Jürgen Habermas
second and third stage
responding and
reacting to criticism
- Seyla Benhabib
application in political theory
and science etc.
- John Dryzek
“What the framework of our constitution can do is organize the way in which we argue
about our future. All of its elaborate machinery … are designed to force us into a
conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a
process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point
of view, and building shifting alliances of consent”
Barack Obama, The Audicity of Hope 2006
Deliberative democracy aims to solve the problem of
democratic legitimacy
basic moral ideal(s)
- things that ought to be
realised
politics contain functional demands
- general functionality of the system
- efficacy
ought to regulate
realist limits on the ideal
the problem of democratic legitimacy
- non-ideal model (accepts the impossibility of fully bridging the gap)
- a two-way problem
criteria of democratic legitimacy:
- the moral ideal(s) can be justifiably claimed to be embodied in politics
- the politics generated in deliberative processes justifiably have an effect on
things, and is not reducible to the status of an ineffective ideal
theory of the deliberative process as the essence of democracy
reflective thinking
interactive
communication
that should embody necessary elements that
ought to be contained in democracy
- egalitarian inclusiveness
- real effect on things (power)
Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy
• paradigm shift in (political) philosophy:
- from a philosophy of the subject (as unified agent) to a philosophy of language as
interactive communication
- discourse
• discourse ethics
- a theory of the validity of normative claims from the perspective of discourse
- normative claims are claims put forward and addressed to other participants in
discourse
- a claim is a suggestion that stand in need of further justification
 process of dialogue and argumentation
- discourse ethics as post-metaphysical thinking: validity can only be reached within a
social process of communication (no guarantee of validity outside of a human,
interactive perspective)
- the principle of discourse ethics (a variation of Kant’s categorical imperative)
”(D) Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the
approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse.”
”Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification” teoksessa Moral
Consciousness and Communicative Action (1990, s. 65-66, saksaksi 1983)
Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy
• discourse ethics as applied to the case of deliberative democratic politics
- the validity of a social-political norm or political decision depends on a process that
satisfies certain moral demands
- procedural rationality (vs. substantial)
- moral demand: the all-affected principle
”Every valid norm has to fulfill the following condition:
(U) All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general
observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests
(and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities
of regulation)
”Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification” in Moral Consciousness and
Communicative Action (1990, p.. 65-66, German original 1983)
Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy
”Every valid norm has to fulfill the following condition:
(U) All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general
observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests
(and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities
of regulation)
universal and pluralistic
principle of inclusiveness
political dimension of
efficacy
egalitarian and
pluralistic
epistemic dimension
- demand of knowledge
the deliberative process:
rhetoric scepticism
(from Lyotard to …
- communication contain non-rational
elements
- the presence of subjective interests (≈
absence of good intentions)
- any procedure contain substantial
norms
communicative rationality
(Habermas)
- interactive rational deliberation
- good intentions: reaching agreement over
the best decision
- procedural: insofar as the process is just, the
consequent decision will be legitimate
- risk: exclusion in the name of rationality
response: (Young, Benhabib, Chambers etc., also Habermas)
- the insertion of other moral-democratic elements to counter exclusion
- communicative processes of inclusion
- Young: greeting, rhetoric, storytelling
- Benhabib: democratic iterations
- the creation of institutional frameworks that generate deliberative processes
- “... ‘rational discourse’ should include any attempt to reach an understanding over
problematic validity claims insofar as this takes place under conditions of communication
that enable the free processing of topics and contributions, information and reasons in
the public space ...”
Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (1996, orig. 1992) p. 107-10
Dimensions of deliberative democracy (Habermas, Benhabib)
Habermas: paradigm shift:
- from a philosophy of the subject (unified agent) to a philosophy of linguistically
articulated, interactive communication (discourse)
metanorm (Benhabib, the all-affected principle of discourse ethics)
presupposed moral principles
- universal moral respect
- pluralism
- egalitarian reciprocity
the basic moral ideal of democracy
- inclusiveness
main unresolved theoretical issues
- the tensions between power and inclusiveness
- discursive scope (the all affected principle)
- the paradoxes of democratic legitimacy