Search results

Typically a field for political theorists, deliberative democracy is becoming more empirical using a diverse array of methodologies for investigation of a variety of real-world settings. Yet moving forward, this field faces the three distinct challenges of booming diversity in conceptualizing deliberation, appropriate methodological tools, & development of a more unified & analytical framework. The standard conception has a strong Habermasian orientation, while more recent conceptions are closely linked to criticism of Habermasian discourse models as being impossible to achieve in the real world & having undesirable & potentially exclusionary side-effects due to its strong focus on rational discourse & consensus. Even as new directions are welcomed in empirical research, growing diversity raises issues of theoretical coherence in deliberative theory, & empirical contributions have been unable to draw a clear line between true deliberative & strategic action despite increasing methodological sophistication. Although computer assisted textual analysis can speed up data collection, empirical analyses remain time consuming & applying multilevel statistical models creates serious issues. A more unified analytical framework that enriches institutional approaches with individual-level characteristics & psychologically relevant factors would also lead to a fuller understanding of deliberative processes. References. L. Reed

The most widely debated conception of democracy in recent years is deliberative democracy--the idea that citizens or their representatives owe each other mutually acceptable reasons for the laws they enact. Two prominent voices in the ongoing discussion are Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. In Why Deliberative Democracy?, they move the debate forward beyond their influential book, Democracy and Disagreement. What exactly is deliberative democracy? Why is it more defensible than its rivals? By offering clear answers to these timely questions, Gutmann and Thompson illuminate the theory and practic.

The most widely debated conception of democracy in recent years is deliberative democracy--the idea that citizens or their representatives owe each other mutually acceptable reasons for the laws they enact. Two prominent voices in the ongoing discussion are Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. In Why Deliberative Democracy?, they move the debate forward beyond their influential book, Democracy and Disagreement. What exactly is deliberative democracy? Why is it more defensible than its rivals? By offering clear answers to these timely questions, Gutmann and Thompson illuminat

Deliberative Democracy is the darling of democratic theory and political theory more generally, and generates international interest. In this book a number of leading democratic theorists address the key issues that surround the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The problems faced by deliberative democracy are outlined in the context of the available empirical evidence, solutions are surveyed, and new and innovative ideas are proposed to resolve these issues.

This paper traces the evolution of deliberative institutions in India to understand the role of deliberation in democratic life, as well as the ways in which deliberative bodies influence, and are influenced by, entrenched social inequality. The paper first unpacks the historical roots of Indian deliberation in the pre-colonial and colonial periods, emphasizing the ways in which religious traditions fostered a culture of debate and dialogue. The paper then explores the interplay between Western liberal philosophers, most notably Henry Maine, and Indian political thinkers, including Gandhi and Ambedkar, on participatory democracy in India. The discussion then highlights the continued dialogue between Indian and Western ideas in the push for greater participatory development. Finally, the paper probes the current incarnation of state-sponsored deliberation in India -- namely, village assemblies known as gram sabhas under the constitutionally mandated system of Indian village democracy or Panchayati Raj -- and reviews the growing empirical scholarship about these village assemblies.

The epistemic dimension of democratic authority? / David Estlund -- What deliberative democracy means / Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson -- Political communication in media society : does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension / Jurgen Habermas -- Deliberative democracy and the case for depoliticising government / Philip Pettit -- Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy / John S. Dryzek -- Making deliberative democracy practical : public consultation and dispute resolution / James S. Fishkin -- Deliberative impacts : the macro-political uptake of mini-publics / Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek -- Reviving randomness for political rationality : elements of a theory of aleatory democracy / Hubertus Buchstein -- Models of democratic deliberation / Noelle McAfee -- Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism / Chantal Mouffe -- New mediation and direct representation : reconceptualizing representation in the digital age / Stephen Coleman -- The Internet, deliberative democracy, and power : radicalizing the public sphere / Lincoln Dahlberg -- Global democracy / Joshua Cohen and Charles F. Sabel -- Governance-driven democratization / Mark E. Warren -- Varieties of participation in complex governance / Archon Fung -- Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment : the cultural politics of discursive space / Frank Fischer

This paper aims to contribute to the valuable conversation about the role of deliberative democracy in teacher education. I consider both using pedagogy that engages deliberative democracy in process, thereby enhancing teaching, and advancing deliberative democracy as a worthy goal in teacher education. I begin by looking at recent changes in society that have reshaped student goals, educational accountability, and the priority of democracy within higher education. I highlight these changes to issue a call for a thoroughgoing commitment to deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice, as a means and an end. I expand on the definition of deliberative democracy and the skills necessary to fulfilling it as they relate to the goals of teacher education. I close by turning to exemplary programs in teacher education and showcasing some smaller steps toward incorporating democratic practices and assignments.

From small-scale experiments, deliberative mini-publics have recently taken a constitutional turn in Europe. Iceland and Ireland have turned to deliberative democracy to reform their constitutions. Estonia, Luxembourg and Romania have also experienced constitutional process in a deliberative mode. In Belgium the G1000, a citizen-led initiative of deliberative democracy, has fostered a wider societal debate about the role and place of citizens in the country's democracy. At the same time, European institutions have introduced different forms of deliberative democracy as a way to connect citizens back in. These empirical cases are emblematic of a possibly constitutional turn in deliberative democracy in Europe. The purpose of this book is to critically assess these developments, bringing together academics involved in the designing of these new forms of constitutional deliberative democracy with the theorists who propagated the ideas and evaluated democratic standards.

Abstract
In the mass democratic polities of today, the role of citizens remains confined largely to that of voting for members of elected legislatures. Beyond that, there is scant opportunity for 'the public' to participate in any meaningful sense in most of the tasks that make up the policy‐making process. Indeed, influencing that process is typically viewed as the sole prerogative of technocratic experts, organized interests, and elected officials. This presumption is buttressed (and rationalized) by a too‐ready acceptance of the platitude that citizens are generally uninformed, unskilled, and uninterested in the work of democratic self‐government.
We begin with a definition of 'deliberative democracy'.
We then briefly consider its connection to the concept of democracy more generally and argue that the moral authority of the former follows from that of the latter.
From both the developing and the developed worlds, we draw several examples of institutionalized deliberative participation. In some, institutionalization has been sustained; in others, it has not been sustained.
Reflecting on these examples, we consider the 'lessons learned' from these and other cases. We identify costs, difficulties and limitations associated with institutionalizing participatory public deliberation as well as the benefits and advantages thereof.
Finally, we briefly outline a proposal for an Australian experiment that might serve as a learning model for subsequent efforts there and elsewhere to 'institutionalize' participatory citizen deliberation.

Institutionalizing deliberative participation would not replace representative government, but rather would supplement it, enabling democratic governments to reflect and respond better to the values, priorities and aspirations of the people they ostensibly serve.
We offer this practice‐orientated paper as a discussion paper intended to introduce readers to the idea of institutionalizing participatory public deliberation and to generate constructive debate concerning it. We do not presume to provide a rigorous analysis of the concept or of any of the many issues surrounding it.
Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In this paper I will give a short description of deliberative democracy, its advantages over the aggregative model of democracy and its strategies for overcoming the obstacles which the social choice theory puts before the defenders of democracy. I will continue with the argument that the aim of deliberative democracy should not be reaching the consensus or unanimity, but obtaining preference single-peakedness. For, there is a practical impossibility of consensus reaching and the single-peakedness criterion is sufficient for prevention against the 'paradoxes of democracy'. Through the analysis of the given explanations of the ways in which deliberation can lead to the realization of single-peakedness, I will make an attempt to defend the position which holds that acquiring singlepeakedness, in the impartial conditions of deliberation, is a goal that is as equally unreachable as is reaching of the consensus because of the multidimensionality of the alternative evaluation criterion. However, I will show that even if deliberation does not necessarily lead to a preference single-peakedness, which would prevent Condorcet's paradox from happening, in accordance with Arrow's ethical conditions of democratic choice, it nevertheless reveals why these paradoxes are created in the first place, and it is providing us with an insight into how we can redefine the alternatives so that we can obtain a true single-peakedness of our preferences.