Examples Of Deliberative Democracy

Two of the early influences on deliberative democracy are John Rawls and Jurgen Habermas. The use of reason in securing the framework for a just political society was advocated by Rawls. According to Habermas, a fair procedure and clear communication can produce legitimate and consensual decisions by citizens, thus making the outcomes legitimate.

Deliberative democracy, in the simplest term, refers to a conception of democratic government that secures a central place for reasoned discussion in political life. The political decisions should be the product of fair and reasonable and debate among citizens. In a deliberation, citizens consider and argue claims and come to an agreement that will best produce the common or public good. One of the

An informed and reflective preferences of the citizens who have taken the time to listen to their fellow citizens leads to a belief in deliberative democracy; there are several good things in deliberative society because there is a greater likelihood that citizens would make a good decision, there is a deeper understanding to the idea of rational deliberation and there would be a greater likelihood of a mutual understanding and consensus among citizens. These reasons build a strong foundation of deliberative democracy. Citizens do an adequate job of canvassing the facts and values that ought to guide the decision.

There are many examples of successful deliberative democracy. According to a World Bank study, the “Porto Alegre Experiment” in Brazil has demonstrable benefits in fostering economic development with the help of tens of thousands of people debating and deciding on budgetary priorities. Professor James Fishkin also demonstrated the benefits of deliberative democracy, in contrast to the increasingly corrupt and conflictual character of many representative systems, including our own ostensibly democratic

Among these conditions is mutual respect, citizens who deliberate must address each other as equals and acknowledge this status. The articulation of these standards is very different from an assessment of the probability of meeting them. If deliberation proceeds without the realization of mutual respect, we may even mistakenly decide that conditions of mutual respect have been achieved by deliberators. Deliberations can potentially have counterproductive effects. It depends on the attention to particular facts about what happens. The achievement of mutual respect is practically remote. Theorist should ask whether arguments on deliberation do anything to achieve a true democratic or a true deliberative discussion.

Deliberative democracy is also linked with power relations. They reproduce undemocratic power relations that troubled our larger society; they are neither sufficiently inclusive to be democratic nor meaningful enough to be genuinely deliberative. Deliberation is a luxury to which only political elites have access because powerful elites represent structurally dominant social segments. Deliberation is also always structurally biased, in favor of those with greater resources and power. These points lead to an antidemocratic appeal in the undergirding principles of deliberative democracy