Debating Deliberative Democracy
Abstract
Debating Deliberative Democracy explores the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in deliberative arrangements. Investigates the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in deliberative arrangements. Includes focus on institutions and makes reference to empirical work. Engages a debate that cuts across political science, philosophy, the law and other disciplines.
... In response to such findings, many good government advocates and social scientists have urged efforts to counteract public apathy and ignorance. Some have recommend efforts to instill a more deliberative democracy (Barber, 1984;Chambers, 1996;Fishkin & Laslett, 2003;Gutmann & Thompson, 1996). In contrast, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse suggest that the foregoing scholars are pursuing a dangerous illusion. ...
... Public deliberation could also help clarify for participants that reasonable people hold a diversity of views and that, despite this, discussion can be productive. With such deliberative methods as the National Issues Forums and Deliberative Polls, it is commonplace for participants to engage in respectful and thoughtful discussions of the issues as well as their differences (Fishkin & Laslett, 2003;Price & Cappella, 2002). Participants reassured that deliberation can be productive should be less apt to fear conflict. ...
In Stealth Democracy, Hibbing and Theiss-Morse seek to show that much of the American public desires "stealth democracy"--a democracy run like a business with little deliberation or public input. The authors maintain that stealth democracy beliefs are largely reasonable preferences, and the public does not want and would react negatively to a more deliberative democracy. This paper introduces an opposing "authoritarian stealth democrats thesis" that suggests that stealth democracy beliefs may be driven by authoritarianism and a variety of related orientations including poor political perspective taking and low cognitive engagement. These orientations may be ameliorated through democratic deliberation. Hypotheses are tested with survey and experimental data from deliberations with a RDD sample of 568 Pittsburgh residents and of 99 Canadian young adults. Using confirmatory factor analysis and OLS regression with cluster-robust standard errors, the paper finds that authoritarianism and related orientations strongly explain stealth democracy beliefs among deliberation participants and that deliberation significantly reduces stealth democracy beliefs and factors behind these beliefs.
... While input and output legitimacy are interrelated, participation in urban planning processes has traditionally been focused on increasing the input legitimacy of decision making and understanding the preferences of the affected citizens in an area through deliberative processes. As mentioned above, this has to a large degree rested on Habermasian ideals of communicative action (Habermas, 1981), in which rational deliberation is the most important mechanism for clarifying citizens' preferences, strengthening the ability of those involved to act as democratic citizens, and achieving reflective understanding between subjects through the power of the better argument (Fishkin & Laslett, 2003). To be legitimate, processes and influence should be fair, which means that rational deliberation should include all affected stakeholders equally and give all involved an equal opportunity to be heard (Dryzek, 2000). ...
This article sets out to establish what we mean by the recent buzzword ‘co-creation’ and what practical application this concept entails for democracy in urban governance, both in theory and practice. The rise of the concept points to a shift in how public participation is understood. Whereas from the 1970s onwards the discussions surrounding participation centred on rights and power, following Sherry Arnstein, participation conceptualised as co-creation instead focuses on including diverse forms of knowledge in urban processes in order to create innovative solutions to complex problems. Consequently, democratic legitimacy now relies to a much greater extent on output, rather than input legitimacy. Rather than provision of inclusive spaces for democratic debate and empowerment of the deprived, which have been the goals of numerous urban participatory efforts in the past, it is the ability to solve complex problems that has become the main criterion for the eval- uation of co-creation. Furthermore, conceptualising participation as co-creation has con- sequences for the roles available to both citizens and public administrators in urban pro- cesses, which has implications for urban governance. An explicit debate, both in academ- ia and in practice, about the normative content and implications of conceptualising partic- ipation as co-creation is therefore salient and necessary.
... Therefore, in contrast to aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy requires citizens to transcend their private self-interests predominant in the market and search for public interests. For this purpose, public forums for deliberation and reason are evaluated and proposed, exemplified by empirical research and proposals such as deliberative polls and deliberative day (Fishkin, 1991(Fishkin, , 1995Fishkin and Laslett, 2003;Ackerman and Fishkin, 2004). ...
... Therefore, in contrast to aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy requires citizens to transcend their private self-interests predominant in the market and search for public interests. For this purpose, public forums for deliberation and reason are evaluated and proposed, exemplified by empirical research and proposals such as deliberative polls and deliberative day (Fishkin, 1991(Fishkin, , 1995Fishkin and Laslett, 2003;Ackerman and Fishkin, 2004). ...
This manuscript explores the relationship between positive psychology and political philosophy, revealing an inter-disciplinary approach that speaks to the concerns of the common good. Since positive psychology has been expanding its reach into social and political spheres, its relationship to philosophical arguments has been worthy of exploration. Positive psychology is associated with utilitarianism, and aspects of hedonic psychology. However, an alternative concept of eudaimonic well-being has enabled this psychology to have links to other political philosophies. Therefore, this manuscript provides an overview of contemporary political philosophies: first, it discusses the debate between liberalism and communitarianism, and secondly, it summarizes the subsequent developments of liberal perfectionism, capability approach, and deliberative democracy. Then, the configuration of these political philosophies is indicated by the figure of two axes of “individual/collective” and “ethical/non-ethical.” The following section compiles the inter-relationships between the conceptions of citizenship, justice, and well-being, regarding the main political philosophies: egoism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, communitarianism, and conservatism. Utilitarianism is associated with happiness, while liberalism and libertarianism rely on the concept of rights, which is almost equal to the idea of justice. Accordingly, utilitarianism is a philosophy of well-being, while liberalism and libertarianism are philosophies of justice. However, there is little connection between well-being and justice in these philosophies because the two kinds of philosophies are incompatible. The latter kind criticizes the former because the maximization of happiness can infringe on people’s rights. Moreover, these philosophies do not particularly value citizenship. In contrast, communitarianism is intrinsically the political philosophy of citizenship most attuned to increasing well-being, and it can connect an idea of justice with well-being. The final part offers a framework to develop an inter-disciplinary collaboration. Positive psychology can provide the empirical basis of the two axes above concerning political philosophies. On the other hand, the correspondence makes the character of political philosophies clearer. While libertarianism and liberalism correspond to psychology as usual, utilitarianism and communitarianism correspond to positive psychology, and the latter can be regarded as positive political philosophies. This recognition leads to the interdisciplinary framework, enabling multi-disciplinary collaboration, including work with the social sciences, which could benefit the common good.
... Deliberative democracy evokes ideals of rational legislation, of participatory politics, and of civic self-governance and autonomy. It presents an ideal of political autonomy based on the practical reasoning expressed in an open discourse leading to an agreed judgement on substantive policy issues (Miller 1992, 54-67;Bessette 1994;Nino 1996;Elster 1998;Gutmann and Thompson 2004;Macedo 1999;Fishkin and Laslett 2003;Dryzek 2002;Passerin 2006). ...
The article opens by explaining the architecture of the Internet. Given its present raison d'être, a free highway allowing maximum freedom, one may argue that the bounds of free expression are broader in scope on the Net compared with the bounds of legitimate speech allowed on other forms of communication. Contesting this assertion, it is argued that legally speaking, there is no difference between electronic communication and other forms of communication.
... As the Internet affects the life of each and every one of us, we have vested interest in attempting to have a social tool that enables the promotion of social good. Following Habermas' ideas on deliberative democracy and the importance of having access to different publics and organizations in the international civil society, it is argued that the Internet will be stable in the long run only if Internet users generally perceive it as a legitimate instrument; only if the Internet will be perceived as right and good, based on shared values and norms (Habermas 1990;Fishkin 1993;Fishkin and Laslett, 2003;Dryzek 2012;Chappell 2012). Citizens of the Internet will decide the future of the Internet and then ensure that the Internet intermediaries will perform the tasks that citizens have put to them in terms of Internet regulation of content. ...
... The central presumption is that social problems are increasingly "wicked," that is, subjective and contextual; thus, instrumental rationality, which uses impersonal tools designed to attain measurable objectives, no longer captures the essence of social problems [53]. Since there is no single optimal solution to the problems faced by multiple stakeholders, they need to engage in communicative processes through which problems will be identified, viewpoints exchanged, and collective action promoted [54][55][56]. Therefore, social problems need to be solved through inter-subjective communication rather than objective calculation. ...
Online deliberation research has recently developed automated indicators to assess the deliberative quality of much user-generated online data. While most previous studies have developed indicators based on content analysis and network analysis, time-series data and associated methods have been studied less thoroughly. This article contributes to the literature by proposing indicators based on a combination of network analysis and time-series analysis, arguing that it will help monitor how online deliberation evolves. Based on Habermasian deliberative criteria, we develop six throughput indicators and demonstrate their applications in the OmaStadi participatory budgeting project in Helsinki, Finland. The study results show that these indicators consist of intuitive figures and visualizations that will facilitate collective intelligence on ongoing processes and ways to solve problems promptly.
... To select the appropriate methods for engagement for a particular decision context, the following factors should be considered: the objectives of the engagement; the type of interaction, if any, desired among participants; and available resources (Table 3). One set of objectives for engagement that should be considered in the selection of methods is the potential to foster deliberation, mutual understanding, and reflexivity (Fishkin and Laslett 2008). This objective is especially important to conflictual situations. ...
Emerging technologies have the potential to offer new applications for managing invasive insects. While scientific and technological advancements are vital to realizing this potential, the successful development and use of these applications will also largely depend on community and stakeholder engagement. To contribute to a relevant and rigorous envisioning of engagement for emerging technologies for invasive insects (ETII), we begin by reviewing key insights on engagement from three scholarly fields: invasive species management, responsible research and innovation, and ecological risk assessment. Across these fields we glean best practices for engagement for ETII: 1) pursue engagement across decision phases and sectors; 2) select context-appropriate participants and methods; and 3) recognize and navigate engagement-related tensions. We illustrate these best practices by describing an ongoing project that uses engagement to inform risk assessment and broader decision making on biotechnologies being developed to address the Spotted-wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) invasive fruit fly. We describe completed and planned engagement activities designed to identify and prioritize potential adverse effects, benefits, management actions, and research actions of the proposed genetically engineered sterile male, gene drive, and RNAi biotechnologies. In the face of broadening calls for engagement on emerging technologies, this article provides theoretical and empirical insights that can guide future engagement for ETII.
... There is evidence that when individuals receive new factual information their attitudes can and do change 3 (Chapman, Mirlees-Black, and Brawn 2002). Also, the opportunity to deliberate views seems to influence opinions as well (Hough and Parks 2002;Fishkin 2003;Fishkin and Laslett 2003 information on the death penalty (i.e. that it did not deter), they would abandon their pro-death penalty attitudes. Sarat and Vidmar (1976) found some empirical support for this argument. ...
This doctoral dissertation investigates individual-level variation in attitudes to offenders or “punitiveness”. I argue that these attitudes are best understood in the context of a
narrative model of identity. Punitiveness is therefore treated as a functional social
attitude rather than a stable personality trait. The inquiry is informed by the idea that
symbolic concerns largely unrelated to crime play a significant role in shaping
attitudes regarding crime and justice. The study is intended to complement and
supplement both theoretical work in the sociology of punishment and survey research
on public opinion.
The research at the heart of this thesis consists of two parts: a postal survey (N=939)
measuring attitudes toward punishment and their possible correlates; and life story
interviews (N=40) with two samples of survey respondents: those scoring high in
punitive attitudes and those scoring low. Studying attitudes toward offenders this way
allows for an examination of factors both at the surface level (e.g., socio-
demographics and basic beliefs) and beyond. For instance, an analysis of the survey
results demonstrates that only a small amount of the variance in attitudes toward
offenders can be explained by recourse to ‘instrumental’ factors such as personal
victimisation or fear of crime. The analysis suggests that more expressive and
symbolic concerns (e.g., anxieties about the youth in Britain) have a greater impact on
punitiveness. Other identity-related themes are therefore explored in greater depth in
the qualitative analysis of the life story interviews.
The qualitative findings suggest that the symbolic connections that sustain punitive
and non-punitive belief systems (their internal logic and personal meanings) are
distinct in terms of underlying motivations and ideological settings. In particular,
punitive attitudes appear to be related to the use of identity scripts that stress themes
of intimacy and communion and that impose purpose and meaning to events that
could be interpreted as random. Non-punitive self-narratives on the other hand, are
more likely to stress themes of autonomy and are set against a background that value
rights and principles. When confronted with moral dilemmas, non-punitive narrators
often detach themselves and their feelings from the purview of others; whereas,
- i -
punitive narrators are more likely to assign the event communal meaning. Both
tendencies function to protect the narrator psychically. Non-punitive scripts seek
safety and certainty through independence from others, whereas punitive scripts find
security through close attachments to others.
These findings situate punitiveness in a broader understanding of individual identity
concerns and suggest important new directions for understanding the psychology of
punitiveness beyond simple stereotypes and trait-based discussions of “authoritarian
types”. Personal punitiveness is more understandable when viewed as a part of these
wider worldviews. The findings are linked back to sociological understandings of
punishment such as Durkheim’s seminal text, as well as to more recent theoretical
work on justice beliefs and identity such as Carol Gilligan’s work on moral
development.
... According to Fishkin and Laslett (2008), more focused deliberation and rational debates conducted in select groups that are representative of citizens are ideal forms of deliberative democracy. Our focus in on how those specified organizational structures-committees or select groups-are related to redistributive outcomes. ...
This study examines the relationship between inclusiveness with respect to the structural design of the participatory process and resource allocation outcomes in participatory budgeting. Empirically, this article examines the case of participatory budgeting in Seoul, South Korea, where redistribution is not an explicit goal. Findings suggest that creating organizational structures that enable and encourage public participation has led Seoul’s participatory budgeting to distribute public funds toward poor neighborhoods.
Points for practitioners
Participatory budgeting is an exemplar practice of public participation in the government decision-making process. It is a local budgeting practice that allows the public to participate, discuss, deliberate, and decide where and how to spend public money. This study highlights the importance of designing inclusive organizational structures in participatory budgeting to encourage public participation. Empirical results underscore the link between inclusive organizational structures and more equitable allocation outcomes.
... Basta lembrar que já nos anos 1970 Macpherson (1977) indagava-se sobre o potencial democrático das tecnologias emergentes. No campo propriamente deliberativo, muitos estudos buscaram apontar a internet como nova ágora pública capaz de gerar debates e fomentar a edificação de razões publicamente acessíveis e defensáveis (Bohman, 2004;Gastil 2003;Fishkin 2003;Wilhelm 2000;Delli Carpini et al, 2004, Dean, 2003, Gimmler, 2001, Polletta and Lee, 2006Froomkin, 2003). Como explicam Graham e Witschge (2003, p. 174), acredita-se que a internet ofereça um possível remédio para uma esfera pública enferma, que tem assistido ao progressivo encolhimento de espaços discursivos, e para a mídia massiva, que se tornou crescentemente impregnada pela comercialização e tabloidização. ...
... Por sua vez, no campo deliberativo muitos estudos buscaram apontar a internet como novo espaço público capaz de promover debates e fomentar a elaboração de razões públicas e justificáveis (Bohman, 2004;Gastil, 2003;Fishkin 2003;Wilhelm 2000;Delli Carpini et al, 2004, Dean, 2003, Gimmler, 2001, Polletta and Lee, 2006Froomkin, 2003). ...
In the present text we propose to make a diagnosis and estimate some effects of the use of ICTs by the Brazilian members of parliament. In Brazil, the Chamber of Deputies has sought to expand the area of electronic participation through its electronic portal (http://www2.camara.gov.br/) seeking to contribute to new democratic forms of interaction between the public sector and society. civil. This portal aims to increase channels for political participation, deliberation and transparency through the development of interaction tools between citizens and deputies, such as “Talk to the Deputy”, forums and chat rooms. For an accurate analysis of the use of these channels, the Center for Legislative Studies in cooperation with the University of Salamanca developed a complex survey. Among the objectives of this survey was to find out the frequency and mode of use of ICT tools provided by the Chamber of Deputies. Thus, in this text, at first we discuss the theoretical framework that argues the conjectures, then we analyze descriptive data to, finally, to estimate some effects through correspondence analysis.
... esim. Dryzek 2000;Fishkin ja Laslett 2003). Pitkän aikavälin tarkastelulla deliberaatiosta saatavat hyödyt ovat fundamentaalisia. ...
According to Section 20 of the Constitution of Finland and the international treaty of Århus which binds the Finnish government, people have the right to have information about and to influence on decision making concerning their living environment. This article considers the development, practices and challenges relating to citizens’ right to have information and right to influence. Although these rights have developed to be more inclusive, the current trend is restriction of rights in which economic reasons have played a key role. But distribution of information and guaranteeing participation can be seen as useful from this perspective as well. However, as a part of a wider concept of political rights, these procedural rights should be respected as an essential part of a democratic society. Article concludes that right to have information about and to influence on decision making concerning the environment should be operated more explicitly as it is done with other political rights in relation to general decision making in democratic society. Right to environment not just contribute to the technocratic protection of high level of protection of the environment. It has a value in relation to the legitimacy of government and self-value as citizens’ fundamental right to take part in conversation and decision making concerning their living environment on every level of decision making. But in relation to environment the outcomes of decision making are limited by high level of protection for the environment.
... esim. Dryzek 2000;Fishkin ja Laslett 2003). Pitkän aikavälin tarkastelulla deliberaatiosta saatavat hyödyt ovat fundamentaalisia. ...
... Starting with the Condorcet Jury Theorem, most models in epistemic social choice theory have assumed that the opinions of different voters are stochastically independent, conditional on the true state of nature. 1 But in reality, the opinions of voters are correlated, because they deliberate with one another. Indeed, there is now an extensive literature on deliberative democracy which argues that deliberation should improve the epistemic competency of groups (Fishkin and Laslett, 2008;Landemore, 2013;Landemore and Page, 2015;Estlund and Landemore, 2018). But it is not clear that deliberation is always beneficial in this regard. ...
... Their work contrasts baseline opinions on a given issue with opinions' of the same subjects following a weekend of study and then engagement in dialogue with "competing experts and political leaders." Since the Center makes a concerted effort to select a representative sample of the respective population, the Center makes the assertion that the "resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the public would reach, if people had [the] opportunity to become more informed and more engaged by the issues" (Center for Deliberative Democracy, n.d., Fishkin and Laslett (2003). Giroux (2006) takes the problem to educators; he suggests all levels of education should stress the significance of knowledge, debate, and dialogue concerning pressing social problems as a means to correcting unjust social conditions: ...
Full text available: https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ag/article/view/165/173
Published in: The Advanced Generalist: Social Work Research Journal (2016), Vol. 2 (1), 28-44.
While a cornerstone of any democracy, efficacious civic discourse and the ability to come to
reasonable compromise seem to occur rarely today. This paper suggests that higher education may be a place to teach such skills, describes a two-fold approach of lecture and class exercise, and reports on student results from a case example. Lecture on concepts based on Habermas’ lifeworld and ideal speech situation, with an emphasis on the relationship of these two terms to that of deliberative justice, was provided to graduate students in Nepal before engaging them in a class exercise deliberating about a social issue relevant to the local context. Both quantitative and qualitative results indicated that students understanding of the material significantly improved through the method of presentation. This pedagogy may be one way to increase civic discourse and engagement in society.
... The term deliberative democracy refers to a family of theories (for overviews see e.g., Dryzek, 2000;Fishkin & Laslett, 2003;Gutmann & Thompson, 2004), which -similarly to other normative democratic traditions (see e.g., Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, & Rucht, 2002) -set specific demands with respect to the political processes in a democratic society. The present article will adopt the ideas of deliberative democracy in order to derive normative standards with regard to the content and effects of political entertainment. ...
Dieser Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den normativen Bedingungen und Wirkungen des Unterhaltungserlebens von Mediennutzerinnen und -nutzern im Kontext politischer Medieninhalte. Auf Basis von Zwei-Prozess-Modellen der Unterhaltung sowie der deliberativen Demokratietheorie wird dabei zum einen ausgearbeitet, inwiefern sich spezifische normative Merkmale politischer Medienangebote auf das Unterhaltungserleben von Mediennutzer/-innen auswirken. Zum anderen wird untersucht, inwiefern dieses Unterhaltungserleben zu internen deliberativen Denkprozessen beitragen kann. Überprüft werden die theoretisch hergeleiteten Effekte und Zusammenhänge durch zwei Befragungsstudien, von denen eine experimentell, die andere korrelativ angelegt ist. Insgesamt ergeben sich aus den Studien gemischte Befunde im Hinblick auf die Auswirkung deliberativer inhaltlicher Merkmale auf das Unterhaltungserleben von Rezipient/-innen. Allerdings zeigen beide Studien, dass sich insbesondere das eudaimonische Unterhaltungserleben von Mediennutzer/-innen positiv auf deliberative Denkprozesse auswirkt.
... One of them is the deliberative model. While the model actually includes a family of theories (e.g., Bohman & Rehg, 1999;Cohen, 1989;Fishkin & Laslett, 2003;Gutmann & Thompson, 2004), a good part of it-and the specific understanding we build upon-originates in the works of Habermas (e.g., 1984Habermas (e.g., , 1992Habermas (e.g., , 1994. Following Habermas (1994), the central element of the deliberative model is the mechanism through which political power is rationalized: political discourse. ...
Through the connection of deliberative democracy and entertainment theory this article proposes a normatively grounded basis for research on political (entertainment) media. With regard to deliberation, it builds upon mediated deliberation research and a concept Goodin called “deliberation within.” As for media entertainment processes, it draws on two-process-models of entertainment experiences. Building on further insights from both areas, it presents a theoretical model that combines these concepts. The model elucidates how normative deliberative standards may be compatible with the entertainment needs and experiences of media users, thereby offering a viable perspective for the political education of citizens in modern democracies. Consequences and recommendations for practice and further research are discussed.
... While input and output legitimacy are interrelated, participation in urban planning processes has traditionally been focused on increasing the input legitimacy of decision making and understanding the preferences of the affected citizens in an area through deliberative processes. As mentioned above, this has to a large degree rested on Habermasian ideals of communicative action (Habermas, 1981), in which rational deliberation is the most important mechanism for clarifying citizens' preferences, strengthening the ability of those involved to act as democratic citizens, and achieving reflective understanding between subjects through the power of the better argument (Fishkin & Laslett, 2003). To be legitimate, processes and influence should be fair, which means that rational deliberation should include all affected stakeholders equally and give all involved an equal opportunity to be heard (Dryzek, 2000). ...
This article sets out to establish what we mean by the recent buzzword 'co-creation' and what practical application this concept entails for democracy in urban governance, both in theory and practice. The rise of the concept points to a shift in how public participation is understood. Whereas from the 1970s onwards the discussions surrounding participation centred on rights and power, following Sherry Arnstein, participation conceptualised as co-creation instead focuses on including diverse forms of knowledge in urban processes in order to create innovative solutions to complex problems. Consequently, democratic legitimacy now relies to a much greater extent on output, rather than input legitimacy. Rather than provision of inclusive spaces for democratic debate and empowerment of the deprived, which have been the goals of numerous urban participatory efforts in the past, it is the ability to solve complex problems that has become the main criterion for the evaluation of co-creation. Furthermore, conceptualising participation as co-creation has consequences for the roles available to both citizens and public administrators in urban processes , which has implications for urban governance. An explicit debate, both in academ-ia and in practice, about the normative content and implications of conceptualising participation as co-creation is therefore salient and necessary.
The purpose of this paper is to present the elements of deliberative participatory governance using the example of citizens' assembly that has become more and more popular worldwide example of mini-public. My analysis is based on exemplification of the process performed in 2021 in the city of Mostar in Bos-nia and Herzegovina. It was the first citizens' assembly held in Southeast Europe and it focused on cleanliness and public space maintenance in the city. The paper takes the form of a case study and it does not aim to provide the comprehensive analysis of deliberative processes occurring during citizens' assemblies. The paper consists of the five following parts: (I) introduction; (II) presentation of methodo-logical assumptions the analysis was based on; (III) theory-oriented reflections on deliberative democratic institutions, particularly citizens' assembly; (IV) case study for the City of Mostar; and (V) my conclusions.
The problem of centralised power, failed institutions, interference of religion and ideology, endemic corruption, and the emergence of elites within representative democracy have severely eroded the ideals of real representation. As a result of this, people began to say that democracy is dead and long live democracy. Ideally, when the information revolution and communication networks bring people closer, it should transform the nature of governance, making it more transparent, decentralised, and participatory (Kadlec & Friedman, 2007).
The 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill movement (Anti-ELAB) in Hong Kong peaked the tactical radicalization of the city’s recent protest history. At the same time, it signified unprecedented tactical reconciliation between moderate and radical protestors that maintained strong movement momentum and a high degree of solidarity for a long period. An ethics of solidarity was successfully formulated to illuminate deliberative practices among participants. However, the change of protest spatiality and repertoire from wildcat protesting to temporary occupation at a university campus altered the dynamics of protestors and weakened deliberative communication. This paper illustrates the struggles and learning curves of students who suffered deliberative deficit in the interaction with other protestors. This paper argues that the occupation, despite its contested nature, offered informal experiential learning of civic engagement for the students to their political literacy and civic mentality towards social movement under the intense setting of real politics.
Argumentation on some public policy issues is conjugated with disagreement and power differentials. Institutionally dominant arguers control the argumentation context through imposing authority rules which sometimes incentivize them to respond to opposing arguers in a fallacious way 1 – with “the repeating tokens of the same counterarguments” and without considering the merits of opposing arguments. As produced in accordance with authority rules, such fallacies are embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and easily pass unnoticed. To detect them, I introduce Argument Continuity (AC) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. AC is a set of the same arguments and counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to disconfirm opposing arguments and dismiss them. ACs are distinguished from other fallacies by their continuous nature and recursive way of production. ACs have their own life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing the cost of adopting a certain argument over time. I test the life cycle of ACs in a single case study – in consultations held by the Crown with Indigenous peoples of Canada over a controversial resource development project. Although ACs are not specific to the Crown-Indigenous relationships, they reveal how dominant arguers treat disagreement from epistemically diverse arguers. Based on observed evidence, I develop three theoretical propositions of ACs, which can serve as guidelines for researching the disconfirming mode of reasoning in other contexts of communication permeated by beliefs clash and power asymmetries.
Over the last decades much has been written about the role of deliberation in public life, and much is still being written. This does not mean that the idea of deliberation is no longer a flickering mirage, and the deliberative recommendations and the results of practices can be fully satisfied. In the literature on deliberation, as well as in the sphere of deliberative practices, there are examples more and less valuable. (...)
When we started working on the book, we tried to compose a work at a good academic level, which would not lack bolder theoretical interpretations, and at the same time it would be as free as possible from reproducing empty words. We leave the readers to judge the extent to which we have managed to do so. And we do so (as we hope) without self-righteousness, but also without anxiety, because we managed to gather a precisely selected group of authors which in our opinion guarantees academic reliability as well as practical awareness.The study consists of ten texts. The first three chapters focus on theoretical issues and the remaining seven take a more practical and functional approach.
From Introduction
Tercapainya tujuan perusahaan merupakan peran dari sumber daya manusia yang dimiliki oleh perusahaan tersebut. Perusahaan akan selalu berusaha untuk meningkatkan kinerja karyawan yang dimilikinya. Salah satu cara meningkatkan kinerja karyawan yaitu menerapkan bentuk kepemimpinan yang efektif. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui peran kepemimpinan demokratis pada kinerja karyawan. Penelitian ini dilakukan di salah satu perusahaan di Jombang yang memiliki 60 karyawan. Pengambilan sampel penelitian dilakukan dengan metode sensus. Data penelitian didapatkan melalui penyebaran kuesioner dan diolah menggunakan SPSS. Penelitian ini menggunakan analisis regresi sederhana. Hasil yang didapatka setelah melakukan analisis data adalah kepemimpinan demokratis memiliki peran pada naik turunnya kinerja karyawan. Kepemimpinan demokratis memberikan kontribusi sebesar 70,3% pada pergerakan kinerja karyawan.
How do face-to-face, assembly processes, and non-face-to-face, popular vote processes impact the decisions made by citizens? Normative discussions of the comparative merits of these two broad types of participatory decision-making processes partly rely on empirical assumptions concerning this question. In this paper, we test the central assumption that assemblies lead to decisions that are more widely supported by participants than popular votes. We do so by analyzing 1,400 decisions made through these processes on the highly salient issue of municipal mergers in Swiss municipalities since 1999. We find that assembly decisions are consistently made by larger majorities than popular vote decisions and that this relationship is significantly mediated by turnout. This suggests that higher levels of agreement in assemblies mainly result from selection biases – with fewer dissenting citizens participating in assemblies than in popular votes – rather than from internal dynamics in assemblies.
This chapter introduces Habermas’s Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy and its relevant key concepts. In addition, to highlight the tension between normativity and practice, it presents some well-known debates, as well as sociological empirical research in different contexts.
Uniwersytet jako wspólnota intelektualna i przestrzeń badań, edukacji oraz rozwoju kształtuje kulturę akademicką. Celem kształcenia jest przekazanie absolwentom prawa wiedzy - bez wątpienia kluczowej dla wykonywania zawodu, ale również kompetencji i umiejętności umożliwiających uczestniczenie w kulturze prawa. Deliberacja jest procesem, w którym poprzez świadome, odpowiedzialne oraz ukierunkowane na poznanie działanie, możliwa jest racjonalna, ale również refleksyjna zmiana, uwzględniająca zarówno preferencje podmiotów jak i jednocześnie dynamikę zmiany otaczającego ich świata. Organizacja uniwersytetu w oparciu o filozofię deliberacji wpisuje się w tradycję akademicką, opartą o autonomię poznawczą, rozumianą jako podmiotowe prawo badaczy i studentów do wolności nauki i nauczania.
Die Theorie deliberativer Demokratie postuliert, dass die Qualität einer Demokratie entscheidend von der Qualität der Meinungsbildung in ihren formellen und informellen Öffentlichkeiten abhängt. Viele Anhänger und Aktivistinnen deliberativer Politik beschreiben allerdings politische Systeme nicht nur unter diesem Aspekt, sondern versuchen in sogenannten deliberativen Verfahren gezielt günstige Möglichkeiten für deliberative Kommunikation zu schaffen. Dabei werden fast ausnahmslos unreflektierte Annahmen zur Wirkung formaler Verfahrensstrukturen vorausgesetzt, die einer organisations- und handlungstheoretisch informierten Plausibilitätsprüfung nicht standhalten. Der Beitrag schlägt demgegenüber eine soziologische Sicht auf deliberative Verfahren vor, die nach den empirisch wahrscheinlichen Effekten von Verfahrensstrukturen auf situative Rahmenbedingungen und Kommunikationsmodi fragt. Empirisch wird die Leistungsfähigkeit dieser Perspektive an einem speziellen Verfahrenstypus, dem sogenannten Deliberative Poll, nachgewiesen.
In recent decades, the agencies tasked with science funding and science policy in the U.S. have increasingly embraced new ideas about the role and duty of science in society. They have opened up to the idea that science and technoscience -- the intersection of science and technology -- have duties to the public beyond simply providing discoveries and innovative technologies. This is reflected in changes in an expansion of science policy to accommodate new concerns, like ethical and societal implications, and new actors, including lay publics. In this dissertation, I trace these changes historically through three emerging technoscientific projects: recombinant DNA, the Human Genome Project, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative. I show that while each of these cases involved a significant expansion in what was considered acceptable science policy, those expansions were met with efforts to constrain the degree of change they brought about for technoscientific development. The constraints were intended to protect scientific authority and autonomy in the face of the changes that the expansion of science policy brought with them. This dissertation questions the degree to which upstream changes to science policy – those motivated from the top-down by scientists and science agency administrators – will bring about critical reflection by policymakers about technoscientific development and governance.
This book explores the main challenges against multiculturalism. It aims to examine whether liberalism and multiculturalism are reconcilable, and what are the limits of liberal democratic interventions in illiberal affairs of minority cultures within democracy. In the process, this book addresses three questions: whether multiculturalism is bad for democracy, whether multiculturalism is bad for women, and whether multiculturalism contributes to terrorism. Just, Reasonable Multiculturalism argues that liberalism and multiculturalism are reconcilable if a fair balance is struck between individual rights and group rights. Raphael Cohen-Almagor contends that reasonable multiculturalism can be achieved via mechanisms of deliberate democracy, compromise and, when necessary, coercion. Placing necessary checks on groups that discriminate against vulnerable third parties, the approach insists on the protection of basic human rights as well as on exit rights for individuals if and when they wish to leave their cultural groups.
it is particularly important to reflect on the functions traditionally assigned to parties in the processes of democracy, and to ask how the apparently declining capacity of parties to perform their representative functions can be reversed, or alternatively how both parties and democratic systems more generally can adapt to the shift of those functions to other arenas. Do parties need to be reinvented? If so, what design tools are available, and how could they best be used? Political science should be able to provide resources to understand and perhaps to help to address these corrosive tendencies and pressing concerns. But there is a strong case for arguing that it has deprived itself of a capacity to do so, due to a curious, persistent and ultimately indefensible divide between two distinct sub-disciplinary domains: democratic theory, and the study of political parties. Any meaningful discussion of concerns with democracy and democratic legitimacy requires that empirical developments are assessed with reference to theories of democracy and that normative postulates can be evaluated in relation to empirical realities. The contemporary challenges to political parties, as part of a broader crisis of representation, heighten the degree to which the empirical and the normative need each other as we seek new ways to trace and express links between democracy as an existing practice and democracy as an unfulfilled ideal. In this light, it is regrettable that, despite their importance to one another, the current literatures on political parties and normative democratic theory continue to develop to an extraordinary degree in mutual isolation.
Even though that the question of the athletes’ representation and their involvement in decision-making bodies and processes is not new a topic, in Montenegro and elsewhere in the region, academia and policymakers have been particularly silent on this topic. A study showed, the academic agenda is mostly orientated toward the scientization of sport and physical education, while policymakers facilitating institutional pressures on athletes. Therefore, this study represents a pioneering venture to access an institutional representation of athletes within decision-making bodies and processes. The research has shown that there is no activity aimed at involving athletes in policy planning or the decision-making process, even in a consultative manner and athletes remained to be objects within the structure of sport movement in Montenegro.
Organizations underperform, or fail, when members do not partner with managers (through subtle resistance, disagreement, protest, or walk-out) to achieve common purpose. A manager boosts partnering not with a pretense of leadership but with a nuanced balance of managerial authority and understanding of members’ point of view. The main objective of this article is to sharpen attention on the concept of partnership with organization members and how it relates to some of the important previous literature. We also provide our perspectives on how some of the previous work attributes to misconceptions related to these concepts. Our raison d'être is forward looking: the dangerous societal and cultural differences clearly evident in the world, differences that surround management’s decisions that may induce an overuse of authority to quash disquiet. Using our experiences in both industry and academia, we argue that the activating link between managers and members is leadership, not “leadership” thought of as directional and inspirational, but leadership as building a relationship toward common purpose through partnership. “Lead” and “leader” are sorely misused, and worse, substituting “leader” for “manager” is just plain wrong. We believe that a leader is not a leader until followers agree to follow, not when the manager steps forward energetically with direction. Managers are cheated by mistaken definitions. Reviewing past perspectives about what makes “good” leaders and managers, we rethink ways to enhance organizational harmony particularly through a clearer understanding of managership, leadership, followership, and partnership. We discuss how managers and members thinking and acting as partners in “common purpose” is the core of success in organization endeavors.
Throughout the United States, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) continue to experience inequities in
educational, employment and community outcomes. Drawing upon the World Café process, an asset-based approach, this article presents
study findings from a Public Conversation for Change (PCC) forum with 73 stakeholders living on Staten Island, New York. Data analysis
revealed three themes that identified domains of critical importance in promoting local and equitable change for residents with IDD: (a)
Community Awareness & Allyship, (b) Housing Resources & Employment Services, and (c) Collaboration, not Isolation. The need for integrated voices of people with IDD plays a critical role in the PCC forums. This study offers recommendations for hosting spaces that seek to leverage change to inequities experienced by historically marginalized populations.
This article examines the gender gap in deliberation, focusing on three facets: willingness to deliberate, capacity for deliberation, and facilitation techniques aimed at reducing the gender gap. It hypothesizes that women will be less willing to deliberate but more likely to engage in strictly defined desired deliberative behaviors. Relying on original survey and experimental data, this paper finds women to be more willing to deliberate. However, men’s negative deliberative behaviors—particularly cutting others off or dominating speech––undermine women’s efforts to be effective deliberators. Finally, the two innovative facilitation methods outlined in the article eliminate the gender gap.
Agent-based models present an ideal tool for interrogating the dynamics of communication and exchange. Such models allow individual aspects of human interaction to be isolated and controlled in a way that sheds new insight into complex behavioral phenomena. This approach is particularly valuable in settings beset by confounding factors and mixed empirical evidence. The political communication setting of deliberation is one such salient setting: in business, politics, and everyday life, individuals with varying opinions, experience, and information attempt to collaborate and make decisions. Empirical evidence suggests that such collaborative reasoning can lead to good decisions, yet there are numerous deliberative failures which may frequently cause groups to reach bad outcomes. Using the substantive setting of deliberation, this paper presents an agent-based model aimed at disambiguating the individual factors which influence decision-making conversations. We model this communicative process as a deliberative game of “giving and asking for reasons.” Agents share beliefs around possible policy initiatives and attempt to enact “good” policies through a process of mutual exchange and consideration. The model considers an interconnected policy landscape in which implementing or not implementing a policy mediates the value of other policies. Within this framework, the paper considers the impacts of three canonical failures of deliberation: limited cognitive capacity, group factions, and tendencies to make poor judgments when accepting or rejecting others’ views. We find that cognitive capacity can significantly decrease the ability of a group to reach a good decision. However, this effect appears to be mitigated for groups of opposing factions. Indeed, polarized groups do surprisingly well at identifying optimal policy solutions, suggesting that heterogeneous agents can achieve good outcomes if they are willing to talk and learn from each other.
Democratic governance is under increasing scrutiny as a result of waning trust in political institutions, and a widening gap between public aspirations and government performance. The purpose of this paper is to address what is currently diagnosed as a democratic deficit by calling into question the notion of consent, procedures advocated in its pursuit, and its relationship with democracy. To this purpose, the paper reviews seminal works that have investigated the nexus of democracy and consent over time: The Calculus of Consent, The Engineering of Consent and Manufacturing Consent. In this, it presents different understandings of the processes whereby consent is arrived at, and questions whether they support or undermine democratic aspirations.
Many collective decisions depend upon questions about objective facts or probabilities. Several theories in social choice and political philosophy suggest that democratic institutions can obtain accurate answers to such questions. But these theories are founded on assumptions and modelling paradigms that are both implausible and incompatible with one another. I will propose a roadmap for a more realistic and unified approach to this problem.
A presente contribuição tem por finalidade examinar os principais argumentos contrários às políticas de ação afirmativa de recorte racial para acesso ao ensino superior no debate público brasileiro, desde 2001, momento imediatamente anterior à implantação destas políticas, até 2012, ano da declaração de sua constitucionalidade pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal e da aprovação da Lei nº 12.711, criando um programa unificado de ação
afirmativa social e racial para todo o sistema federal de educação superior e técnica de nível médio. Utilizo como base de dados, ou seja, como proxy do debate público, todos os textos sobre o assunto publicados pelos jornais O Globo e Folha de S. Paulo no período. Após identificar todos os argumentos contrários utilizados neste corpus, seleciono os dez mais frequentes e mostro que se agrupam em torno de dois temas, ou núcleos semânticos: raça e identidade nacional e Estado e cidadania. Após mostrar a falência
dos argumentos do primeiro grupo, que previam a eclosão de conflito racial no país em decorrência das cotas, examino as questões morais e práticas ligadas ao argumento do mérito para mostrar que (1) as cotas não são contrárias ao princípio da maneira como
ele é compreendido, e (2) os resultados que temos até agora não mostram grande diferença de desempenho entre cotistas e não cotistas.
ESTE LIBRO ES EL RESULTADO DEL PROYECTO DE investigación multidisciplinar «Imbabura Étnica. Diversidad humana y multiculturalidad en el norte del Ecuador» realizado en la Facultad de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología de la Universidad Técnica del Norte, de Ibarra, en la República del Ecuador, en el período 2016-2018. Nace de la constatación diaria de una realidad omnipresente: la diversidad étnica y la multiculturalidad imperante en la provincia de Imbabura como, en mayor o menor grado, en la totalidad del país.
Efforts to advance public participation in health and other policies have been associated with the production of many models and how-to-do-it guides for change. While these may have a helpful part to play in improving public and patient/user involvement in research, in this article it will be suggested that they tend to over-simplify things. Instead it is argued that an essential first step to advancing public participation in health is to put it in the context of developing modern democracy more generally. This article will seek to do this by identifying four key stages in the development of public participation in health and social care. These phases will be headlined as: - Working for universal suffrage in representative democracy and the achievement of social rights, like the right to decent housing, education and health; - Provisions for participatory democracy and community development; - Specific provisions for participation in health and social care; - State reaction and service user-led renewal as conflicts and competing agendas develop. - Working for universal suffrage in representative democracy and the achievement of social rights, like the right to decent housing, education and health; - Provisions for participatory democracy and community development; - Specific provisions for participation in health and social care; - State reaction and service user-led renewal as conflicts and competing agendas develop. While the proposed article will look particularly at UK developments to do this, it will also draw upon international experience and highlight the wider relevance of these phases of development. It will make connections between the extension of representative and participatory democracy, considering the different locations in which efforts to extend participation have helpfully developed, for example, in learning and training, and research and knowledge production. It will also consider how efforts to extend participation have also been undermined by pressures to tokenise and co-opt them; the continuing barriers discriminating against some groups and, ways in which service users and allies have nonetheless sought to overcome these difficulties to take forward more inclusive and diverse participation in health and social care. It will focus on some particularly promising areas of development internationally in order to do this in which co-production and the development of user-led knowledge are key.
Chinese public hearings or consultations have been subject to numerous debates, doubts, and scepticism about the existence of Chinese deliberative democracy. More empirical evidence, however, is required about these debates before we can offer any meaningful account of the nature, characteristics, and direction of Chinese deliberation. In addition, although there have been many case studies on grassroots deliberative democracy, such studies are intellectually isolated from each other in the sense that they do not comprise a statistical unit. To overcome this deficiency, we developed a new research method for studying grassroots deliberation by collecting and validating the existing case studies, thereby making them a statistical unit. This paper aims to offer a big-picture perspective and the national statistical trend behind the uneven development of grassroots deliberative democracy. It develops an intellectual framework to assess whether grassroots deliberation is democratic. By collecting, validating, and coding 393 cases of Chinese grassroots deliberations, we have assessed Chinese grassroots deliberation, confirmed the cases’ democratic attributes, and provided a solid statistical result. Although there is strong evidence to support the claim that these grassroots deliberation experiments are democratic, there remain some variations, nuances, and shortcomings. The full picture is not simple, but instead provides a mixed perspective.
Geleneksel siyaset bilimi öncelikli olarak hükümetin kurumsal yapısı ve felsefi yönden hükümetin gerekçelendirilmesi ile ilgilenir. Anayasal düzenlemeler, güçlerin ayrılığı, parlamento, devlet başkanı ve mahkemelerin yetkileri ve görevleri, hükümetler arası ilişkiler, yasama, yürütme ve yargının örgütlenmesi ve işleyişi gibi birçok konuyu ele alır. Siyaset bilimi ve kamu yönetimi çalışmaları, kamu politikalarının formülize edildiği kurumları tanımlamıştır. Ancak önemli kurumsal düzenlemeler arasındaki ilişkiler ve kamu politikasının içeriği büyük ölçüde değinilmemiş bir konudur. Siyaset biliminin “davranışsal” yönü, birey ve grup davranışının sosyolojik ve psikolojik yönleriyle, seçmen davranışı ve diğer siyasi faaliyetlerle, çıkar grupları ve siyasi partilerin işleyişiyle ve yasama, yürütme ve yargı alanlarındaki çeşitli süreçler ve davranışlarla ilgilenerek kamu politikasının belirlenmesinde kullanılan süreçleri tanımlamaya çalışmıştır. Ancak bunların kamu politikasının içeriği ile bağlantısı araştırmacıların ilgisini daha geç bir dönemde çekmiştir. Kamu politikası ve politika analizi çalışmaları, hükümet faaliyetinin sebepleri ve sonuçlarını tanımlamaya çalışması ve sosyal, ekonomik ve siyasi güçlerin kamu politikalarının içeriğine yaptığı etkileri ele alması itibariyle, siyaset bilimi ve kamu yönetimi alanına yeni bir boyut katma iddiasındadır.
Politika müdahaleciliği biçimleri, toplumla ilgili liberal anlayışın zayıflamasıyla beraber ortaya çıkmaya başlamıştır. Devletin toplum hayatındaki rolünün artmasıyla beraber kamu politikalarının alanı da genişlemiştir. Sanayi devriminin olumsuz etkileri sonucunda sosyal sorunun ortaya çıkması, halkların sefaletini azaltmak ve yaşam koşullarını iyileştirmek için devletin sosyal yaşama müdahale etmesini gerektirmiştir.
Bu kitapta geçen iki önemli kavram hakkında birkaç noktaya dikkat çekmek gerekmektedir. Bunlar bütün siyaset bilimi ve kamu yönetimi çalışmalarında çok önemli bir yer tutan “devlet” ve “hükümet” kavramlarıdır. İkisi arasında çok temel birtakım farklar vardır. Öncelikle devlet egemen bir otoritedir, hükümet ise devletin egemen otoritesini kullanır. Devlet otoritesini kendiliğinden elde eder, fakat hükümet otoritesini devletten alır. Devlet ülke toprakları üzerindeki tüm bireyler ve kurumları içeren bir entitedir. Hükümet ise sadece devletin yasama, yürütme ve yargı mekanizmasını işleten sınırlı sayıda insandan meydana gelir. Son olarak devlet kalıcıyken hükümet geçicidir. Çalışmamızda kamu politikalarının gündeme gelmesi, formülize edilmesi, uygulanması, analiz edilmesi ve değerlendirilmesi faaliyetlerinde kamu gücünü, yani “devletin otoritesi”ni kullanan aktör olarak atıf yapılan kavramın “hükümet” olduğunu vurgulamak isterim. Kamu politikası çalışırken devletin somut yönü ele alınır ve Jobert ve Muller’in ifadesiyle “eylem halindeki devlet” incelenir. Temel araştırma konusu devlet mekanizmasının hükümet eliyle somut olarak her gün gerçekleştirdiği faaliyetlerdir. Bu kamu politikalarıyla vatandaşlar her gün karşı karşıya kalırlar çünkü bugün devlet, otuz yıl önce hayal bile edemeyeceğimiz çok çeşitli alanlarda hayatımıza müdahale etmektedir.
Bu çalışmada daha önce yayınlanan iki makale ve bir kitap bölümünden faydalanılmıştır. “Kamu Politikası ve Politika Analizi Çalışmalarının Teorik Çerçevesi”, “Sanat ve Zanaat olarak Kamu Politikası Analizi” ve “Kamu Politikası Oluşturma Sürecinde Müzakerenin Rolü ve Kamu Politikası Sürecinin Demokratikleştirilmesi” başlığını taşıyan çalışmalar içeriği genişletilerek, yeni bölümler eklenerek ve bazı yerlerde sadeleştirilerek kullanılmıştır. Bu kitap büyük ölçüde kamu politikaları hakkındaki teorik tartışmaları ele almaktadır. Kitapta yer alan konular, kamu politikalarının gündeme getirme, formülasyon, uygulama ve değerlendirme aşamalarından meydana geldiğini ileri süren klasik “aşamalar” yaklaşımını takip edecek şekilde tasarlanmıştır. Ancak bu yaklaşıma karşı çıkan görüşlere de yer verilmektedir.
Kitapta öncelikle kamu politikası tanımlanmış ve neden çalışılması gerektiğine değinilmiştir. Bu bağlamda kamu politikasının bilimsel bir çaba olması, problem çözmeye dönük olması ve politika tavsiyelerinde bulunmak için kullanılması gibi özellikleri ele alınmaktadır. Politika çevriminin aşamalarıyla birlikte ele alındığı bölümde gündem oluşturmadan başlayarak politikanın formülasyonu, uygulanması ve değerlendirilmesi ile ilgili yaklaşımlar ve açıklamalar tartışılmaktadır. Daha sonra kamu politikası analizi konusu sanat ve zanaat boyutlarıyla incelenmektedir. Son bölümde ise kamu politikaları ve analizi ile ilgili genel bir değerlendirme yapılmaktadır.
Zusammenfassung
Hartmut Rosa hat mit seinem Buch „Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung“ (2016) einen der originellsten Neuansätze der Kritischen Theorie vorgelegt, dessen demokratietheoretische Potentiale allerdings bislang noch nicht genügend herausgearbeitet worden sind. In dem Beitrag werden an Rosas Resonanztheorie der Demokratie zwei Modifikationen vorgenommen und dabei die Bedeutung von individuellen und kollektiven Selbstwirksamkeitserfahrungsmöglichkeiten in der Politik in den Vordergrund gerückt.
Many political scholars argue that the opposition between liberalism and republicanism has been successfully challenged by deliberative democracy. Deliberativists aim to rejuvenate the idea of democracy as popular self-government, maintaining that political decisions should be (as much as possible) the result of public deliberation. In my dissertation I critically examine the deliberative intuition. I argue that it is a symptom of a political paradigm, which originated in the Enlightenment. I call it politics as will-formation. According to this paradigm, politics evolves around the issue of how to deal in a democratic way with people’s preferences. Politics as will-formation is based on a moral private/public distinction between strategic and reasonable preferences. I propose an alternative conception, which I call politics as jurisdiction. This conception is based on the public/private distinction between state authority and civil autonomy. Politics as jurisdiction does not relate the legitimacy of the political system to the moral quality of public discussion—it strictly distinguishes between them.
In Chapter 1, I explore the moral idea behind politics as will-formation, called the “publicity imperative.” I argue that it hampers an adequate perspective on political issues, and I introduce three topics to exemplify this: the debate about the democratic potential of the Internet, Richard Rorty’s ironist critique on liberalism, and the relation between freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I argue that in all these debates the political problem at hand is viewed as an issue of political will-formation. My conclusion is that a moral perspective is too narrow for an adequate political theory. A more complex conception of politics is called for.
In Chapter 2, I explain how using the public/private distinction may clarify some basic ideas that inform political theory―for instance, the publicity imperative. It could be generally said that political theory is affected by metaphysical impressions of the world, which should be made explicit during analysis. The public/private distinction is a conceptual bridge between intuition and theory, in this respect, and I develop this thought by reviewing Raymond Geuss’s Public Goods, Private Goods (2001).
In Chapter 3, I analyze Jon Elster’s classic defense of deliberative democracy. Elster distinguishes three political theories (liberal, deliberative, republican) in light of two sets of characteristics: the political process (private or public) and political purpose (instrumental or intrinsic). I ask why Elster did not analyze the fourth model, in which the political process is private and the political purpose intrinsic. I explain the omission by referring to Elster’s underlying paradigm of politics as will-formation. Politics as jurisdiction strongly improves the plausibility of the missing fourth model of will-formation (called “civil democracy”), as it strictly distinguishes between the political and civil aspect of democracy. Politics understood as “jurisdiction” is concerned with finding the balance between the implementation of public authority and the preservation of the institutional autonomy of civil practices of will-formation.
In Chapter 4 I scrutinize three postulates of political theory that often recur in contemporary literature and are heavily influenced by pragmatism. I critically analyze them in the light of a key epistemological issue: the “epistemic problem.” This leads to a classification of three orders of the social construction of knowledge: non-linguistic, tacit and rational. I argue that pragmatist epistemology does not strictly distinguish between these orders of construction, a lack that has influenced contemporary political theory a great deal. Pragmatism is based on acquiring tacit knowledge, from which perspective rational knowledge merely gives technical guidance, while non-linguistic knowledge has no meaning until put in words. I argue that all orders of construction are, in their own right, imperative for any political theory. I finish the chapter by revisiting the three postulates of political theory.
In Chapters 5 and 6, I develop the model of “civil democracy” by examining the public and private in Greek political theory. In Chapter 5 I present an account of the Greek political tradition that is more balanced than a modernist account, which is heavily influenced by liberalism. I argue that Greek political theory can be characterized as more liberal than the modern tradition, and that it is a modernist misunderstanding to depict Greek political theory so republically.
In Chapter 6, I concentrate on Plato’s and Aristotle’s conceptions of “public” and “private.” Plato elaborates the distinction twofold: as a relation between individual and political ethics, on the one hand, and as the pursuit of truth within a framework of law, on the other. Aristotle expands this double Platonic private/public distinction by asking what knowledge we can actually share, and how we can manage that knowledge. Both issues need to be of tackled by distinguishing between three types of rational knowledge (technical, practical and theoretical) and two values of civil self sufficiency (institutional plurality and human pluriformity).
In Chapter 7, I explain the idea of modern democracy as comprising three subjective senses of publicness: existential, which concerns the relation between the subject and existence; moral, which concerns the subject’s relation with others, and thirdly, political, which concerns the relation between the subject and political authority. A comparison between Rousseau and Kant brings into perspective their different approaches to these distinctions. I argue that Rousseau does the best job explaining the differences between the three aspects of modern publicness, while Kant is focused on moral publicness, which he sees as the core of modern politics. Kant’s theory is the classic apology of politics as will-formation, while Rousseau rescues politics as jurisdiction by claiming that all three senses of publicness have equal democratic stature.
In Chapter 8, I explain, by the writings of Marx, Mill, and Dewey, how Rousseau’s fears have become real; that is, how the Kantian domination of the moral public/private distinction has given birth to a political discourse in which both existential and political publicness have disappeared. This has led to what I call the double bind of the public sphere: the public sphere is seen as a place where both moral preferences are constructed and political legitimacy is created. The erroneous effect is a political understanding of public discussions and a moral understanding of political discussions.
In the Conclusion, I return to the main theoretical aspects of the study, and put them into perspective by sketching the relation between politics as jurisdiction and a particular civil practice, using a religious school as an example.
Nederlandse samenvatting
De waarde van de democratie wordt vaak gekarakteriseerd door de mogelijkheid van maatschappelijk debat. Omdat wij leven in een open en pluralistische samenleving is discussie cruciaal. Zoals Paul Scheffer het stelt: “Zonder een wij gaat het helemaal niet, zonder een kritische betrokkenheid vergruist de samenleving.”
Nu wordt het er over het maatschappelijk debat vaak negatief gedacht. Er wordt wel gesproken van een ‘democratisch tekort’: enerzijds zijn burgers weinig geneigd hun ideeën kritisch onder ogen te zien en anderzijds wonen politici in een ivoren toren en hebben grote moeite zich te identificeren met het publiek.
Een kwalitatief hoogstaander maatschappelijk debat zou beide kwalen moeten genezen: burgers zullen kritischer worden, politici zullen beter luisteren.
Deze denkwijze leidt tot een verkleving van politiek en debat: politiek verwordt tot een media aangelegenheid (Haagse issues worden opgewonden en haastig uitgemeten in kranten en op tv) terwijl maatschappelijke discussies snel aan politiek gerelateerd worden (kabinets- en Kamerleden worden gesommeerd tot actie). Wat er in Den Haag gebeurt is zaak van allen, en wat er in de media wordt bediscussieerd dient een zaak van Den Haag te worden.
In Politics as Jurisdiction pleit ik voor een principiële scheiding tussen maatschappelijk debat en politiek. Anders gezegd: ik onderscheid een politiek en maatschappelijk aspect van democratie. Aan de ene kant moet beter inzicht verworven worden in de manier waarop burgers maatschappelijk functioneren, aan de andere kant moet het politieke aspect van democratie bestudeerd worden, namelijk hoe de overheid op een gezaghebbende manier de maatschappij bestuurt.
In de huidige literatuur is het vooral de theorie van deliberatieve democratie die juist pleit voor een integratie tussen publiek debat en politiek. Veel wetenschappers (maar ook overheidsfunctionarissen) vinden het een aantrekkelijke politieke theorie, omdat het een symbiose tussen het liberalisme en het republikanisme is: tussen een pleidooi voor een terughoudende overheid (liberalisme) en voor actief burgerschap (republikanisme).
In mijn proefschrift verklaar ik de populariteit van deliberatieve democratie als een onderdeel van een politiek paradigma dat afkomstig is uit de Verlichting en dat ik ‘politiek als wilsvorming’ noem. Volgens politiek als wilsvorming moeten in een democratie belangen en voorkeuren van burgers worden vertaald in een algemeen belang. Vanuit dit opzicht benadrukt deliberatieve democratie dat deze vertaling zoveel mogelijk gebaseerd moet zijn op publieke discussie.
Ik stel een andere benadering van politiek voor, genaamd ‘politiek als jurisdictie’. Ik pleit voor een dualistische opvatting van democratie en onderscheid een maatschappelijk en een politiek belang. Politiek als jurisdictie onderzoekt hoe beide aspecten met elkaar samenhangen en heeft als doel een balans te vinden tussen het bewaren van maatschappelijke vrijheid en het organiseren van politieke autoriteit.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.