Deliberative democracy - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

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

2006Slide2

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 idealSlide3

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)Slide4

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)Slide5

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)Slide6

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 knowledgeSlide7

the deliberative process:

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. 107-10rhetoric scepticism

(from Lyotard to …- communication contain non-rational elements- the presence of subjective interests (≈ absence of good intentions)- any procedure contain substantial normsSlide8

Dimensions of deliberative democracy (

Habermas, Benhabib)

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

Habermas

: paradigm shift:- from a philosophy of the subject (unified agent) to a philosophy of linguistically articulated, interactive communication (discourse)