Deliberative Democracy Essay

To what extent is deliberative democracy an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems? Definition of democracy. Deliberative approach as a type of democracy. Types of cases, when deliberative democracy is substituted by other types of democracy. The power of majority or the power of nation The power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties The power of elite or power of professional politicians Deliberative forum as an important instrument of deliberative democracy. The deliberative democracy as continuation of traditions of former concepts in legal government. The deliberative democracy in works of Dewey, Cohen and Rippe. Cohen and his postulates of discourses. Habermas and his approach to deliberative democracy. Critical opinions regarding deliberative politics. Conclusion. Definition of democracy. We hear word â€Å"democracy† quite often in our everyday life. The main meaning of this word is easy to understand. But still, there are a lot of types of democracy. Let’s examine the most interesting kind of democracy – a deliberative democracy and find out, to what extent is deliberative democracy an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems. Deliberative approach as a type of democracy. It is well known that democracy as a kind of organization of social-political life of the society is a preferable policy for any country. Still, we need to underline that democracy, as well as any other social-political system, is able to show it in different forms, depending on conditions. One of such forms is so-called deliberative democracy. It is such kind of â€Å"democracy, where citizens play the main role in political processes of society† (Barber Winter 1998-1999, p.588). Quite often it is called also a civil democracy. Actually, almost any nation in the world knows what it is, because such social-political system is quite ancient. Almost any nation had tradition of community, where they discussed problems and the ways how to solve these problems, as well as discussion and adoption of practical ways out. The role of citizen starts exactly from this point – from mutual discussion and action in politics within the limits of deliberative democracy. Such type of democracy supposes that a citizen is the effective political actor at the political scene of his country. It is also supposed that active citizen has a number of qualities, which are determined to define quality of his effectiveness. Such citizen has to be able to find out, to discuss and to feel responsibility for problems of his society and to be able to unite with other citizens in order to take decisions. It is also important to take into account all sides of political events, interests and values of other citizens and to find a common base to take effective and preferable decisions. Nevertheless, although such kind of democracy is very interesting, it is very difficult to develop and to maintain its vitality. Types of cases, when deliberative democracy is substituted by other types of democracy. One of the main conditions of existing of deliberative democracy is high level of political and legal competence of its citizens and their desire to participate in political process of their country. Deliberative democracy is changed into other types of problematical democracies when it is impossible to have such conditions. Let’s examine several types of such cases. a) The power of majority or the power of nation One of them is the power of majority or the power of nation. Such type of democracy is often called a direct majority system. The decisions are taken on the base of opinions of majority. The elements of such democracy are referendums, different kinds of Gallup polls and one-stage elections. As a result, process of politics becomes simpler and ability of society to solve difficult social problems is decreased. The power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties The other kind of democracy is the power of minority or the power of representatives of interested parties. The main demand of this type of democracy, which is called a representative democracy, is that all layers of population have their representatives in the institutions of governing. The problem is that such kind of democracy often becomes anamorphous. In particular, separate groups, who have their interests, start to dominate in political system. As a result, politics, which is brought into society, becomes highly specialized and oriented on only those groups, whose representatives were able to lobby their interests at the governmental level. The power of elite or power of professional politicians Another type of democracy is the power of elite or power of professional politicians. Such type of democracy means that citizens â€Å"almost don’t take part in politics and become cynical in relation to political process† (Finley 1972, p.78). Such politics seems to be the matter of chosen (professionals and specialists) – politicians, managers of election campaigns, image-makers, lobbyists, sociologists, pressmen, etc. Technocratic approach makes this kind of democracy different and almost displaces the citizens from political scene. Deliberative forum as an important instrument of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democracy in comparison with these types of democracy is completely different. It brings into politics voices of citizens, which are ale to change something in political processes of their country. This voice is not associated with simple public opinion, defined by the Gallup polls, simple voting or protesting. Instruments, which help deliberative democracy to function in the modern society, are various. The â€Å"most important instrument of deliberative democracy is so-called deliberative forum† (Honig 1993, p.2). Such forum represents not a simple discussion of a problem, but strictly regulated discussion accordingly to a definite form. Before such forum takes place, its organizers – often it is a kind of initiative group from the number of active citizens – work out the form of problem’s discussion. Participants of this forum obey to the form of discussion with help of qualified moderators (people, who are responsible for the forum). The stages of forum are as follows: The participants share their experience of personal attitude regarding to the problem discussed. Moderator explains to the participants the essence of problem and gives three-four main approaches to solve it. He explains also possibilities to solve it practically, advantages and disadvantages of each approach as well. We have to note that approaches of variants of problem solving are prepared before the forum takes place and are made on the basis of dozens of small forums, Gallup polls, interviews with citizens, governmental authorities, different organizations and other parties, who are involved in problem, etc. The participants discuss approaches of problem solving and reach consensus basing on the most preferable position. It is also very important that participants of such a forum listen to discussions of their partners and can â€Å"change their opinion in the process of discussion† (Bohman 1997, p.343). The practice of such forum shows that situations, when participants of forum change their opinion and prefer other approach, represented by other working group, are quite often. It proves once more that deliberation (discussion) is very strong and important instrument of political influence on citizens and is very important in resolving political public problems. We need to note that deliberation is different from debates. Debates are based on principle that it is very important to prove your own opinion, your own point of view by proving ineffectiveness of your opponent’s opinion. Deliberation presupposes enrichment of your own opinion and gives possibility to reexamine it in the light of discussions and opinions of other participants. The participants work out practical actions for realization of chosen approach and decide when they have to meet the next time to continue chosen practical measures. Moderators make report on results of the forum and present the report to the parties which can be interested and which are able to influence resolving problem. Such report is presented to mass media as well. The deliberative democracy as continuation of traditions of former concepts in legal government. The deliberative democracy is opposed to the kinds of aforementioned democracies. It is also opposed to aggregative democracy, which reflects the results of compromises between the group interests. It is based not on the â€Å"balance of interests, but on the power of arguments for the sake of the good of all citizens† (Bohman, J. & Rehg 1997, p.IX). The public sphere is examined as the scene of wide discourse of citizens and reproduces the base for idea of public sovereignty. This civil reflection is not limited by any pre-determined principles. It acts only within the limits of known procedure rules. Actually, the deliberative process is used as the democracy, which allows discovering the sense of taken decisions and their consequences for society in common. Such concept represents a reaction on crisis condition of modern forms of Western democracy. The model of deliberative democracy seems to be idealistic and very interesting. Such concept arouses the question of organic interaction of society and government. It focuses attention on modification of public sphere as the important point of civil activity and influence of civil activity on the governmental politics as well. The deliberative democracy continues traditions of â€Å"former concepts of legal government and is examined as democracy of rational discourse, discussion, conviction, argumentation and compromise† (Connolly 1991, p.1). It is based on the statement that a modern human is a citizen, who takes active part in the life of society. His roles in society as a client and consumer are mixed together with roles of participant in political and public processes. The modern human has tendency to non-belonging to any political party, because he is ready to make compromise and to refuse from his preferences to reach compromise. When we use tradition of legal government conception (particularly, the conception of Kant), we suppose that governmental-legal sphere should be examined to the maximum flexibility. It should be possible to take into account any new theme of discussion, opinions and re-examination of results. First of all we need to solve such problems as role of majority, opinions of minority, parliamentary responsibility and corporatism. The deliberative democracy in works of Dewey, Cohen and Rippe. Deliberative democracy is a concept, used by J. Dewey, which is examined in the modern political theory by such authors as Cohen, Rippe, Habermas, etc. Dewey proposed to refuse from usual understanding of democracy as political domination of majority and to examine the process from the other side, as way to obtain power by the majority of citizens. It can be done with help of public discourses and lobbying interests by social groups and minorities in different discussions and forums. â€Å"The rule of majority is as stupid, as critics speak about it. Still, it had never been only the rule of majority†¦ The means with help of which the majority becomes the majority, – are much more important: debates, modification of opinions, discussions with minority, etc†¦ BY the other words, the efficient necessity of democracy is in improvement of methods and conditions of debates, discussions and forums†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Dewey 1954, p 207) So, the very concept of publicity of politics has more important results that the results of politics itself. The idea of deliberative democracy is based on intuition of publicity. It became an independent concept, which doesn’t understand the aim of politics to satisfy interests of all people separately as liberal doctrine. On the contrary, it is the model, oriented on forum, where â€Å"concepts about â€Å"good† for all people is discussed by means of mutual discussion of citizens† (Rippe 2001, p.141.). Cohen explains the method of constitution of the political society. He explains the concept of deliberative democracy by means of a definite ideal procedure of consultation and taking decisions in political institutions. â€Å"The concept of deliberative democracy is based on the intuitive ideal of democratic association, where the justification of rules and conditions of such association is made with help of public arguments and reflexion between the equal citizens. Deliberative politics stipulates that the parties should present grounds for their proposals, support or criticism†¦ The grounds should be presented clearly, and all participants can accept the proposal or refuse from it, presenting their critical points of view by means of free discussion between the equal† (Cohen 1989, p.25) Cohen and his postulates of discourses. In such a way, we can define a number of discourses, which are examined as political function and are able to constitute political public society. Cohen speaks about several postulates of such procedures: Such consultations should be made in argumentative form, i.e. by means of well-ordered information between the parties; Consultations should be open and public. Nobody can be excluded from the number of participants; Consultations are free and nobody can force the partner to accept a proposal, except by force of arguments; Consultations have the aim of rationally motivated agreement and can continue as long as possible. Still, the majority can take decision to stop them temporarily; Political consultations first of all should be the subject of discussion of problems, which are the most important and interesting; Political consultations also can be used for â€Å"interpretation of demands and pre-political postulates† (Cohen 1989, p.22). They shouldn’t be limited by valuable consensus, based on common tradition and practice. Habermas and his approach to deliberative democracy. We can see that postulates of deliberative democracy are, actually, the reflexion of discourse theory into politics. So, it is no wonder that the concept of deliberative politics was accepted by Habermas and examined in his book â€Å"Faktizità ¤t und Geltung†, basing on the concepts of discourse theory (Habermas 1998, p.35). Habermas examines new concept of civil society, taking closer concepts of civil society and political public. He retains world orientation, which is resulted on liberal political culture. At the same time he focuses attention on forms of communication, organization and institutionalization of people in communities, where they form opinions, ideas, ideals, motives, values and orientations of different kind. Such conception allows forming new civil society, – â€Å"plural, effective and responsible†. Habermas tries to find the principles and values of new civil society in many-sided communication of individuals, groups, countries and regions. We can find also the motive of ambivalent attitude (inheritance and refusal at the same time) to Utopian tradition of modern as consensus of free individuals being the basis of righteous civil order, and with institutional problems of real capitalism. Habermas examines ideals of bourgeois humanism, such as self-organization, rational forming of political will, personal and collective self-determination, self-organization of society – at the background of cynical reality of the modern society. He changes the conceptual pair ideal-reality by the search of potential of rationality in everyday communicative practice. The last one is the basis of ideas, which finds expression in ideals of classical philosophy and continues to be important nowadays. He examines the concept of â€Å"public opinion† as formal structure of communication and presupposition of possibility to reach consensus. What are the ways to form political consensus, which is important for society self-organization? The model of deliberative democracy, supported by Habermas, supposes the ideal of society, consisting of free and equal individuals, who determine forms of mutual life in political communication. The concept of discussion and procedure of political problems and taking decisions is taken as criteria of democracy of the real political process. The procedure of forming opinions and will of the nation should be understood as democratic self-organization. The decision, which is supported by the majority of citizens, should be understood as the legal. Political communication should rationally form the will of participants. The problem of relations between the government and civil society should be examined through the prism of liberal and republican political traditions. The concept of society as a political value (societas civilis) equalizes democracy with political self-organization of society as the one body. It is based on republican tradition, which supports the ideas of Aristotle and Rousseau. The government as bureaucratic administrative mechanism should become a part of society as a whole. Deliberative democracy is not a simple power of citizens’ opinions. It is rather the possibility of power of reason, which is a result of citizens’ discussions. Coordination of plans of activity among the citizens supposes the constant standards of behavior, which stipulate and stabilize mutual social expectations. Stabilization of social character is executed thanks to mutual participation of citizens as well as communication, which coordinates activity of individuals. The aim of communication is to reach consensus. Critical opinions regarding deliberative politics. Still, there are some critical opinions regarding deliberative democracy. Let’s examine some of them. Critics write that the discussions can focus attention on different problems, which are found in the process of discussions. Those problems can influence on â€Å"positive taking decisions, because they can worsen situation by arousing different disagreements† (Held 1995, p.92). Even if the discussion helps to reach agreement, sometimes there are cases when such agreement is undesirable. People are able to get satisfaction from feeling of their â€Å"unevenness† and â€Å"difference†. And, on the contrary, they can think that consensus can lead to mediocrity. Such participants of discussion can understand the competition of ideas – dispute – to be vitally important for their personal freedom. Such institutional embodiments of thought lay on the basis of different attributes of democracy. So, we can resume, that the discussion not always leads to consensus. Also, when a discussion leads to consensus, it is not always can be examined as the advantage. The deliberative approach is criticized also because its aim is based on optimistic pre-suppositions regarding the government. Nevertheless, any theory has its weak points. Conclusion At the same time deliberative model of society focuses attention on personal rights of citizens, the principle of equality and practice of government. The ability to actualize those rights can be understood as ability to be a citizen in such deliberative society. Sharing position of Habermas, we can suppose that democratic society prepares the establishment of status of a liberal citizen. Such kind of participation in political processes of society is very important and actual in forming of â€Å"conscious† citizen and gives him possibility to participate in taking politically important decision and resolving public problems. In such a way, deliberative democracy presupposes education of responsible citizen, able to estimate difficulty of problems. Such citizen is able to accept legal interests of other interested groups (including traditional opponents). Principle of deliberative democracy generates the feeling of united nation and can be called an appropriate approach for resolving public policy problems. Works Cited: Barber, B. (Winter 1998-1999). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, â€Å"Political Science Quarterly†,vol. 113, â„â€"4 Bohman, J. (1997). â€Å"Deliberative Democracy and Effective Social Freedom: Capabilities, Resources, and Opportunities† in Deliberative Democrac, Essays on Reason and Politics, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts-London Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (1997). (ed.) Deliberative Democracy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massach.-London, England Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, Hablin A., Pettit B. (Hrsg.), The Good Polity, Oxford Connolly, W. (1991). Identity / Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, N.Y. Dewey, J. (1954). The Public and its Problems, Chicago Finley, M. (1972). Democracy, Ancient and Modern. New Brunswick Habermas, J. (1998). Faktizità ¤t und Geltung, Frankfurt a.M. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order, From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Cambridge, Great Britain Honig, Ð’. (1993). Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics, N.Y. Rippe, K.-P. (2001). Ethikkommissionen in der deliberativen Demokratie, Kettner M. (Hrsg.), Angewandte Ethik als Politikum. Frankfurt