숙의 민주주의
| 민주주의 관련 문서 둘러보기 |
| 민주주의 |
|---|
 |
| 기본 형태 |
| 분파, 변형 |
| 관련 문서 |
숙의 민주주의(熟議民主主義, deliberative democracy)는 심의 민주주의(discursive democracy)라고도 불린다. 숙의 민주주의 또는 심의 민주주의란 숙의(deliberation)가 의사결정의 중심이 되는 민주주의 형식이다. 이것은 합의적(consensus) 의사결정과 다수결 원리의 요소를 모두 포함한다. 숙의 민주주의에서 법을 정당화하는 가장 중요한 요건은 단순한 투표를 넘어선 실제적인 숙의라는 점에서 전통적 민주주의 이론과 다르다.
숙의 민주주의는 대의 민주주의와 직접 민주주의 모두와 양립할 수 있다. 어떤 전문가들과 이론가들은 이 용어를, 그 구성원들이 권한을 불평등하게 배분하지 않고 법안을 실제적으로 숙의하는 대의기구들을 아우르는 데 사용한다. 반면에 다른 이론가들은 전적으로, 직접 민주주의에서 일반 시민들(lay citizens)에 의한 직접적인 의사결정을 지칭하는 데 이 용어를 사용한다.
"숙의 민주주의"라는 용어는 “Joseph M. Bessette가 1980년 저술한 <숙의 민주주의: 공화 정부에서 다수 원리>(Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government)에서 처음으로 사용하였다.
개관
[편집]숙의 민주주의는 민주적 결정이 적법하기 위해서는, 단지 투표에서 나타나는 선호도의 총합이 아니라, 실제적인 숙의가 선행되어야 한다고 간주한다. 실제적 숙의란, 이를테면 경제적 부나 또는 이해 집단들의 지원을 통해 의사결정자들이 보유하는, 정치적 권한의 불평등함 사이에서 이루어지는 숙의이다.[1][2] 의사결정자들이 어떤 제안에 대해 실제적으로 숙의한 후에 합의에 도달할 수 없다면, 그들은 다수결 원리라는 형식으로 그 제안에 대해 투표한다. 숙의 민주주의에는 대의기구가 있다.[3] 엘리트 숙의 민주주의(elitist deliberative democracy)에서 입법부와 법원들과 같은 모임에 적용된다; 대중적(populist) 숙의 민주주의에서 숙의 민주주의 원리들은 의사결정을 위임 받은 일반 시민들의 모임에 적용된다. 대중적 숙의 민주주의의 한 가지 목적은 사회 이슈들에 관하여 구속력뿐 아니라 보다 일반 여론을 도출(distill)하는데 사용될 수 있다; 숙의 여론조사(deliberative opinion poll)와 같은 수단들은 이러한 목표를 달성하는데 설계되어왔다. 대중적 숙의 민주주의의 또 다른 목적은 직접 민주주의 형태로 역할 할 수 있다는 것이다. 숙의는 일반 시민들의 모임 가운데 “공공의 의지”를 형성하고 구속력 있는 법을 직접 만들게 된다.[4] 정치적 결정들이 국민 스스로 또는 그들에 의해 선출된 대표자들에 의하지 않고 숙의에 의해 만들어지면, 거기에는 민주적 요소가 없게 된다; 이러한 숙의 과정은 엘리트 숙의(elite deliberation)라고 불린다.[5]
특징들
[편집]피쉬킨(Fishkin)의 숙의 모델
[편집]제임스 피쉬킨(James Fishkin)은 여러 나라들에서 15년 이상 숙의 민주주의의 실천적 이행을 설계해왔다.[6] 그는 5개의 특징들을 적법한 숙의를 위한 필수 요소로 묘사한다.
- 정보(Information): 정확하고 관련된 데이터는 모든 참여자들에게 자유롭게 이용되도록 만들어진다.
- 실질적 균형(Substantive balance): 서로 다른 입장들은 그것들을 뒷받침하는 증거들에 기반하여 비교된다.
- 다양성(Diversity): 가까운 현실 문제와 관련되고 대중에 의해 제기된 모든 중요한 입장들이 고려된다.
- 양심성(Conscientiousness): 참여자들은 모든 논쟁들을 진지하고 신중하게 평가한다.
- 동등한 고려(Equal consideration): 관점들은, 특정한 관점을 옹호하고 있는 사람이 아니라, 증거에 기반하여 평가된다.
피쉬킨의 숙의 민주주의에 대한 정의에서는, 일반 시민들이 의사결정 과정, 그리하여 직접 민주주의의 특수한 아류형을 만드는 데 참여해야 한다.[7]
코엔(Cohen)의 개요
[편집]존 롤스(John Rawls)의 제자인 Joshua Cohen은 1989년 The Good Polity에 수록된 “숙의와 민주적 적법성”(Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy)에서 자신이 생각하는, 숙의 민주주의 이론의 기본 원리들을 구성하는 조건들을 다음과 같이 요약했다.
- 기대되는 지속과 함께, 진행 중인 독립된 연합
- 민주주의 사회에서 시민들은, 숙의가 그들의 기관들을 창조하는 데 결정 요소가 되고, 그 기관들이 숙의가 계속되는 것을 허용하도록 구조화한다(structure).
- 가치들의 정치조직체(the polity) 안에서 가치들과 목표들의 다원성을 존중하겠다는 약속(commitment)
- 시민들은 숙의 절차를 적법성의 원천으로 간주하고, 각 법이 투명하고 그러한 숙의 과정을 쉽게 추적할 수 있는 정당화의 인과적 역사(causal history)를
- 각 구성원은 다른 구성원들의 숙의 능력을 서로 인정하고 존중한다.
- 이것은 그 입법 절차에서, 우리가 우리의 제안들에 대한 근거들을 서로 “신세지고”(“owe”) 있다는 생각으로 해석된다.
코엔은 숙의 민주주의를 하나의 적법성 이론 이상으로 제시하면서, 그것을 중심으로 “이상적 숙의”(ideal deliberation)를 성취하는 데 기반한 실체적 권리들의 본체를 형성한다.
- 그것은 두 가지 방식으로 자유롭다:
- 참여자들은 자신들 스스로를 오직 숙의의 결과와 전제조건들에 의해서만 의무를 지는 것으로 간주한다. 그들은 그 이전의 규범이나 의무의 어떤 권위로부터도 자유롭다.
- 참여자들은 이미 만들어진 결정에 따라 행동할(act on) 수 있다고 가정한다; 그 숙의 절차는 도달된 결정을 준수해야 할 충분한 근거이다.
- 숙의에 참여하는 당사자들(Parties to deliberation)은 그들의 제안들에 관한 근거들을 진술해야 할 의무가 있다. 그리고 제안들은 주어진 근거들, 즉 그러한 숙의가 벌어지는 내용물로서 근거들에 기반해서 받아들여지거나 거부된다.
- 참여자들은 두 가지 방식으로 동등(equal)하다.
- 공식: 누구나 제안들을 제출하고 비판하고 방안을 지지할 수 있다. 어떠한 실체적인 위계도 없다.
- 실체: 참여자들은 권력, 자원 어떤 분배 또는 이전에 존재하는 규범에 의해 제한 받거나 구속되지 않는다. “참여자들은 ••• 체제가 동등한 사람들 가운데 자유로운 숙의라는 틀을 수립하는 것을 제외하고, 자신들을 기존의 권리 체제에 의해 구속되지 않는 것으로 간주한다.
- 숙의는 합리적으로 동기화 된 합의를 목표로 한다: 그것은 그러한 의사결정 체제에 책임을 질 것을 약속하는 모든 사람들에게 받아들여질 수 있는 근거들을 찾는 것을 목표로 한다. 합의나 또는 그와 충분히 가까운 것이 불가능하게 되었을 때, 다수결이 사용된다.
1998년 출판된 논문, ‘민주주의와 자유’(Democracy and Liberty)에서, 코엔은 이러한 많은 요점들을 강조하기 위해 되풀이하면서, 또한 “합리적 다원성”(reasonable pluralism)이라는 개념을 강조했다. – 서로 다르고 양립할 수 없는 세계관들의 수용, 그리고 이러한 관점들의 보유자들이 모두에게 받아들여질 수 있는 조건으로 함께 살아갈 수 있는 한 그것을 보장하려는 사려 깊은 노력과 선의의 중요성.[8]
강점과 약점
[편집]숙의 민주주의 모델들의 강점은 그러한 모델들이 보다 더 쉽게, 과학적인 입장을 세우고 진행 중인 연구의 결과에 기반하여 정책을 마련할 수 있는 능력이 있다는 것이다. 그것은 다음과 같은 이유 때문이다:
- 모든 참여자들이 그 분야에 대해서 이해하고 토론할 수 있는 시간이 주어진다.
- 과학 동료들의 평가, 반대자들의 설명, 참조된 저널들, 심지어 경마시장들(betting markets)도 숙의적 절차이다.
- 다수파에 대한 반대 의견과 입장들을 기록하는데 사용되는 기술은 또한 내기, 예측, 주장들을 공증하는데 유용하다.
제임스 피어론(James Fearon)과 같은 지지자들에 따르면, 숙의 민주주의 모델들의 또 다른 강점은 공정성, 합리성, 관련 사실들에 대한 지식이라는 이상적 조건들을 발생시키는 경향을, 다른 어떤 모델보다 더 가지고 있다는 것이다. 보다 많은 조건들이 채워질수록 도덕적으로 보다 더 올바른 결정에 도달할 가능성이 커지게 된다. 그리하여 숙의 민주주의는 지적인(epistemic) 가치를 갖는다: 그것은 참여자들에게 도덕적으로 올바른 것이 무엇인가를 추론하도록 해준다.[9] 카를로스 니노(Carlos Nino)는 이러한 관점을 두드러지게 전개해왔다.[10]
제임스 피쉬킨과 다른 사람들에 의한 연구는 숙의 민주주의가 다른 민주주의 형태들보다 더 우수한 결과를 생산하는 경향이 있다는 것을 밝혀왔다.[11][12] 숙의 민주주의는 반대하는 입장들에 대해 보다 적은 당파심과 보다 많은 공감을 생산한다; 그것은 입장보다 증거에 기반한 추론에 더 많은 존중을 만들어낸다; 그것은 거기에 포함된 사람들에 의해 만들어진 결정에 더 큰 책임감을 부여해준다; 그리고 그것은 폭넓게 공유된 합의가 출현할 수 있는 더 큰 가능성을 만들어내고, 그리하여 서로 다른 배경을 가진 사람들 사이에 사회적 유대를 증진하게 된다.[13] 피쉬킨은 숙의에 참여함으로써 자주 이루어지는 공공의 활력 증가를 뒷받침하는 광범위한 경험적 근거들을 인용한다. 그리고 이론적 뒷받침을 존 스튜어트 밀(John Stuart Mill)과 알렉시스 드 토크빌(Alexis de Tocqueville)과 같은 민주주의 초기 사상가들까지 거슬러 올라갈 수 있다고 말한다.[14] 전직 외교관 칸 로스(Carne Ross)는 2011년 숙의 민주주의로부터 떠오르는 논쟁들이 전통적인 비공식적 공개 주민 회의(town hall meetings)나 인터넷 포럼보다 더 더욱 시민적(civil)이고 협력적(collaborative)이고 증거에 기반해 있다고 쓴다. 로스에게 이것을 위한 핵심적인 근거는 숙의 민주주의에서 시민들은 그들의 논쟁이 사회에 측정할 수 있는 영향을 줄 것이라는 지식에 의해 자율권을 얻게 된다(empowered)는 것이다.[15]
숙의 민주주의 이론들에 대해 거론되는 문제점은 투표의 문제들을 설명하지 못한다는 것이다. 제임스 피쉬킨의 1991년 저작, “민주주의와 숙의”(Democracy and Deliberation)는 숙의 민주주의 이론을 실제 현실의 의사결정에 적용하는 방법을 도입했다. 그는 그러한 방법을 숙의 여론조사(deliberative opinion poll)이라고 불렀다. 숙의 여론조사에서는, 보다 진전된 숙의 조건 하에서 이슈를 토론하기 위해 국가나 지역사회를 통계적으로 대표하는 표본이 수집된다. 그 다음에 집단이 조사되고, 그 조사 결과와 실제 숙의는 권고적 힘과 특정 상황에서 투표를 대체하는 데 모두 사용될 수 있다. 이 책이 출판된 이래로 수십 차례의 숙의 여론조사들이 미국에서 실행되어왔다. 정치 철학자 찰스 블랫버그(Charles Blattberg)는 네 가지 측면에서 숙의 민주주의를 비판해왔다: (i) 사려 깊은 이론가들이 단언하는 숙의를 위한 규칙들은 좋은 실천적 추론을 용이하게 하기보다는 방해한다; (ii) 숙의 민주주의는 이데올로기적으로 의회 민주주의 체제에 대한 공화주의뿐만 아니라 자유주의 선호에 기반한다; (iii) 숙의 민주주의자들은 한편으로는 올바르고 이성적인 숙의와 다른 한편으로는 이기적이고 강제적인 협상 사이에 너무 날카로운 분할을 주장한다. (iv) 숙의 민주주의자들은, 시민들 사이에 연대를 약화시키는, 국가와 사회의 적대적인 관계를 조장한다. 숙의 민주주의에 대한 비판은 수사에 가장 숙달된 사람들이 자기에게 유리한 쪽으로 결정을 좌지우지할 가능성이 있다는 것이다. 이러한 비판은 숙의 민주주의가 고대 아테네에서 처음 시작된 이래로 제기되어 왔던 것이다.[16][17]
같이 보기
[편집]====
Deliberative democracy
Article
Talk
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Part of the Politics series
Democracy
HistoryTheoryIndices
Types
Methods
Related topics
Region
icon Politics portal
vte
Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
List of forms · List of countries
Source of power
Power ideology
Power structure
Related
icon Politics portal
vte
Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. Deliberative democracy seeks quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a smaller but more representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue.[1]
It often adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law. Deliberative democracy is related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes. The distance between deliberative democracy and concepts like representative democracy or direct democracy is debated. While some practitioners and theorists use deliberative democracy to describe elected bodies whose members propose and enact legislation, Hélène Landemore and others increasingly use deliberative democracy to refer to decision-making by randomly-selected lay citizens with equal power.[2]
Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory traced back to ancient times, with an increase in academic attention in the 1990s, and growing implementations since 2010. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.[3]
Overview
Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.[4][5][6]
The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics; however, the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.[7]
Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies.[8] In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite societal decision-making bodies, such as legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are empowered to make decisions.[5] One purpose of populist deliberative democracy can be to use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill a more authentic public opinion about societal issues for other decision-makers to consider; devices such as the deliberative opinion poll have been designed to achieve this goal. Another purpose of populist deliberative democracy can, like direct democracy, result directly in binding law.[5][9] If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called elite deliberation.[10][11]
James Fearon and Portia Pedro believe deliberative processes most often generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts, resulting in more morally correct outcomes.[12][13][14] Former diplomat Carne Ross contends that the processes are more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums if citizens know their debates will impact society.[15] Some fear the influence of a skilled orator.[16][17] John Burnheim critiques representative democracy as requiring citizens to vote for a large package of policies and preferences bundled together, much of which a voter might not want. He argues that this does not translate voter preferences as well as deliberative groups, each of which are given the time and the ability to focus on one issue.[18]
Characteristics
Fishkin's model of deliberation
James Fishkin, who has designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy through deliberative polling for over 15 years in various countries,[15] describes five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:
Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue
Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives
Diversity: The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion
Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments
Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them[19]
Studies by James Fishkin and others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy.[20][21] Desirable outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds.[10][15] Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville.[22][23]
Cohen's outline
Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include:[24]
An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.
Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":[24]
It is free in two ways:
The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
Participants are equal in two ways:
Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.
In Democracy and Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.[25]
Gutmann and Thompson's model
Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".[26]
They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:
Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.
Standards of good deliberation - from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018)
For Bächtiger, Dryzek, Mansbridge and Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed:[6]
Standards for "good deliberation"[6]
First generation Second generation
Respect Unchallenged, unrevised
Absence of power Unchallenged, unrevised
Equality Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence
Reasons Relevant considerations
Aim at consensus Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
Common good orientation Orientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
Publicity Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g. in negotiations when representatives can be trusted)
Accountability Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
Sincerity Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality
History
Early examples
Main article: Sortition
Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy has been found in different degrees and variations throughout the world going back millennia.[27] The most discussed early example of deliberative democracy arose in Greece as Athenian democracy during the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was both deliberative and largely direct: some decisions were made by representatives but most were made by "the people" directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. Even some 18th century leaders advocating for representative democracy mention the importance of deliberation among elected representatives.[28][29][30]
Recent scholarship
Call for the establishment of deliberative democracy seen at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the late 20th century. According to Professor Stephen Tierney, perhaps the earliest notable example of academic interest in the deliberative aspects of democracy occurred in John Rawls 1971 work A Theory of Justice.[31] Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term "deliberative democracy" in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government,[32][33] and went on to elaborate and defend the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). In the 1990s, deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention from political scientists.[33] According to Professor John Dryzek, early work on deliberative democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory of democratic legitimacy.[34] Theorists such as Carne Ross advocate deliberative democracy as a complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by contributors such as James Fishkin, is that direct deliberative democracy can be complementary to traditional representative democracy. Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy include Carlos Nino, Jon Elster, Roberto Gargarella, John Gastil, Jürgen Habermas, David Held, Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann, Noëlle McAfee, Rense Bos, Jane Mansbridge, Jose Luis Marti, Dennis Thompson, Benny Hjern, Hal Koch, Seyla Benhabib, Ethan Leib, Charles Sabel, Jeffrey K. Tulis, David Estlund, Mariah Zeisberg, Jeffrey L. McNairn, Iris Marion Young, Robert B. Talisse, and Hélène Landemore.[citation needed]
Although political theorists took the lead in the study of deliberative democracy, political scientists have in recent years begun to investigate its processes. One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized.[35]
Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt, Shmuel Lederman laments the fact that "deliberation and agonism have become almost two different schools of thought" that are discussed as "mutually exclusive conceptions of politics"[36] as seen in the works of Chantal Mouffe,[37] Ernesto Laclau, and William E. Connolly. Giuseppe Ballacci argues that agonism and deliberation are not only compatible but mutually dependent:[38] "a properly understood agonism requires the use of deliberative skills but also that even a strongly deliberative politics could not be completely exempt from some of the consequences of agonism".
Most recently, scholarship has focused on the emergence of a 'systemic approach' to the study of deliberation. This suggests that the deliberative capacity of a democratic system needs to be understood through the interconnection of the variety of sites of deliberation which exist, rather than any single setting.[39] Some studies have conducted experiments to examine how deliberative democracy addresses the problems of sustainability and underrepresentation of future generations.[40] Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has been found to shift participants opinions in favour of environmental positions.[41][42][43]
Platforms and algorithms
Aviv Ovadya also argues for implementing bridging-based algorithms in major platforms by empowering deliberative groups that are representative of the platform's users to control the design and implementation of the algorithm.[44] He argues this would reduce sensationalism, political polarization and democratic backsliding.[45] Jamie Susskind likewise calls for deliberative groups to make these kind of decisions.[46] Meta commissioned a representative deliberative process in 2022 to advise the company on how to deal with climate misinformation on its platforms.[47]
Modern examples
Main article: Citizens' assembly § Modern examples
The OECD documented hundreds of examples and finds their use increasing since 2010.[48][49] For example, a representative sample of 4000 lay citizens used a 'Citizens' congress' to coalesce around a plan on how to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.[50][15]
See also
Deliberative assembly
Deliberative referendum
Group decision making
Jury
Informed consent
Liquid democracy
Mediated deliberation
Open source governance
Participatory democracy
Political equality
Public reason
Radical democracy
Citizens' assembly
References
Dryzek, John S.; Bächtiger, André; Chambers, Simone; Cohen, Joshua; Druckman, James N.; Felicetti, Andrea; Fishkin, James S.; Farrell, David M.; Fung, Archon; Gutmann, Amy; Landemore, Hélène; Mansbridge, Jane; Marien, Sofie; Neblo, Michael A.; Niemeyer, Simon; Setälä, Maija; Slothuus, Rune; Suiter, Jane; Thompson, Dennis; Warren, Mark E. (2019). "The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation". Science. 363 (6432): 1144–1146. Bibcode:2019Sci...363.1144D. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2694. hdl:11384/82884. PMID 30872504. S2CID 78092206.
Landemore, Hélène (Summer 2017). "Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy". Dædalus. 146 (3): 51–63.
Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013). "Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing" (PDF). Temple Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 October 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
Habermans, Jürgen (1997). Bohman, James; Rehg, William (eds.). Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics (PDF). MIT Press. p. 41. ISBN 0-262-02434-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2015-07-01.
Leib, Ethan (1997). Deliberative Democracy in America. p. 1.
Bächtiger, André; Dryzek, John S.; Mansbridge, Jane J.; Warren, Mark, eds. (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (First ed.). Oxford. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-19-180969-9. OCLC 1057358164.
For a brief overview of the roots and different streams of deliberative democracy, see Ercan, S.A. (2014) 'Deliberative democracy', in: D. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp.214-216 http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book238016
Elster 1998, Introduction (Elster offers a summary of the various common definitions that academics use for the term.).
Threlkeld, Simon. "A Blueprint for Democratic Law-making: Give Citizen Juries the Final Say." Social Policy, Summer, 1998, pp 5-9.
Fishkin 2011, Chapters 2 & 3.
Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 70. ISBN 9780199572106.
Elster 1998, Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon).
Nino 1996.
Pedro, Portia (2010-02-01). "Note, Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required". Harvard Law Review. 123 (4): 970-972.
Ross 2011, Chapter 3.
Elster 1998, p. 1.
Dryzek 2010, p. 66.
Burnheim, John (2006). "3". Is democracy possible? the alternative to electoral democracy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN 978-1-920898-42-7.
Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 160f. ISBN 978-0-19-957210-6.
Elster 1998, Chapter 5.
Susan C. Strokes in her critical essay Pathologies of Deliberation (Chapter 5 of Elster 1998) concedes there that a majority of academics interested agree with this view.
Fishkin 2011, p. 103.
See also Chapter 5 of Fishkin (2011), which gives detailed citations to the empirical work. The specific Mill work cited is Considerations on Representative Government (1861), and the specific Tocqueville work cited is Democracy in America (1835).
"Ch 2: Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy". The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Alan P. Hamlin, Philip Pettit. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. 1989. pp. 17–34. ISBN 0-631-15804-9. OCLC 18321533.
Elster 1998, Chapter 8 (essay by Cohen).
Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.
Priestland, David (2021-10-23). "The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
Burke 1854, pp. 446–448.
Elster 1998, Chapter 1.
Elster 1998, Chapter 10.
Constitutional referendums: a theoretical enquiry (2009) Archived 2012-04-25 at the Wayback Machine by Prof Stephen Tierney (see esp. ft note 67)
Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013). "Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing" (PDF). Temple Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 October 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
Dryzek 2010, p. 6.
Dryzek 2010, p. 21.
Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science," Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520. ISBN 978-0824333119
Lederman, Shmuel (September 2014). "Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt". Constellations. 21 (3): 335. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12096.
Mouffe, Chantal (2013). Chantal Mouffe: hegemony, radical democracy, and the political. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415825221.
Ballacci, Giuseppe (1 December 2019). "Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt". Theoria. 66 (161): 20. doi:10.3167/th.2019.6616101. S2CID 213045202.
Owen, D. And Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." "Journal of Political Philosophy" 23.2: 213-234
Koirala, P. Timilsina, R. R., Kotani, K. (2021). "Experiment article: Deliberative forms of democracy and intergenerational sustainability dilemma." "Sustainability" 13.13: 7377
Fishkin 2011, p. x.
Smith 2003, Chapter 4.
"EuroPolis proves that debate does change European citizens' attitudes". EuroPolis. 2009-06-03. Archived from the original on 2012-03-17. Retrieved 2012-01-14.
Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. pp. 21–23. Retrieved 2024-07-17.
Ovadya, Aviv (May 17, 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center at Harvard University. pp. 1–3, 7, 10. Retrieved 2024-07-17.
Arthur, Charles (2022-06-15). "The Digital Republic by Jamie Susskind review – how to tame big tech". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-18.
Newton, Casey (2022-09-21). "Facebook is experimenting with letting users help write speech rules". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-07-18. For its experiment, Meta and BIT worked to find about 250 people who were broadly representative of the Facebook user base. They brought them together virtually across two weekends to educate them about climate issues and platform policies, and offered them access to outside experts (on both climate and speech issues) and Facebook employees. At the end of the process, Facebook offered the group a variety of possible solutions to problematic climate information, and the group deliberated and voted on their preferred outcomes.
Česnulaitytė, Ieva (2020). "Chapter 3: Key Trends". Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD. ISBN 9789264563186.
Mejia, Mauricio (2023-12-15). "2023 Trends in Deliberative Democracy: OECD Database Update". Participo. Retrieved 2024-06-12.
Fishkin 2011, Preface.
Sources
Bessette, Joseph (1980). "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government". In Goldwin, Robert A; Schambra, William A. (eds.). How Democratic is the Constitution?. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. pp. 102–116. ISBN 9780844734002. OCLC 6816158.
Bessette, Joseph (1994). The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy & American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226044231. OCLC 28677011.
Blattberg, C. (2003) "Patriotic, Not Deliberative, Democracy" Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 6, no. 1, pp. 155–74. Reprinted as ch. 2 of Blattberg, C. (2009) Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Burke, Edmund (1854). The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke. London: Henry G. Bohn.
Cohen, Joshua (1989). "Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy". In Hamlin, Alan P; Pettit, Philip (eds.). The Good Polity : Normative Analysis of the State. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. pp. 17–34. ISBN 9780631158042. OCLC 18321533.
Cohen, Joshua (1997). "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy". In Bohman, James; Rehg, William (eds.). Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262024341. OCLC 36649504.
Dryzek, John (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-956294-7.
Elster, Jon, ed. (1998). Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-59696-1.
Fishkin, James (2011). When the People Speak. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-960443-2.
Fishkin, James; Laslett, Peter (2003). Debating Deliberative Democracy. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9781405100434. OCLC 49875309.
Fishkin, James S.; Luskin, Robert C. (September 2005). "Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion". Acta Politica. 40 (3): 284–298. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121. S2CID 144393786.
Gutmann, Amy; Thompson, Dennis F. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780674197664. OCLC 34472979.
Gutmann, Amy; Thompson, Dennis F. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691120188. OCLC 54066447.
Leib, Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", Buffalo Law Review, Vol. 54, 2006
Mansbridge, Jane J.; Parkinson, John; et al. (2012), "A systematic approach to deliberative democracy", in Mansbridge, Jane J.; Parkinson, John (eds.), Deliberative systems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–26, ISBN 9781107025394
Nino, C. S. (1996). The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07727-0.
Owen, D. and Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." Journal of Political Philosophy 23.2: 213-234
Painter, Kimberly, (2013) "Deliberative Democracy in Action: Exploring the 2012 City of Austin Bond Development Process" Applied Research Project Texas State University.
Ross, Carne (2011). The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-1-84737-534-6.
Smith, Graham (2003). Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-30940-0.
Steenhuis, Quinten. (2004) "The Deliberative Opinion Poll: Promises and Challenges". Carnegie Mellon University. Unpublished thesis. Available Online Archived 2005-03-08 at the Wayback Machine
Talisse, Robert B (2004). Democracy after Liberalism Pragmatism and Deliberative Politics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 9786610106332. OCLC 1264786012.
Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science," Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520. ISBN 978-0824333119
Tulis, Jeffrey K., (1988) The Rhetorical Presidency Publisher: Princeton University Press (ISBN 0-691-07751-7)
Tulis, Jeffrey K., (2003) "Deliberation Between Institutions," in Debating Deliberative Democracy, eds. James Fishkin and Peter Laslett. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1405100434
Uhr, J. (1998) Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-62465-7
Further reading
Bächtiger, André; Dryzek, John S. (2024). Deliberative Democracy for Diabolical Times : Confronting Populism, Extremism, Denial, and Authoritarianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781009261821. OCLC 1406828978.
Wikidata has data related to Deliberative democracy.
"Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance". University of Canberra. Retrieved 31 Mar 2025. Research centre for the study of deliberative democracy.
"Deliberative Democracy Lab". Stanford University. Retrieved 31 Mar 2025. Researching, advising on and conducting deliberative polling
"Journal of Deliberative Democracy". Retrieved 31 Mar 2025. Synthesizes the research, opinions, projects, experiments and experiences of academics and practitioners in an open-access journal
"The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation". Retrieved 31 Mar 2025. A hub that connects people to each other and to thousands of resources like best practices on public engagement and conflict resolution
"Facilitating Public Deliberations" (Podcast). newDemocracy Foundation. Retrieved 31 March 2025. Podcast covering deliberative democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment