deliberative democracy

deliberative democracy, school of thought in political theory that claims that political decisions should be the product of fair and reasonable discussion and debate among citizens.

In deliberation, citizens exchange arguments and consider different claims that are designed to secure the public good. Through this conversation, citizens can come to an agreement about what procedure, action, or policy will best produce the public good. Deliberation is a necessary precondition for the legitimacy of democratic political decisions. Rather than thinking of political decisions as the aggregate of citizens’ preferences, deliberative democracy claims that citizens should arrive at political decisions through reason and the collection of competing arguments and viewpoints. In other words, citizens’ preferences should be shaped by deliberation in advance of decision making, rather than by self-interest. With respect to individual and collective citizen decision making, deliberative democracy shifts the emphasis from the outcome of the decision to the quality of the process.

Deliberation in democratic processes generates outcomes that secure the public or common good through reason rather than through political power. Deliberative democracy is based not on a competition between conflicting interests but on an exchange of information and justifications supporting varying perspectives on the public good. Ultimately, citizens should be swayed by the force of the better argument rather than by private concerns, biases, or views that are not publicly justifiable to their fellow deliberators.

Early influences

Two of the early influences on deliberative democratic theory are the philosophers John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. Rawls advocated the use of reason in securing the framework for a just political society. For Rawls, reason curtails self-interest to justify the structure of a political society that is fair for all participants in that society and secures equal rights for all members of that society. These conditions secure the possibility for fair citizen participation in the future. Habermas claimed that fair procedures and clear communication can produce legitimate and consensual decisions by citizens. These fair procedures governing the deliberative process are what legitimates the outcomes.

Features of deliberation

Deliberative theorists tend to argue that publicity is a necessary feature of legitimate democratic processes. First, issues within a democracy should be public and should be publicly debated. Second, processes within democratic institutions must be public and subject to public scrutiny. Finally, in addition to being provided with information, citizens need to ensure the use of a public form of reason to ground political decisions, rather than rely on transcendent sources of authority available only to a segment of the citizenry, such as revealed religion. The public nature of the reason used to ground political decisions generates outcomes that are fair and reasonable but subject to revision if warranted by new information or further deliberation.

Some deliberative theorists claim that the deliberative process of exchanging arguments for contrasting viewpoints can and should produce a consensus. Others think that disagreement will remain after the deliberative process is completed but that deliberation can produce legitimate outcomes without consensus. Even when the exchange of reason, arguments, and viewpoints does not seem to produce a clear outcome, many deliberative theorists suggest that the dissent produced, and the continuing debate, enhances the democratic process.

Because the deliberative process requires that citizens understand, formulate, and exchange arguments for their views, norms of clear communication and rules of argumentation are important to formulate. Citizens must be able to present their claims in understandable and meaningful ways to their fellow deliberators. These claims must also be supported by argumentation and reason that makes these views publicly justifiable to differently situated deliberators.

Are you a student?

Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Subscribe

Most theories of deliberative democracy hold that the maximum inclusion of citizens and viewpoints generates the most legitimate and reasonable political outcomes. In addition to improving the level of discussion and accounting for the most arguments, more-inclusive deliberative processes are fairer because more people have their views considered. Whether or not a citizen’s view is present in the outcome, it has at least been figured into the debate by fellow citizen deliberators.

Challenges to deliberative democratic theory

Many theorists consider the following possible problems with theories of deliberative democracy. If only certain modes of expression, forms of argument, and cultural styles are publicly acceptable, then the voices of certain citizens will be excluded. This exclusion will diminish the quality and legitimacy of the outcomes of deliberative processes. Further, deliberation assumes the capacity of citizens to be reasonable, cooperate, unify, and shape their views based on rational debate and the views of others. Some argue that this may be more than human beings are capable of, either because of human nature or because of already existing social inequalities and biases. Social conditions, such as already existing structural inequalities, pluralism, social complexity, the increasing scope of political concerns, and the impracticality of affected citizens having forums in which to deliberate are also reasons why some are skeptical of the viability of a deliberative form of democracy.

Deliberative democratic theory brings ethical concerns into the realm of democratic decision making. The ultimate aim of deliberative democratic practices is increased citizen participation, better outcomes, and a more authentically democratic society.