Deliberative democracy

The deliberative democracy emphasizes public discourse, public consultation, the participation of citizens in public communication and interaction of deliberation and decision-making process. The concept of deliberative democracy refers to both democratic theory concepts, in which public consultation is central, as well as their practical implementation. An important characteristic of a deliberative democracy is the public discourse on all political issues, which is also referred to as deliberation. As an input -oriented model of democracy that the political will of the citizens attaches great weight, deliberative democracy is sometimes assigned as a form of participatory democracy.

In the center of the theory of deliberative democracy is the legitimacy ideal of public deliberation of political issues. As a central demand of the representatives of deliberative democracy theory called Carole Pateman, that individuals should always be ready with reasons to defend their moral and political arguments and demands, and to discuss these reasons with others.

The concept of deliberative democracy by Joseph M. Bessette in the 1980 published book Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican dominated government and in the 1994 book The Mild Voice of Reason elaborated on. This mindset has been taken up by Seyla Benhabib, inter alia, James Bohman, Joshua Cohen, Jon Elster, James S. Fishkin, Amy Gutmann, Jürgen Habermas, and Dennis Thompson. Guy Standing, of seeking to bring an unconditional basic income, also is in favor of this form of democracy.

Approach of Habermas

Habermas develops his concept of deliberative democracy from a critique of liberal democracy by Werner Becker and makes the claim " to be able to combine the model of liberal and republican democracy in itself, without having the disadvantages of these types of democracy itself. "

Discourse

" Deliberative politics is a politics of argumentative consideration, deliberation and the common understanding of public affairs for Habermas. "

This assumes an "ideal procedures of consultation and decision " advance and is subject to the following conditions:

• " The argumentative form of exchange of information and justifications
• Public participation and all signatories inclusive consultation, at least an equal chance of access to and participation in the deliberations
• The absence of external and internal constraints on consulting ( "ideal speech situation " ),
• The maxim that the discussions continued basically unlimited or, in case of interruption, at any time can be resumed
• The principle that the discussions may extend to all matters which are to be regulated in the interest of all,
• The opportunity to provide guidance on interpretation of needs as well as pre-political settings and preferences,
• The discourse underpinning constitutional policy, fundamental rights locking decisions and
• The Qualifying interaction of deliberation and decision-making process, in each case, with the participation of as many ".

Public

Discourses take place in public or in public:

"The public can be best described as a network for communication of content and statements, that of describing opinions " ( Habermas 1992: 436). The public sphere is not of found space, but must be made by an interested audience and communicative acting participants only. Public Habermas has three functions:

• Recognizing and perceiving total societal problems
• Thematization and young wearing these topics to the decision makers in the political center
• Control of the political center.

The non-governmental and non -economic actors of civil society ( or: the " civic public" ) as " [ ... ] the substrate that generally, from the privacy as it protruded audience of citizens who are looking for their social interests and experiences public interpretations and on the take institutionalized opinion-and decision-making influence " ( Habermas 1992: 444) should take over these functions (not to be discussed in detail here the so-called " vermachtete public, " in which about financially strong lobby groups would find ).

Center / periphery: democratic legitimacy of decisions

Legitimacy of political decisions based on their connection to publicly articulate, that have been made in the discourse opinions:

A strong civil society is according to Habermas ' theory of double-track policy, the link between political periphery and political center. The political center, a spinoff from the life-world, specific action system, meets mandatory administrative decisions. Typical actors are about members of a government. However, they are dependent on input from the peripheral and connected also on the mechanism of choice. The political periphery leads only through informal opinion in public spheres and civil society, has no decision-making authority. Nevertheless, their particular and civil society public is a very important task as the backbone of deliberative politics. It acts " [ ... ] as the main conduit for the discursive rationalization of the decisions of a bound to uphold the law and government administration ." In it, therefore, takes a democratic decision-making, " [ ... ] which controls the exercise of political power not only retrospectively, but also more or less programmed" ( Habermas 1992: 364). Only when decisions of the political system are so tied to appropriate civil society articulate public opinion, they can claim democratic legitimacy.

In 2007, Habermas puts it, "democratic legitimacy can be produced not only by deliberation and public alone, but requires the combination of reasonable communication with the participation of all potentially affected the decision-making process."

Criticism

One criticism is " the problem of very high time and resource utilization ." The contrary held that reduce in a rational discourse friction losses incurred in complying with new or old rules or laws " through increased quality of public deliberation, improved informal, intellectual and moral capacity of citizens and by fairer and autonomy gentle problem Solving ".

One criticism is that it is not feasible in the social reality. For example, would need to participate in a discourse in Germany 80 million people. If, however, this discourse carried on in the public media, the communication is systematically distorted. Firstly, because the media have to sell their goods and so not publish what must be published normally. On the other hand, because the media have a proximity to the economic or political power. A deliberation is possible only in a community or county level, in the opinion of critics.

In this context is also the criticism that citizens are being manipulated by the media and therefore can not judge objectively. The same would oppose that, especially in discourse takes place Enlightenment.

It is also argued that you can not please everyone there. But it should be tried if possible to convince everyone of rules or at least as far lead a discourse, so he understands the scheme and can accept.

An important problem area is that the guideline can be seen as an ideal form opinions " arguments only count! " Due to power differentials between the discourse participants is a neutral weighing the arguments in reality often not available.

This problem, as well as the negative impact of the media on the discourse is treated in theory and spiral of silence.