Deliberative democracy does not have its salience without participation and participatory democracy does not have its credence without deliberations. Comment. (UPSC CSE Mains 2017 - Political Science and International Relations, Paper 1)
- Deliberation is the heart and soul of democracy. It achieves two goals of democracy—it ensures that democratic decision-making is a reflection of public will and that it is an outcome of people exercising their freedom. Thus, it makes democracy substantive, and not mere ‘head-counting.’
- Deliberative democracy does not envisage individuals fighting for their self-interests. Instead, it encourages mutual discussion and persuasion to achieve ‘common good.’ It also does not diminish the accountability of the politicians.
- Contemporary proponents of deliberative democracy include Amartya Sen and Hannah Arendt. Habermas has given the concept of communicative action—when people interact in an ideal speech situation. Nancy Fraser believes that subaltern groups should create their own ‘counter public.’
- At present, there is a decline in deliberative democracy all across the world. Executive dictatorship, along with judicial overreach, is giving rise to ‘audience democracies.” This should be countered to ensure and strengthen healthy democracy.
- Participatory democrats want more participation, in all aspects of politics (and sometimes in spaces beyond the political sphere, such as workplaces and universities), from all citizens who choose to be involved. They believe this is the essence of democracy—the only way to ensure that the ‘people rule’ is for them to be involved in making the decisions that affect them. Instead of specifying a preferred type of political participation, they embrace and encourage a diversity of opportunities for political engagement. In contrast, deliberative democrats have a specific view on the type of political participation they want citizens to be involved in: deliberation. Deliberation requires that participants:
(a) become well informed about the topic,
(b) consider different perspectives, in order to
(c) arrive at a public judgement (not opinion) about "what can we strongly agree on?"
They consider this to be a superior form of political participation as it leads to more informed and rounded public opinion, and, arguably, better decisions.
- Participatory democrats usually favor self-selected participation, in order to enable as many people as possible to share the experience. This enables easy recruitment, can be less expensive, and is seen as equitable. Deliberative democrats tend to favor random selection, in order to assemble a public body that is: representative of the public; able to consider perspectives; and not be vulnerable to being stacked by representatives of powerful interest groups.
- Participatory democrats tend to care a lot about the numbers, the “breadth” of people who participate, and less about the "depth" of the participation. There may also be a tendency toward establishing political power. Deliberative democrats tend to be very concerned with the quality (deliberativeness) of participation, much less about large numbers, and emphasise the establishment of common ground. Deliberative advocates are generally more willing to be policy agnostic as the processes are much less susceptible to being steered in a pre-agreed direction. They are process-driven rather than issue-driven.
- The combination of widespread participation and focused deliberation can be powerful.
Next
previous
Latest News
General Studies