Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy

In the face of widespread dissatisfaction with contemporary democratic practice, there has been a growing interest in theories of deliberative democracy. However theorists have often failed to sufficiently address the question of institutional design. This paper argues that recent experiments with citizens' juries should be of interest to deliberative democrats. The practice of citizens' juries is considered in light of three deliberative democratic criteria: inclusivity, deliberation and citizenship. It is argued that citizens' juries offer important insights into how democratic deliberation could be institutionalized in contemporary political decision-making processes.     

Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice

The paper contrasts the liberal conception of democracy as the aggregation of individual preferences with the deliberative conception of democracy as a process of open discussion leading to an agreed judgement on policy. Social choice theory has identified problems - the arbitrariness of decision rules, vulnerability to strategic voting - which are often held to undermine democratic ideals. Contrary to common opinion, I argue that deliberative democracy is less vulnerable to these difficulties than liberal democracy. The process of discussion tends to produce sets of policy preferences that are 'single peaked'; and within a deliberative setting it may be possible to vary the decision rule according to the nature of the issue to be decided.     

Deliberative Democracy and the Politics of Recognition

It is commonly supposed that deliberative democracy and the politics of recognition are natural allies, as both demand a more inclusive politics. It is argued here that this impression is misleading and that the politics of recognition harbours significant anti-deliberative tendencies. Deliberative politics requires a public sphere which is maximally inclusive of diverse beliefs and perspectives, including those which dissent from orthodox understandings of group indentities. By contrast, the politics of recognition typically seeks to insulate such identities from challenge, both from within and without. Devices such as special group representation, while apparently inclusive, risk incentivising an anti-deliberative culture of deference to identity claims. An alternative model of inclusive politics, which involves a more contestatory political culture and a multiplication of deliberative opportunities, is sketched.     

New Developments in Deliberative Democracy

This paper inspects recent theoretical work in deliberative democracy. It identifies three distinct ways in which such theories attempt to justify their claims for an increase in deliberation. Each has its strengths; each has its implications for practice. If the new deliberative theories are to move beyond a critique of liberal democracy in order to articulate a legitimate and practical politics, the respective gains of these three types must be brought together.     

Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy

Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community-generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal 'with whom we are'. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas.     

Deliberative Democracy and International Labor Standards

Political theorists have argued that the methods of deliberative democracy can help to meet challenges such as legitimacy, effective governance, and citizen education in local and national contexts. These basic insights can also be applied to problems of international governance such as the formulation, implementation, and monitoring of labor standards. A participatory and deliberative democratic approach to labor standards would push the labor–standards debate into the global public sphere. It would seek to create broad discussion about labor standards that would include not only firms and regulators, but also consumers, nongovernmental organizations, journalists, and others. This discussion could potentially improve (1) the quality of labor standards by incorporating considerations of economic context and firm capability, (2) their implementation by bringing to bear not only state sanctions but also political and market pressures, and (3) the education and understanding of citizens. Whereas the role of public agencies in state–centered approaches is to formulate and enforce labor standards, central authorities in the decentralized–deliberative approach would foster the transparency of workplace practices to spur an inclusive, broad, public conversation about labor standards. To the extent that a substantive consensus around acceptable behavior emerges from that conversation, public power should also enforce those minimum standards.     

Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy

The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: 'that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question' ( Dryzek, 2001 , p. 651). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them.
Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.     

How deliberation makes better citizens: The Danish Deliberative Poll on the euro

Abstract.  This article presents results from a Danish national Deliberative Poll on the single European currency. A representative sample of 364 Danish citizens assembled to deliberate on Denmark's participation in the single currency. As a quasi-experiment, the Deliberative Poll is an example of deliberative democracy. Four research questions regarding these deliberative processes are analyzed: openness and access, the quality of deliberation, efficiency and effectiveness, and publicity and accountability. The participants' responses reflect a deliberative process characterized by considerable changes in political opinions as the Poll proceeds, increase in level of knowledge and an improved ability to form reasoned opinions. A mutual understanding on the subject matter prevailed among the participants. At the same time, self-interest and domination also appeared during the deliberative process. The article emphasizes the need for further elaboration of the theory of deliberative democracy so that it better reflects these features of 'real-life' politics.     

协商民主研究综述

随着中国社会主义市场经济体制的不断发展和完善,中国社会结构分化日益加剧,新的利益主体的不断涌现,社会不稳定因素增多,凸显出的一些问题与矛盾使得某些现有政治运行体制运作的乏力,日益凸显协商民主的作用.     

Hayekian Political Economy and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy

Inspired by Habermasian critiques of liberalism, supporters of deliberative democracy seek an extension of social democratic institutions to further a reinvigorated communicative rationality against the 'atomism' of market processes. This paper offers a critique of deliberative democratic theory from a Hayekian perspective. For Hayek, the case against the social democratic state rests with the superior capacity of markets to extend communicative rationality beyond the realm of verbal discourse.     

Moral Pluralism, Political Justification and Deliberative Democracy

We can make progress in political justification if we avoid debates about the extent of moral pluralism. Just by having a political view we are committed to its realization but also to its defence upon justifying grounds. It would be inconsistent to seek to realize my view in ways that undermined my ability to justify it. Yet justifying a view implies that I am open to challenges to it, and that perpetually draws me potentially into dialogue with all others, regardless of my will, and into structures which allow an inclusive dialogue to take place, with decisions being made, on the basis of open public discussion, with which I may disagree. Thus a form of deliberative democracy, probably with representative institutions, is justified, without any normative assumptions being made.     

协商民主概念的提出及其多元认知

协商民主理论研究兴起之后,如何界定协商民主的内涵就成了学术界的研究重点。在毕塞特看来,当初美国立宪者设计的以人民主权原则为基础、以权力分立与相互制约的体制为架构、以定期选举和政党竞争为动力的代议民主体制,就是"协商民主",就是一种深思熟虑的、审慎的、尊重人民主权的民主政治。而曼宁、科恩等学者开始拓展其内涵,将合法性、追求理性自治与公民参与的政治理想赋予协商民主。吉登斯、扬、德雷泽克等学者分别从"对话民主""交往民主"和"话语民主"角度进行了新阐释。协商民主概念经历了一个逐渐丰富和发展的过程。总体上讲,协商民主就是基于人民主权原则和多数原则的现代民主体制,其中,自由平等的公民,以公共利益为共同的价值诉求,通过理性的公共协商,在达成共识的基础上赋予立法和决策以合法性。     

Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy

We contend that, with a suitably broad notion of rationality and a diverse set of motivations, the game-theoretic tradition is particularly well suited for generating insights about effects of deliberative institutions and that progress in the development of deliberative democratic theory hinges on making proper sense of the relationship between game-theoretic and normative theoretic approaches to deliberation. To advance this view, we explore the central methodological issues at the core of that relationship and address the arguments raised against the relevance of game-theoretic work on deliberation. We develop a framework for thinking about the differences in how the normative and the game-theoretic approaches frame and answer questions about deliberation and articulate an approach to a deliberative democratic theory that builds on the strengths of both of these theoretic traditions, properly informed by empirical scholarship.     

论中国式协商民主的逻辑形成

中国式协商民主就是中国特色社会主义协商民主,是中国共产党历史性创造的成果,它的形成是以深厚的历史文化和思想理论背景为线索的。这一线索蕴含在中国传统文化思想资源之中;蕴含在近代资本主义民主思想的传播和影响之中;更蕴含在马克思主义民主思想的决定性影响之中。可以说,中国式协商民主的形成是由中国传统思想文化的内在影响、西方民主思想传播的历史影响,以及马克思主义协商民主思想的决定性影响等三者共同构成的历史合力作用的结果,并沿着从统一战线到多党合作、从群众路线到人民民主、并在处理和协调不同利益矛盾,以及借鉴和创新等特定发展道路中不断演进的。     

协商民主与公共价值的创造

公共价值管理聚焦在如何创造积极和公众所期望的经济社会后果,是与网络化治理相适应的一种公共行政管理模式。公共价值管理与协商民主具有内在的一致性,协商民主为建构公共价值、处理公共价值冲突、增强公共价值合法性和避免公共价值失灵提供了新的路径。在生成公共价值的过程中,协商民主推动治理网络的良性运转,促进公共管理者、专家和公众角色的转变,可以有效地化解公共行动在寻求持续性支持方面所面临的诸多困境,并且激发资源、汲取资源以增强公共价值生成的操作化能力。     

Fear's Anger: Virginia Woolf's Psychology and Deliberative Democracy

In A Room of One's Own, Virginia Woolf implicitly addresses the necessary conditions for equal participation in deliberative democracy. Woolf's analysis indicates that proponents of deliberative democracy must be attentive to the angry, unconscious resistance that is part of reasoning in a deliberative system—especially when political deliberation results in a challenge to a person's identity. Woolf's solution for women writers, the material security represented by a room of one's own, can be applied to the larger problem of political deliberation as well. This leads to an expansion of the conception of substantive equality required for a deliberative democracy. Further, Woolf's insight challenges deliberative democrats to de-center capitalist economic relations. As a way of protecting the individual from the psychological dynamic Woolf describes in A Room of One's Own, deliberative democrats should advocate a non-competitive economic space for those threatened by the powerful psychological reactions to deliberation.     

Development and Prospects of Deliberative Democracy in China: The Dimensions of Deliberative Capacity Building

Since the landmark volume The Search for Deliberative Democracy in China (Leib and He eds. 2006), a growing number of theoretical and empirical studies in the context of China have advanced our knowledge of deliberative democracy in comparative settings. This paper aims to discuss the recent development and prospects of deliberative democracy in China, with particular focus on the approach of a deliberative system that has not been adequately addressed in the context of China. This paper proposes an analytical framework for the concept of deliberative capacity building in the context of contemporary China. The paper analyses three dimensions of deliberative capacity building: social capacity, institutional capacity; and participatory capacity of a deliberative system. The three dimensions lay particular emphasis on the public sphere, empowered space, and deliberative actors respectively. The multi-dimensional framework considers deliberative capacity building as a process by which the three dimensions synergize and evolve with each other to produce a functional deliberative system incorporating isolated deliberative practices. The multi-dimensional analyses suggest that deliberative capacity building is critical to democratization in China, as it produces a stronger public sphere, more effective government responsiveness and improved participatory competence.     

协商民主：完善选举制度的路径选择

选举制度是建立以选举民主为基础上的现代宪政制度之一。但由于选举民主存在自身局限性，导致建立在选举民主基础上的选择制度存在自身无法克服的缺陷。通过将协商民主导入选举民主，有助于选举制度的完善。