Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The potential advantages and disadvantages of a deliberative democratic body have been
the subject of a number of works of political theory. Its likely rationalising influence has
been referenced as the possible solution to deep social disputes, while the inclusion of
regular citizens in the deliberative process could potentially help re-enfranchise those
obstacles to such a body have been identified, from impracticalities of scale, to the
distorting effect of the media, the commitment required by citizens, and the possible
It has been argued that generating rational debate of an issue is impossible, due to the
difficulty in separating the interests and relative positions (social, economic, religious,
moral, etc.) of the deliberators from the subject at hand (Hague and Harrop, 2007, p.46).
Clearly this is a important thought, considering it is evident that only contentious issues
have suggested that the use of deliberative democracy in a divided society could exacerbate
differences rather than resolve them (Dryzek, 2005, p.222). Simultaneously, agonists
positional respect – have argued the opposite point, namely that to attempt to neutralise
the discussion is to irreparably undermine its utility with regards to a realistic, externally
December 2009
2
Fishkin, in response to the claim that impartial debate is impossible, argues that citizens are
in fact much less motivated by interests than politicians who view every issue in the context
of its effect on their potential re-election (by relatively uninformed citizens) (2000, p.10).
John Dryzek, meanwhile, as editor of the Australian Journal of Political Science and
counter the theories of agonism and consociationalism as he recently did in the established
Political Theory journal (now in its 33rd volume). Unadulterated agonism, he argues, rarely
produces useful, critical analysis of problems and is difficult to execute in divided societies
without flirting with social disintegration (2005, p.238). Moreover, pure consociational
democracy may provide stability, but only at the expense of meaningful engagement with
undesirable, both have aspects of merit that can be incorporated into a deliberative
apparatus.
in the public sphere and separated from the decision-making apparatus of the state. This
separation, he argues, would prevent the subversion of discursion by the pressure for a
decision (2005, p.226). This would facilitate a thorough discussion of the issue, as the focus
is shifted from the outcome of the discussion to the depth of the discussion. Such a
separation would simultaneously neutralise passions and rhetoric that could become
inflamed were a decision to be based on the discussion, countering Hague and Harrop’s
December 2009
3
A considerable criticism often levelled at deliberative democracy relates to its relevance and
utility in the context of large nation-states. As Hague and Harrop point out, even a sizeable
proposal such as Leib’s, involving separate debates of 525 different individuals on each
topic, would only engage a tiny proportion of the population directly (2007, p.46). The
media has often been recommended as the solution to this difficulty. By televising the
discussions for example, the opinions of people could be shaped through the logical
offer a shortcut to the Jeffersonian ideal of the informed citizen. In short, the debates come
to represent ‘what the public would think if it were more informed’ (Fishkin, 2000, p.6).
Nevertheless, doubt has been raised regarding the reliability of the media to present such
important discussions neutrally and in their totality. Parkinson points out a number of
barriers to the transmission of the deliberative process. Firstly, the reliance of media on
advertising revenue means that outlets are inherently biased towards commercial interests
(2006, p.177). This reliance on advertising revenue also motivates outlets to appeal to large
audiences causing them to favour entertainment over information (p.177). This could well
lead to a sensationalist focus on the drama of the discussion, at the expense of the moral
complexities of the issue (p.179). There are also physical limits, especially with regards to
television, that prevent outlets from conveying the discussion in its totality (p.177). This can
sessions are held. Any decision relating to the editing of the broadcast could affect the
viewers’ understanding of the track of the discussion and thus undermine the whole
process. The role of the internet as a deliberative medium has been debated, though as
Mendoza notes in the Guardian, Internet polls, considering that only a portion of the
December 2009
4
population has access to the internet, are often misleading representations of public
Another potential benefit of deliberative apparatus within a democracy could be the re-
enfranchisement of the large numbers of people that have become disillusioned with
Political Info, 2005) and what Anthony Downs, cited in Fishkin’s article, terms ‘rational
ignorance’, the arguably logical neglect of citizens to inform themselves of issues due to the
negligible effect of an individual vote on the outcome of a poll (2000, p.5). Burton argues
that increased participatory democracy would be a genuine recognition by the state of the
value of its citizens and would consequently empower and motivate them to act pro-actively
in the public sphere, as Dryzek advocates, it would likely evolve into a sort of democratic
‘opposition’ to the state, involving regular citizens in discussions that could well affect
government policy. This empowerment of the citizenry would allow the government to
better serve its people and the people to better choose their government.
At the same time there is always the argument that citizens will be either unable or
unwilling to commit the time and intellectual effort required to further democracy. Burton
argues, however, that the lack of participatory and deliberative apparatus in the typical
democratic system sends a powerful, negative message about citizens’ civic worth,
encouraging them to assume a passive role (2009, pp.265-266). How much public
indifference is irremediable and how much it is a product of the current political system is a
December 2009
5
To conclude, there is definitely a strong case for a supplementary, deliberative, citizen based
body to address divisive issues, rationalise debates, re-establish the notion of an informed
citizenry and address the arguably inherent democratic deficit of representative regimes.
Nevertheless, practical obstacles to the establishment of such a body, such as the role of the
media, continue to obstruct progress, and there will always be questions raised concerning
how much time and intellectual effort people are willing to invest in the construction and
December 2009
6
Bibliography
Anon., UK Political Info., 2005. General election turnout 1945 – 2005. Available at
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm [Accessed 23 November 2009].
Burton, P., 2009. Conceptual, Theoretical and Practical Issues in Measuring the Benefits of
Public Participation. Evaluation, 15(3), pp.263-284.
Chomsky, N., 2002. Understanding Power: The Indispensible Chomsky. Edited by Mitchell, P.
and Schoeffel, J. New York: Vintage.
Dryzek, J., April 2005. Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism
and Analgesia. Political Theory 33(2), pp. 218-242.
Fishkin, J., 2000. Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation. Parliamentary Affairs, 53,
pp.1-19.
Hague, R., Harrop, M., 2007. Comparative Government and Politics. 7th Ed. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp.46-48.
Parkinson, J., January 2006. Rickety Bridges: Using the Media in Deliberative Democracy.
British Journal of Political Science 36, pp.175-183.
December 2009