Democracy and Citizenship - Term Paper Example

? Are you a deliberative democrat? Why or why not? Introduction This paper aims to specifically answer the question, on whether I am a deliberative democrat or not. In addition, this paper also aims to provide the reasons why I say so, as well as citing textual evidences to support the argumentation in this paper. Being an African-American who is in active duty in the military, and who believes in liberal democracy, I think that such background would make me asses myself as a one who believes in deliberative democracy (in the commons sense of the word), but may have reservations. However, in order to qualify and verify this preliminary belief, this paper would first try to provide a definition of deliberative democracy, as well as expound on what this may imply in today’s American society. Then, I would try to apply such definition of deliberative democracy on what I believe in and on what I stand for, for me to be able to accurately identify on whether my actions and my beliefs can be identified with that of a deliberative democrat. Finally, after such assessment, at the end of the paper, I would summarize the main arguments, and would critically reflect on deliberative democracy with respect to the evidences that I presented earlier in the paper, as well as from scholarly academic resources. A Definition of Deliberative Democracy A lot of people may ask, especially the ones who are not very well-acquainted with political science, on what deliberative democracy is all about. Given the fact that the “common sense” political landscape on the United States, especially from a layman’s view, is dominated by the belief that the United States has one of the best models of democracy, and that major political parties only consist of the Republicans and the Democrats, a general meaning of deliberative democracy may be seen as obscure, or even unknown to many. Of course, with deliberative democracy different from the traditional democracy that we commonly know, its definition would logically be unknown to many. In order to systematize this paper, I would take the definition of one of the most famous proponents of deliberative democracy, Seyla Benhabib (Benhabib 30). According to Benhabib, there is actually a paradox in the legitimacy of democracy, given the fact that, as Rousseau argues, there is actually a gap between the “will of all” and the “general will” (Benhabib 28); in this case, while the “will of all” represent “what specific individuals under concrete circumstances believe to be in their best interest,” it is not necessarily equal to the “general will” that represents “what they would believe to be in their collective interest if they were properly enlightened (Benhabib 28). Therefore, the vote of the people, which represents the will of all, may not necessarily represent the general will, which rationally answers the best interest of the people when collectively taken into consideration (Benhabib 29). In this case, Benhabib actually argues that deliberative democracy is the answer to such paradox, in which she defines deliberative democracy as a model wherein …legitimacy and rationality can be attained with regard to collective decision making processes in a polity if and only if the institutions of this polity and their interlocking relationship are so arranged that what is considered in the common interest of all (in Rousseau’s term, the “general will”) results from processes of collective deliberation conducted rationally and fairly among free and equal individuals. The more collective decision making processes approximate this model, the more the presumption of their legitimacy and rationality increases. (Benhabib 30-31). From such definition of deliberative democracy, we can see that this kind of democracy actually claims that collective decision making through deliberation is the most effective way of reaching the “general will” of the people (over the method of voting, which only reaches the “will of all”), making it have superior legitimacy, especially in terms of reaching the best, informed, and rational policy for the collective good of the polity. Looking at Myself: Am I a Deliberative Democrat? Based on the definition of deliberative democracy as provided by Seyla Benhabib (Benhabib 30-31), can I actually think myself as a deliberative democrat, especially in terms if my political beliefs and my everyday actions? Based on such definition, I can actually safely say that I may be a deliberative democrat. This is because of the fact that I strongly agree that deliberations by all of the concerned stakeholders, in a particular issue for instance, generates more ideas from different perspectives, and makes it easier to reach informed decisions that will benefit all. In this case, I believe, such model will actually create more space for achieving the common good of all, taken as a collectivity, as opposed to weighing various private interests. One important illustration that I would like to provide to illustrate further my point is the issue of America being involved in the War on Iraq. This issue, which is not only a public but a personal issue for me (being an African-American soldier in active duty), has been one of the hotly debated issues on recent time, even dividing the American population into two camps: those who approved of the war, and those who opposed the war. In this issue, those who actually approved of the war believed that America’s participation in this conflict is an important responsibility of the country, given that it is a world power. In this case, they actually argue that the United States’ invasion of Iraq is an important step for national security, especially in curbing one of the countries perceived to be harboring and supporting terrorist radicals that are plotting to spread terror and fear in the United States. In addition, those in favor of the war also argued that by invading Iraq, the United States is properly assuming its role as a global police, and is asserting its position in world affairs as a superpower, taking the lead in ensuring security and peace not only in the United States but in the entire globe. However, those opposing the war also has their reasons: they actually argue that weapons of mass destructions, and even Osama bin Laden himself was never captured in the war, and that this war was an act of aggression by the United States, violating the sovereignty of Iraq. In addition, those who opposes the war also notes that a lot of human rights violations and abuses were committed by the invading troops not just on prisoners of war but on innocent civilians as well, and that too many American soldiers are already dying fighting a useless war just to satisfy the elite’s thirst of control of vital oil resources in the region. Me, being a soldier in active combat, is torn is this issue: I support the war in its aim to ensure national security for the American people and to fight the terrorists, but oppose it in terms of how it was conducted, on the abuses that some of the troops made, and on the heavy casualties both to belligerent troops and to civilians. I personally think that this issue may only be resolved, and may even be prevented effectively by deliberative democracy, wherein the pros and cons of an issue will be discussed, and a policy will be reached that will both resolve the issues of those in favor and against the war. I personally believed that if only policy makers in the United States learned to get the opinion of those who was opposed and in favor of the war in the first place, and faithfully considered their respective arguments before formulating the policy on how the United States would conduct the war, I think the government would have made a more informed decision, reaching to a win-win situation wherein terrorists and other threats to national security will be realized without committing abuses and inflicting useless damages to life and property. I think that my stand on the issue of the War in Iraq actually reflects my belief in deliberative democracy, wherein policy would be reached through deliberation f the general polity, prioritizing the collective good of the polity, and making a more informed, rational decision. As stated by Iris Marion Young, …the model of deliberative democracy conceives of democracy as a process that creates a public, citizens coming together to talk about collective problems, goals, ideas, and actions. Democratic processes are oriented around discussing this common good rather than competing for the promotion of the private good for each… (Young 121) This is why, being a liberal democrat and taking liberal stands on certain issues, I believe in deliberative democracy: it effectively reaches policies and decisions with the common good of the polity collectively in priority over private good, creating more informed, rational decisions and fostering unity of the polity. Critical Thoughts on Deliberative Democracy Although it is true that I strongly believe in the principles of deliberative democracy, especially in reaching decisions and policies that will provide for the common good, the “general will” of the people, it is also true that I have some reservations on this model of democracy. In my experiences, especially as a soldier in active duty, there are instances wherein we have to make a quick decision, and that making the wrong decision would result to serious consequences for the collective good of the group, making deliberative democracy impractical. I think that this is also true for some issues and policies being made in the United States: there are just some issues where deliberative democracy may become harmful and eve detrimental to the survival of the country as a whole. Take the time of an imminent invasion by other countries to the United States for example, especially in the Cold War. In this period, there was clearly a battle of ideology, that between democratic capitalism and authoritarian communism. In this case, I think that the practice of deliberative democracy in ensuring formulating policies that would ensure the security of the United States would be detrimental to the country, especially when policy making stalls because of debates, leading to a significant lag where an enemy may take advantage of. Of course, the Soviet Union at that time is looking for every opportunity to catch the United States off guard and take a deadly advantage, such as what nearly happened when the Soviet Union actually planted missiles in the island of Cuba only a few miles away from Florida. In think that in such cases, wherein quick decisions to be made are vital, deliberative democracy would prove to be too risky to practice. As stated by Sanders, …It is also because some Americans are apparently less likely than others to be listened to; even when their arguments are stated according to the conventions of reason they are more likely to be disregarded. Deliberation requires not only…the guarantee of equal opportunity to articulate persuasive arguments…but also…the capacity to evoke acknowledgements of one’s arguments. These are insidious problems, not easily addressed within…deliberation (Sanders 349-350). Conclusion In this case, I strongly believe that deliberative democracy is an essential model in reaching the general will of the people, for their collective good, making me judge myself as a deliberative democrat according to my beliefs. However, I also believe that there are times where deliberative democracy has its limits, especially in emergency situations. Works Cited Benhabib, Seyla. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy.” Constellations 1.1 (1994): 26-52. Print. Sanders, Lynn. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25.3 (1997): 347-376. Print. Young, Iris Marion. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Ed. Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. 120-135. Print. Read More