Deliberative Democratic Theory - Essay Example

Deliberative democratic theory Deliberative democratic theory refers to the theory whereby a decision is reached only through deliberation. In this theory, consensus is greatly considered in major decision making processes. According to Gutmann & Dennis deliberative democratic theory refers to the type of decision making whereby all voices in regards to available options in decision making are effectively considered (46). Thesis Democracy is effectively defined by deliberative democratic theory in which all opinions are significant regardless of the sources. The theory will be analyzed in the paper and an alternative theory will compared to this particular theory in regards to efficiency, appropriateness and impact Unlike many theories in decision making theories where the superiority of governing parties are greatly considered, this particular theory does not have much respect of the power of authority. The theory adopts the rule of consensus decision making and majority rule. In an occurrence where a decision cannot be reached through consensus, a decision is reached through the majority rule by voting. The type of voting embraced by this theory involves one that does not regard authority. Every party of individual affected by the decision making process is effectively considered in terms of representation in the decision making process (Gutmann & Dennis 57). Deliberative democratic theory also represents representative democracy and direct democracy. In an argument by Ross deliberative democracy refer to representative bodies that give equal chance to its members to deliberate on a decision making procedure without uneven distribution of power due to authority or position an individual holds (87). Another definition of the theory given by Gutmann & Dennis depicts deliberative democratic theory refers to the system of governance where the lay citizens are given the power of making decisions (87). Generally, this theory acts with respect to democracy where every person is entitled to a decision or thought; and the thought or opinion is considered in a decision making process. The decision making process in this theory may be represented in tow forms depending on the parties involved. The decision making may be based on the elitist deliberative democracy or populist deliberative democracy. In elitist deliberative democracy, the involved parties use the social decision making bodies such as courts and legislatures to rule over a dispute or direct a decision making process. In the populist deliberative democracy the power is given to the people to decide on the opinion or decision to uphold. In an argument by Gutmann & Dennis the power given to the people is more significant than using decision making bodies since there is a higher probability that public opinion will be represented (132). The author further argues that populist deliberative democracy theory generates decisions that may be significant to the lives of involved citizens since their opinion will be greatly considered in the decision making process. Characteristics The characteristics that apply in deliberative democratic theory are greatly similar to the provision of any consensus approach. There are five characteristics of the theory; I. Information In any decision making process there are numerous information that are required in order to have a complete validation of option. In deliberative democratic theory, this information should be provided to all involved parties in the decision making process. Additionally, the information provided to the participants should be accurate and relevant to the consensus being held. Gutmann & Dennis argue that the theory may be distorted if the information provided to participants is biased, distorted or incomplete (122). II. Substantive balance All arguments considered in this theory should be met by contrary arguments that support the arguments. According to Ross the opinions the participants bring forth should be supported by relevant and significant evidence in order for them to be considered in the consensus (98). III. Diversity This characteristic refers to the quality that all public opinions should be considered in the consensus. Gutmann & Dennis argue that the power to the public dictates as embraced by the theory dictates that the consideration of each and every public opinion should be done in the consensus (134). This characteristic is aimed at enhancing the democratic property of the theory. IV. Conscientious This characteristic is directed to shape the behavior of the participants. Every participant should be able and willing to talk and listen (Ross 110). The author also point out that the participants should act in a civilized and respectable manner. This will enhance the possibility of arriving at a decision that is comfortable to all the participants without bias. V. Equal consideration According to Gutmann & Dennis deliberative democracy holds that all the arguments provided by the participants should be considered effectively regardless of the authoritative position one holds in a corporation or society (133). This feature tends to provide a level battle ground in which all participants will be considered in the consensus even if they hold an insignificant position in the society of corporation. Shortcomings of the theory According to Ross it is an obvious assumption that consensus that effectively considers every public opinion takes a long time before a decision is arrived at (122). It is human nature for every person in the society to hold onto a specific opinion different from each. For each opinion to be incorporated in a consensus and addressed effectively, it may take up a significant amount of time. The same sentiments are shared by Gutmann & Dennis who argue that public opinions can only be addressed if the quantity of time taken is stretched enough to incorporate the opinions (143). Another short coming of the theory is that the decision settled at may lack significance or direction due to the influence of public opinion. This is different from other ways of reaching to a decision such as courts which have directed, quality and educative qualities in their decision making processes (Ross 121). Rawls’s liberalism In this political theory, the power of control and rule is directed by the constitution. Rawls argued that before the creation of the constitution all factors and opinion in the society should be effectively considered before drafting the law document (Andy 67). The author also points out that Rawls argument was based on the fact that an authoritative figure cannot address all public opinions and also provide quality leadership. What is needed is a constitution that is democratic enough for people to learn how to live by the provisions (Andy 90). Comparing Rawls liberalism and deliberative democratic theory The major differentiation between the two theories is one the division of power to the public or participants. Deliberative democratic theory gives participants the maximum power to come up with a decision through consensus. In Rawls liberalism, the opinion of the public are incorporated in the constitution depending on the majority rule which will then act as a directive tool for the rest of the population. Ross argues that deliberative democratic theory is highly democratic as compared to Rawls liberalism which does not consider the inclusion of very public opinion in decision making processes (153). Another difference in the two theories is that they vary in their versatility levels. Rawls liberalism is compact and does not provide room for change based on the change and perception of public opinion. On the other hand, deliberative democratic theory can alter its specifications to incorporate public opinion at any point in the consensus process (Gutmann & Dennis 145). However, the problematic features of the deliberative democratic theory are easily addressed by the Rawls liberalism. Rawls’ liberalism is a very fast in coming up with a decision since all provision are distinctively provided for in the constitution (Andy 67). This saves time taken to come up with solution to emergency issues. Additionally, the constitution or a centralized provision of direction provides a more directed and reliable solution due to the reduced number of opinions that are to be considered during a consensus. In considering deliberative democracy in the gun control debate, all parties which in this case are the American citizens and government bodies should be effectively considered. An argument raised by American citizens pointed out the need to own guns for security purposes in the country. A contrary argument by another citizen pointed out the need to increase the level of security in the nation so as to minimize the rate at which ordinary citizens’ demand for guns. This argument represents the tow possible argumentative points that the public holds. Through considering public opinion it is unlikely to come up with the most applicable solution. It is however, illogical to settle on the majority rule to provide direction on this case. However, the most applicable feature of the deliberative democratic theory is the elitist approach whereby the social decision making bodies are involved, e.g. courts but in great consideration of public opinion. Conclusion From the presented arguments, it is a general assumption that reaching a solution based on public opinion may only be possible if the consensus is given the right direction. As much as democracy is advocated for, it may be disastrous if public opinion always has it way in major decision making processes. In support of this argument is the consideration of the debate on gun control. It is a general perception that the courts or defined legislature may provide the best solution to the issue. This highlights the fact that there is need to consider public opinion but greater need to have a directed or formal way of reaching to a consensus. Works cited Andy, Blunden. Rawls’ Political Liberalism. A Review of: Political Liberalism, by John Rawls, Columbia University Press, 1993. Columbia: Columbia University Press. 2003. Print Gutmann, Amy & Dennis, Thompson . Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2002. Print Ross, Carne. The Leaderless Revolution: How Ordinary People Can Take Power and Change Politics in the 21st Century. New York: Simon & Schuste. 2011. Print Read More