Does True Democracy Require a Functioning System of Rational Public Deliberation - Essay Example

DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC DELIBERATION Introduction The term democracy has positive attributes attached to it because it refers to aspects that we defend as okay or the correct way to handle politics. This aspect is justified in that everyone values the sense of equality within a particular context of society, and again, we all want to posses the feeling that we play a part in the governing of our systems. In the event that these are not present, society becomes frustrated or unhappy because a system’s unfairness are a detriment of its quality living. It is for these reasons that the following study text will strive to evaluate public deliberation and whether it is a necessary aspect of democracy to be effective in its functioning. In politics, deliberation is the discussion between parties of individual people as a way of interacting with a proposal or issue with the aim of highlighting differences of suggestions or opinions. By highlighting the channels of finding out what best works for the people’s general interests. However, this particular study will focus on the definition of deliberation along a government chosen by people and one which supports the spirit of socialism. Socialism in turn supports equality in the placement of the power. Fung brings in a type of democracy referred to as deliberative democracy which he defines as a call to make changes in the entire political system. It is common knowledge that inequity in all forms of privileges such as status and resources is a hindrance to communicative equality, and this has been supported by multiple theorists. Fung’s suggestion is that deliberative democracy favours forms of governance that are widely public since they come to conclusions made from exchanges of arguments and reasoning, and those which appeal to objectives that are appealing such as economic growth1. Many theorists support that collective (public) involvement in decision making reached by integrating shared decision-making strategy caters for more rational and informed conclusions. Such conclusions are evident of being equal in considering interests, and as such, manifest very minimal, if any, traces of individual rights’ infringement, not forgetting that the decisions are overly legitimate. Concisely, a deliberation that is not a self-justified end, but acts as a ground of collective (political-institutional) method of arriving at conclusions is the most effective if other political values are to be developed along with the decision making. The importance of public rational deliberation cannot be however achieved or cannot contribute to the aforementioned contribution to the development of additional collective values in the absence of some critical aspects. These crucial aspects include cultural difference, lack of interest in contributing to deliberation, and economic inequality. Just how democratic is public deliberation? According to Aristotle’s concepts, citizen participation in discussing and justifying their own laws publicly is the surest way to achieve true democracy. The views argued that in putting together ordinary citizens and making them debate was the best means of reaching effective decisions as compared to a small group of experts put together. The difference comes in that democracy is affirmative in the need to give reasons as to why a decision is reached at, and it should be the voice of the wider public. As such, democratic leadership should give a reason as to why a certain issue was tackled in a certain way, and most importantly respond after giving ear to what citizens have to say regarding it. In deliberation, democracy shapes up in that there is room for bargaining, and everyone’s view is respected. However, the best thing about bargaining is that the resulting verdict made considers the overall views and suggestions. Furthermore, deliberation does not treat citizens as an object of legislation or as a passive object that is meant to be ruled, rather, the citizen is perceived of as an autonomous agent involved in the overall governance. It does not matter whether the participation in governance is direct or occurs through representatives as long as the voices of the majority are what make the critical decisions2. In a nutshell, deliberation is indeed democratic as it has to it qualities offered by democracy. Freeman3 reveals that the assumptions made by people that a democratic government allows for freedom of the public to debate and legislate with regards to criticism and scrutiny. However, he contradicts this perception and states that democracy is defined by a procedure that makes laws under which people equally counted provide their preferences for alternatives and the voice of the majority is what comes to rule. In short, public discussion (deliberation) is not necessary for a one-hundred percent agreement will never be reached at. As such, democracy should be allowed to let the preferences, which are persons elected, to represent any, arising matters and pass them onto concerned bodies. However, not everyone would agree with the democracy that entrusts their decisions to be made by a segregation of elected representatives. Although the majority rule is what applies in granting the so called responsibilities, democracy ends the moment they assume the posts that they are elected for, and until the next election time comes, then it seems like democracy is dead. Why is this? When a representative chosen by the majority, it means that there is a minority that is left unsatisfied or discontented, and if the majority rule over the minority, then there is no harmony in that system of democracy. Back to the elected persons, it is common sense that they cannot understand the needs of every single individual as the public deliberation system would do. In application, if the collective or a deliberate form of democracy is applied in saying running of civil institutions, this would be the most effective form of democracy. This is because through regular public deliberation in highlighting issues, more suggestions and potential decisions are presented, and when a decision is made, then it is a unanimous one; one that favours every present soul since all opinions brought forward are considered, and the same applies to the potential solutions offered. As such, the conclusion reached at is merely an “average” of everyone will. Unlike this type of democracy, using elected officials poses as a threat in that the elected person may lean on or represent a single particular political side, meaning that they either represent themselves or a certain segregated group. From such a perspective, the representation would not cater for the society, but an individual’s wants or views. Having identified the effectiveness of public deliberation which manifests itself through deliberative democracy, which defines an association in which public deliberation governs its affairs, it is important to understand the ideals making it up. First of all, and according to Joshua Cohen, well-ordered democracy organizes its political debates around conceptions designed for the public good. That means that if the idea of politics is to be discussed amongst groups that pursue personal or sectional interests rather than the publics’, then that system is unjustified in society’s perspective. “Citizens and parties operating in the political arena ought not to ‘take a narrow or a group interested standpoint and parties should only be responsive to the demands that are argued for openly by reference to a conception of the public good4.” The second idea about deliberative democracy is that it should involve the public deliberation leaning on the common good, and it should manifest a form of equality amongst all citizens, and finally it should create the interest of citizens in manners that build up to the formation of good public conceptions. Third, the features of identifying deliberative democracy should be arrived at through attempting to instantiate equality while with considerations for sociological and psychological assumptions. In short, collective interests should overshadow self interests if the public good is to be achieved. In a summary, the Cohen’s concept of deliberative democracy is that it should be free, free in the principle that deliberation free of prior norms. Again, it should be reassigned to fit the interests of the wider society’s best, and most importantly, it should reach a consensus. These concepts are supportive to that public deliberation is the most essential ingredient of democracy as it is the only sure way of expressing, exposing, and extinguishing conflicts in the contemporary society which comprises of people from diverse populations. True democracy thrives in conditions that support rational reasoning and are conducive to achieving consensus. It may appear like a collective (public) reasoning is fragile since it presents channels of conflict, but that is indeed a way of evaluating presented views and suggestions. Common sense has it that no agreement comes easily, but a string of arguments supported by reasons contribute to reaching one. Wherein many people might present differing suggestions regarding a particular subject, evaluations to tell between the most and least applicable are used in choosing the best. As such, conflicts or disagreements during deliberations are not hindering factors, but are contributing factors to the achievement of true democracy. Cohen further attributes the rational conditions for democracy to Aristotelian views which claim that deliberation is a necessary tool towards a better life. The good life comes around through development of a political association which encourages deliberation, or open channels for the wider public to enjoy true democracy. Reasoning, as the side views stated, is the way to achieving democracy, thus a good life, the connection being a democracy is politics with a nature that encourages good human living5. For that reason, a good deliberation process should work thoroughly to break the surface into reaching appealing rational decisions which cater for democracy, and those which remain concealed underneath when public deliberation is absent. Reasoning as a rational measure provides evidence and good logic in the understanding of issues highlighted during the processes. From this perspective, it can be deduced that reason caters for autonomy as it provides motivation for the floating of proposals that work for the public, thus promoting the common good. These views explain the role of public deliberation as a building unit for democracy, and in as much as its implementation may seem unrealistic; it is the only ways that can see people have a direct feeling of been involved in decision making processes. According to Schmitter6, the merits of a deliberative opinion poll are, amongst others representing a large-scale feeling of the people, and again, allowing the publics’ true influence on decision making processes. Compared to non-consensual methods of democracy, that is those which do not use public deliberation, deliberative democracy manifests some unique qualities such as rational reaching of decisions. This is important in that the power of reasoning through a public engagement results in autonomous verdicts, and those which aim at consensus. With consensus, selfish preferences cannot thrive in the deliberation processes. The other dominant value of deliberative democracy is making of good informed decisions because by piling the widest potential range of suggestions, the very best solutions can be drawn from such. To add to this, the resulting decisions are legitimate and more stable because all the citizens involved in the process agree with them. Again, when citizens are involved in the decision making, they acquire a sense of constitutive freedom in that the government seems to adhere to their wills7. There is also a sense of equality arising from the deliberate since the voice of individual citizens is heard. With these combined qualities, the Aristotle’s views of democracy as a path to good human living can be attained. As earlier revealed, the ideal deliberative democracy based on rational engagements is one that is hard to implement. It is important to further note that the ideology is not currently realized and that whatever public debates there are in place do not meet the discussed criteria. Most deliberative democrats believe that ideal liberation is only achievable in the aftermath that might precede other different political developments such as a more equal distribution of wealth. This however does not mean that this public deliberation ideology should not be radicalized. Instead, its application can be initiated at local levels, such as in political movements of small scales, or attempting to move debates with national magnitude in the right directions such as forcing unheard arguments and perspectives so they can be heard. All these are sufficient to quantify that indeed, public rational deliberation is the key to the achievement of true democracy, or else put; the people are the government. Conclusion In summing up, it can be concluded through sufficient evidence in the study text that the public, rather than individual or segregated form of deliberation is the way forward to true democracy. Considering deliberation from individual or segregated perspectives, several problems may arise. For instance, an individual might have an immoral, non-autonomous or irrational preferences. Segregation such as the use of simple majority vote may attempt to address democracy, but there are risks of justification breach depending on the elected representative. Again, central democratic freedoms and rights may not be protected constitutionally as such a deliberation would seem overly anti-democratic. The preferred public deliberation mode of achieving democracy has to it attributes that make it more preferred. These include its free participation not bound by any external requirements to the deliberation process. Second, the ideology supports equality in that no citizen is more privileged than the other, and the deliberative processes are not influenced by inequalities at any one time, and finally, it aims at consensus whereby all the participants involved are motivated to contribute to the deliberations by being offered persuasive reasons. The fact that it is not recognized today does not mean that rational public deliberation should be left to die, rather, it can be implemented is small scenarios as a means of preparing it for applications of larger magnitudes in the future. All in all, it is sufficiently evident that for true democracy to develop and function, then an effective system of rational public deliberation is necessary. Bibliography Cohen, Joshua. “Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.” The Good Polity, 1989. 1-13. Elster, J. “The market and the forum”, in A. Hylland and J. Elster, eds., Foundations of Social Choice Theory (Cambridge University Press, 1986). Fishkin, James. “When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation.” The Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2009. Available at http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/whenthepeoplespeak/ Freeman, Samuel. “Deliberative democracy: a sympathetic comment”, Philosophy & Public Affairs,2000, (29) 4, 371-418. Fung, Archon. “Deliberation before the revolution: Towards an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world”, Political Theory, 2005, (33) 3, 397-419. Schmitter, Phillipe. “The Quality of Democracy: The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability.” Journal of Democracy, (15), 4, 47-60. Read More