La démocratie délibérative, une alternative ? / Politikon #6

Introduction to Deliberative Democracy

Overview of Political Regimes

• The political regime of representative democracy has been shaped since the 20th century by an economic and elitist model, viewing citizens as consumers selecting their leaders like products in a supermarket.

• Recent events, such as Trump's election in the U.S. and upcoming presidential elections in France, illustrate this consumer-like choice in politics.

Introduction to Deliberative Democracy

• Deliberative democracy aims to restore genuine political legitimacy to the people through active citizen participation.

• This theoretical model emphasizes the importance of common good and active engagement over elite-driven decision-making processes.

Key Concepts of Deliberative Democracy

Legitimacy Through Discussion

• A political decision is deemed legitimate if it results from discussions among citizens considered equal, promoting rationality in decision-making.

• Citizens learn to justify their opinions publicly through deliberation, contrasting with representative democracy where decisions stem from pre-existing preferences aggregated by voting.

Rationalization and Critical Thinking

• Deliberative democracy allows citizens to rationalize their thoughts, adopt critical perspectives, and articulate arguments effectively. Thus, empowering them within democratic theory.

Influences on Deliberative Democracy

Philosophical Foundations

• The theory emerged in the 1980s influenced by John Rawls' works "A Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism," which advocate for public reason as a basis for legitimate political decisions.

• Jürgen Habermas also significantly contributed with his concept of the public sphere outlined in "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere." Understanding these authors is crucial for grasping deliberative democracy's development.

Public Reason and Justification

Role of Public Reason

• Rawls argues that public reasoning legitimizes societal functioning decisions by ensuring arguments are made for collective interests rather than private ones. This approach fosters just political outcomes through equality among citizens during discussions.

Re-evaluating Opinions

• Citizens are encouraged to listen actively and reconsider their biases while engaging with others' viewpoints, leading to more informed political preferences based on mutual understanding rather than individual biases alone.

Habermas vs Rawls: Different Perspectives

Distinct Approaches

• Habermas views deliberation primarily as a process for legitimizing political decisions without requiring prior consensus on what constitutes reasonable discourse; all well-reasoned opinions should be heard regardless of initial agreement on justice concepts unlike Rawls’ perspective that assumes some shared understanding beforehand.

Procedural Legitimacy

• For Habermas, legitimacy arises from procedural fairness rather than predetermined notions of justice; he emphasizes that only argument strength should determine norms within democratic discussions about common good or otherwise.

Conclusion: The Importance of Process Over Consensus

Defining Democratic Legitimacy

• Bernard Manin’s definition highlights that legitimate decisions stem not from unanimous will but from collective deliberation processes; thus emphasizing how forming wills confers legitimacy rather than preformed desires or agreements among participants.

Understanding the Public Sphere and Deliberative Democracy

The Concept of the Public Sphere

• The public sphere is defined as a space for discussions among individuals about societal themes, historically manifesting in cafés, salons, and emerging press during the 18th century.

Habermas's Definition of the Public Sphere

• Jurgen Habermas describes the public sphere as a "moving foundation" with undefined boundaries where societal issues are discussed. It serves as a fundamental basis for democracy.

Equality in Deliberation

• For deliberative democracy to function effectively, the public sphere must be accessible to all participants equally. This requires setting aside existing inequalities during discussions.

Principles of Morality in Norms

• In "Morale et Communication," Habermas introduces two principles foundational to moral norms:

• Principle D (Discussion Principle): A norm can only claim validity if all affected parties agree or could agree through practical discussion.

Universalization of Norms

• The second principle introduced by Habermas is Principle U (Universalization Principle): Valid norms must have consequences that can be accepted by everyone involved when universally observed.

Applying Deliberative Democracy

Political Application of Principles

• In "Droit et Démocratie," Habermas applies these principles politically to conceptualize deliberative democracy, reconciling liberalism and republicanism.

Critique of Deliberative Democracy

• While promising, deliberative democracy faces critiques regarding its potential to reproduce social domination rather than eliminate it.

Critiques from Nancy Fraser

Limitations of the Bourgeois Public Sphere

• Philosopher Nancy Fraser critiques Habermas's idealized notion of the bourgeois public sphere from the 18th century, arguing it was not truly universal but exclusive to dominant groups (men, whites, bourgeois).

Social Domination in Discussions

• Fraser highlights that even within an inclusive public sphere, social domination persists and undermines genuine participation from marginalized groups.

Alternative Proposals for Deliberation

Ideas from Ackermann and Fishkin

• Politologists Bruce Ackermann and James Fishkin propose a "Deliberation Day," suggesting a paid holiday for citizens to engage in meaningful discussions about upcoming elections within small community assemblies.

Cultural Bias in Deliberation

The Nature of Deliberation

• Deliberation is culturally biased, favoring individuals from dominant groups. It critiques the hypocrisy of sidelining inequalities, as deliberative models are not universal but arise from specific contexts that are often elitist and exclusive.

Power Dynamics in Speech

• Speaking is characterized by assertion and confrontation, which Young describes as a culturally masculine mode. Wealthy and predominantly white citizens perceive themselves as more legitimate speakers, reinforcing social dominance and discouraging marginalized voices.

Emotional Expression in Discourse

• Deliberation promotes dispassionate speech, leading to an elitism that democratic deliberation initially sought to reject. Objective discourse is favored over emotionally charged expressions, marginalizing those who wish to share personal experiences.

Transition to Communicative Democracy

• Young advocates for replacing deliberative democracy with communicative democracy, aiming for inclusivity by recognizing diverse forms of discourse beyond those of the dominant groups. This approach legitimizes the voices of the marginalized.

Expanding Modes of Communication

• Incorporating various communication styles—such as greetings, rhetoric, and storytelling—ensures broader representation of different groups and perspectives. Acknowledging each other as discussion partners fosters mutual recognition.

Addressing Historical Contexts

• Storytelling can highlight issues that might otherwise remain invisible. The theory behind deliberative democracy mistakenly assumes neutrality while being rooted in dominant norms that exclude marginalized voices.

The Illusion of Equality in Deliberation

• Rather than promoting political equality, deliberative democracy inadvertently excludes marginalized individuals due to its formalistic ideals. True equality should minimize social domination rather than merely ensuring equal participation in discussions.

Emancipation Beyond Politics

• For genuine political emancipation through deliberation, it’s essential to also consider social and economic liberation. Understanding various mechanisms of domination is crucial to avoid falling back into theoretical formalism.