Deliberative democracy an attempt to reconnect a strong

Deliberative democracy • an attempt to reconnect a strong (demanding) conception of the moral ideal of democracy with the problem of political outcome • democracy as process - neither just an institutional system of government - nor a pure act of resistance or interruption • a constructive normative conception first stage (theoretical foundations, 1980’s, 1990’s): - Joshua Cohen, Jürgen Habermas second and third stage responding and reacting to criticism - Seyla Benhabib application in political theory and science etc. - John Dryzek “What the framework of our constitution can do is organize the way in which we argue about our future. All of its elaborate machinery … are designed to force us into a conversation, a “deliberative democracy” in which all citizens are required to engage in a process of testing their ideas against an external reality, persuading others of their point of view, and building shifting alliances of consent” Barack Obama, The Audicity of Hope 2006

Deliberative democracy aims to solve the problem of democratic legitimacy basic moral ideal(s) - things that ought to be realised politics contain functional demands - general functionality of the system - efficacy ought to regulate realist limits on the ideal the problem of democratic legitimacy - non-ideal model (accepts the impossibility of fully bridging the gap) - a two-way problem criteria of democratic legitimacy: - the moral ideal(s) can be justifiably claimed to be embodied in politics - the politics generated in deliberative processes justifiably have an effect on things, and is not reducible to the status of an ineffective ideal

theory of the deliberative process as the essence of democracy reflective thinking interactive communication that should embody necessary elements that ought to be contained in democracy - egalitarian inclusiveness - real effect on things (power)

Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy • paradigm shift in (political) philosophy: - from a philosophy of the subject (as unified agent) to a philosophy of language as interactive communication - discourse • discourse ethics - a theory of the validity of normative claims from the perspective of discourse - normative claims are claims put forward and addressed to other participants in discourse - a claim is a suggestion that stand in need of further justification process of dialogue and argumentation - discourse ethics as post-metaphysical thinking: validity can only be reached within a social process of communication (no guarantee of validity outside of a human, interactive perspective) - the principle of discourse ethics (a variation of Kant’s categorical imperative) ”(D) Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. ” ”Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification” teoksessa Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (1990, s. 65 -66, saksaksi 1983)

Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy • discourse ethics as applied to the case of deliberative democratic politics - the validity of a social-political norm or political decision depends on a process that satisfies certain moral demands - procedural rationality (vs. substantial) - moral demand: the all-affected principle ”Every valid norm has to fulfill the following condition: (U) All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests (and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities of regulation) ”Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification” in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (1990, p. . 65 -66, German original 1983)

Habermas on discourse ethics and deliberative democracy ”Every valid norm has to fulfill the following condition: (U) All affected can accept the consequences and the side effects its general observance can be anticipated to have for the satisfaction of everyone’s interests (and these consequences are preferred to those of known alternative possibilities of regulation) universal and pluralistic principle of inclusiveness political dimension of efficacy egalitarian and pluralistic epistemic dimension - demand of knowledge

the deliberative process: rhetoric scepticism (from Lyotard to … - communication contain non-rational elements - the presence of subjective interests (≈ absence of good intentions) - any procedure contain substantial norms communicative rationality (Habermas) - interactive rational deliberation - good intentions: reaching agreement over the best decision - procedural: insofar as the process is just, the consequent decision will be legitimate - risk: exclusion in the name of rationality response: (Young, Benhabib, Chambers etc. , also Habermas) - the insertion of other moral-democratic elements to counter exclusion - communicative processes of inclusion - Young: greeting, rhetoric, storytelling - Benhabib: democratic iterations - the creation of institutional frameworks that generate deliberative processes - “. . . ‘rational discourse’ should include any attempt to reach an understanding over problematic validity claims insofar as this takes place under conditions of communication that enable the free processing of topics and contributions, information and reasons in the public space. . . ” Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (1996, orig. 1992) p. 107 -10

Dimensions of deliberative democracy (Habermas, Benhabib) Habermas: paradigm shift: - from a philosophy of the subject (unified agent) to a philosophy of linguistically articulated, interactive communication (discourse) metanorm (Benhabib, the all-affected principle of discourse ethics) presupposed moral principles - universal moral respect - pluralism - egalitarian reciprocity the basic moral ideal of democracy - inclusiveness main unresolved theoretical issues - the tensions between power and inclusiveness - discursive scope (the all affected principle) - the paradoxes of democratic legitimacy