Political theorists and philosophers question the true meaning of democracy and the finest approach to executing such a method. There are many components to this debate. Deliberative democrats argue that modern representative democracy is “too much a matter of unreflective procedures” (Bird). They want citizens to educate themselves through reflective deliberation. Others argue that deliberation doesn’t promote democratic goals. Deliberative democracy doesn’t address the most pressing concerns of the modern democracy. Throughout this paper I will demonstrate that deliberative democracy exaggerates the value of reflective deliberation. I will develop this argument by examining claims that support deliberative democracy and then disputing these with assertions that undermine deliberation.
Ackerman and Fishkin are two deliberative democrats who present their ideas for democracy through a new national holiday, Deliberation Day, which takes place before the national elections. Through this holiday, registered voters meet with their community to discuss the principal matters of the campaign (Ackerman 129). This allows citizens to gain information and recognize issues that they may have been ignorant to. Sanders counters this argument by contending that deliberative democracy is not the appropriate response to the concerns of modern democracy. Instead, she proposes a concentration on testimony. All members of society, especially excluded members, were encouraged to talk about their personal story. This allows for “expression of different perspectives rather than seeking what’s common” (Sanders 371).
Deliberative democrats encourage citizens to educate themselves in order to become more analytical and attentive. Through reflective deliberation, citizens are able to spend an entire day focusing on the issues that political candidates are defending. Many constituents lead busy lives and don’t have the time to focus on political concerns. With reflective deliberation, citizens are able to gain information about pressing problems in the community and across the nation. As candidates are the ones able to take action on public policy and legislation, it is in the best interest of the citizens to fully understand the matters of concern before voting for a politician. Although majority of voters won’t be present at the assemblies, they will be able to examine the discussion through media coverage and Internet articles. Reflective deliberation leads to more informed citizens. In a real world example, one of my biggest concerns following the 2016 Presidential Election was the lack of education and knowledge of basic policies. Deliberation would help United States citizens gain information and make informed decisions.
Reflective deliberation also constitutes equilibrium. Deliberation Day allows for constant controlled conversations. These permit citizens to learn and thus make knowledgeable choices. These conversations initiate balance through the formal group sessions and informal discussions. As voters communicate with others, they are able to consider different angles and perspectives. Rather than just seeing an issue from their viewpoint and disagreeing with all other opinions, they are now able to understand multiple aspects and directions. Even though they may not concur with others, they have a deeper understanding of the problem. The main purpose of deliberation is for citizens to search for common ground in order to focus on common issues. In order to do so, they have to consider both sides of the topic and the perspective of others. Reflective deliberation leads to more constructive conversation and insight between citizens.
This in turn can generate compromise and more productive action. Deliberative democrats continue to urge citizens to become well-rounded and knowledgeable individuals by promoting effective conversation.
Deliberation also establishes responsibility. Through rational deliberation, citizens are able to gain information and make informed decisions. They are able to see multiple perspectives rather than just their own opinion. With this, citizens will obtain a more general, comprehensive viewpoint. As they begin to recognize problems outside of their individual lives, they will consider others. Gradually, citizens will feel more responsibility towards public policy and issues that concern the nation and their community. They will acknowledge others and look for the good of the nation, rather than their own self-interests. Deliberative democrats believe citizens and politicians are typically unprincipled, superficial, and ignorant beings driven by their individual matters (Bird). Voters typically feel apathy towards politics and affairs of the state because they don’t relate to legislature and affairs of the state. Through rational deliberation, voters are able to apply policy to their own lives. In addition, they are capable of making decisions that benefit the public good.
Critics of deliberative democracy claim that rational deliberation creates a slow process. Deliberation calls for caution and vigilance. In order to do so, intensive discussion is necessary. In cases of critical circumstances, a quick efficient decision is more important than thoughtful deliberation. I understand that it is important to be thorough when making important decisions, however sometimes time cannot be afforded. If there were a crisis, deliberation would just prolong the problem. Instead of quickly addressing the dilemma, officials would discuss all possible action that could be taken. In addition, deliberation limits the amount of issues that can be discussed. It would take an extensive amount of time in order to discuss a situation the way deliberative democrats would prefer. Political campaigns would have to select the issues most crucial to their platform, however these issues may not be the most critical to the voters. Rational deliberation is not effective if it doesn’t consider the main problems and concerns of the constituents.
Rational democracy fails to represent the problems and concerns of the excluded groups in society. Deliberative democrats are searching for the “Common Voice” of the citizens. By trying to find one voice for all, they silence the voice of many others. Deliberation doesn’t address the problems of race, gender, and social class. Those people that are considered the “minority” have difficulty voicing their concerns against the larger majority. If these groups aren’t strongly engaging in discussions, their opinions will not be heard. However, in order for democracy to be successful, all citizens must have an equal say in decisions regarding policies and legislation. Sanders researched minority impact on conversation through juries (Sanders 365). She found that gender forces ruled many exchanges. In many cases, white educated males would dominate the dialogue. In fact, men frequently talked more during deliberations. When women were put together in groups, there was more thorough discussion with different points of view. In addition, Sanders studied focus groups in schools and found that racial forces were also in effect. In inter-racial groups, white students had a tendency to talk more. Both blacks and whites were more likely to talk to white students, rather than black students.