Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
72<br />
DEMOCRACY TODAY<br />
Deliberation and equal control of the agenda are in tension. The<br />
practical logic of deliberation will tend to empower those with the best<br />
arguments, who will then have a greater capacity to shape the agenda.<br />
This logic is strong unless one redefines deliberation to mean something<br />
other than discourse among equals aimed at reaching agreement about<br />
choices. If deliberation is redefined as bargaining in which arguments<br />
are proxies for blunt statements of preferences, then the tension with<br />
agenda control diminishes. But most proponents of deliberation mean<br />
the concept to refer to open and serious discussion in which participants<br />
are not entirely bound by their prior views. Deliberation should<br />
produce not only a decision about a given issue but an agenda about<br />
what needs attention when. This result is apt to conflict with an equal<br />
distribution among agents of influence over the agenda.<br />
Deliberation and inclusion have a complicated relationship. At<br />
low levels, just above a democratic threshold, they are strongly linked.<br />
More deliberation means increased information, and it may encourage<br />
the appearance of new arguments in politics, both of which are apt to<br />
benefit inclusion. Thus relations between deliberation and inclusion<br />
may be positive as deliberation expands.<br />
Deliberation and inclusion will be in tension as deliberation continues<br />
to increase. With rising levels of deliberation, time costs grow,<br />
and inclusion (now meaning full engagement in deliberative processes)<br />
becomes harder for a growing number of citizens. If deliberation<br />
implies an eventual preference for the best argument, there may be<br />
a further tension, as the effort to identify and reach agreement about<br />
that argument may not encourage full inclusion of all citizens.<br />
One can try to avoid this tension by redefining deliberation – rather<br />
than designating reasonable arguments, consistency, or a systematic<br />
use of evidence, deliberation means any form of sincere expression<br />
relevant to the subject. This makes deliberation more or less equivalent<br />
to expressing preferences in whatever form actors wish. Without<br />
such a change in meaning, it appears that positive relations between<br />
deliberation and inclusion will become less positive and probably<br />
negative as deliberation increases to high levels.<br />
It would be hard to conceive of democracy without substantial<br />
deliberative elements. Yet increasing deliberation to high levels will at<br />
some point diminish participation, agenda control, and even inclusion.