Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho

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