Difference between revisions of "Deliberation"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Justification of Deliberation) |
(→Justification of Deliberation) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
===Justification of Deliberation=== | ===Justification of Deliberation=== | ||
| − | The legitimecy of a system of deliberation and [[decision making]], | + | The legitimecy of a system of deliberation and [[decision making]], depend on it's efficiency. A good system will be a one that need low investment of resources by the citizens, achieve fast decisions and and yeald decisions that enable larger parts of the populations to flourish. |
| − | Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems<ref>Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale | + | Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems<ref>Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press. p.10-12</ref>. |
# '''Epistemic''' - Good deliberation should produce well corroborated and inter-subjective [[SON]]. It should produced unbiased, and eliminate as much as possible [[group thinking]]. The decision by the citizens will be well informed. | # '''Epistemic''' - Good deliberation should produce well corroborated and inter-subjective [[SON]]. It should produced unbiased, and eliminate as much as possible [[group thinking]]. The decision by the citizens will be well informed. | ||
# '''Ethic''' - Good deliberation will take the needs of all members and will produce optimal inclusive solutions. | # '''Ethic''' - Good deliberation will take the needs of all members and will produce optimal inclusive solutions. | ||
Revision as of 02:09, 30 November 2012
aspects of deliberation
Contents
Systematic Approach To Deliberation
Justification of Deliberation
The legitimecy of a system of deliberation and decision making, depend on it's efficiency. A good system will be a one that need low investment of resources by the citizens, achieve fast decisions and and yeald decisions that enable larger parts of the populations to flourish.
Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems[1].
- Epistemic - Good deliberation should produce well corroborated and inter-subjective SON. It should produced unbiased, and eliminate as much as possible group thinking. The decision by the citizens will be well informed.
- Ethic - Good deliberation will take the needs of all members and will produce optimal inclusive solutions.
- Democratic - People will engage shared challenges, will think on other citizens conflicts and world view, and will be responsible for the acts taken by the state. This will make the citizens influential, involved and responsible, and will strength the mutual bonds. It will strive to get as much inclusive solution so that everybody will feel that he is been concerned as important and equal citizen.
On using Experts in Deliberation
Although experts are sometimes crucial for deliberation, because they hold more corroborated SON, there are some concern that should be addresses when expert are taking part in a deliberation. Expert may harm deliberation in those aspects:
- Epistemically, delegation of deliberation to expert can promote citizen ignorance.
- Expert themselves can be biased (as was suggested by Loerenz et al.[2])
- The world view of the experts can be very narrow, and may have low representation of variety of important SON to the decision making. The may have lack of emotional perspective of the population, or may ignore ethical or democratic principles.
- Experts can be influenced by some major school of thoughts that prevail in the academy, which is not part of the wider population ideas.
- Expert may be part of well educated elite which are not good representative of the whole public, and may promote decision in the lite of their elite world-view.
- Experts may also lack the will or the understanding of reaching the ability of a group to act, or to reach high degree of consensus. Groups needs some inner adjustment to happen, so the can act. Some more able people need should be addressed, so they will want to move the group towards it's goals. Or a group should reach high degree of consensus to avoid grudge between groups. Experts decisions may not take these factors into account.
- Experts may need to distance themselves from the some times half-backed thoughts of populism, but they should also avoid alienation from the crowds.
- Exclusion of non-experts from the process of decision making may threatens the foundations of democracy itself, as the rule by the people.
- Even if Experts do not include non-experts in the process of building the models from which deliberation is growing, can shift the decision making, and let experts control the decision making.
Epistemic Considerations
Settings of Deliberation
large groups on-line deliberation
Distortions in Reason
For unloigical and intutive reasoning, see Intuitive Decision Making in "Decision Making"
Psychological considerations
Settings that promote system 2 discussion
methods of deliberation
Criticism on deliberation
See Also
References
- ↑ Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press. p.10-12
- ↑ Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS