Open main menu

Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki β

Deliberation

Revision as of 04:14, 3 February 2014 by WinSysop (talk | contribs) (→‎Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes‏)

aspects of deliberation

Contents

Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes‏

Creating of SON

Habermas: The theoretical foundation of our measure of discourse quality is Habermas’(1981, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1995, 1996) discourse ethics is the principle of universalism, which holds that a norm is valid only if everyone who is potentially affected by the norm accepts its consequences, including any anticipated negative side effects. The acceptance of norms cannot be imposed in an authoritarian manner. Rather, individuals ought to consent to those norms, and this is done through a process of argumentation and persuasion. This process of discourse constitutes ‘communicative action:’ individuals give and criticize reasons for holding or rejecting particular validity claims, so that universally valid norms can be discovered through reason. (Taken from [1])

Ethics

Dahl’s five criteria for evaluating democratic processes have been widely accepted, at least among students of democracy (Dahl, 1979, 1998; see Habermas[2], Saward[3]).The five criteria are[4] (taken from[5]):

  1. Effective participation
  2. Voting equality
  3. Enlightened understanding
  4. Control of the agenda
  5. Inclusion of all adults

Measuring Deliberation

Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index (2003)[6]

Layers of Coordination

There are several layers of coordination that are needed in order to achieve agreement:

  1. Communication medium - The medium of coordination should be adjusted to serve the communication betweeen the members.
  2. SON - In order to cooperate, people have to understand each other. The Social Objects Network (SON), is the way people encode the perceive the world. To coordinate well, they have to adjust their SONs.
  3. Culture - Different cultures have different communication styles. When participant do not share the same culture, they may not understand other culture codes (SONs) and the appropriate manners, according to that culture, therefore resulting mistrust and disgust, which will result failure to cooperate.
  4. Values - Values are the way we evaluate the outcome of our decisions. For instance, some may evaluate "The bottom line (monetary gains)", while other may evaluate the well-being of the workers and customers. Those two different values may create disagreement about the preferred options that should be taken.
  5. Interests - Any outcome from the options that the group may take, may harm or gain any one of her members (or the community that the group serve). So members will try to evaluate the gains and harms and will search for the best option that will serve their interests. Many times members will try to use "hidden agendas" discourse to divert the options taken to achieve selfish interests. Therefore deliberation experts say it is important to know each member interests and put them on the open so no hidden agendas will subvert the decision.

Systematic Approach To Deliberation

Justification of Deliberation

justification of deliberation

The legitimecy of a system of deliberation and decision making, depend on it's efficiency in promoting long-term prosperty of the members of the group. A good system will be a one that need low investment of resources by the citizens in the act of decision making and achieve fast decisions 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[7].

  1. Epistemic - Good deliberation should produce well corroborated and inter-subjective SON. It should produced unbiased decisions, and eliminate as much as possible group thinking. The decision by the citizens will be well informed.
  2. Ethic - Good deliberation will take the needs of all members and will produce optimal inclusive solutions. A solution that will enable all members to feel that they are benefiting from being a members in the group.
  3. Democratic - People will engage shared challenges, will recognize and understand on other citizens, and will be responsible for the acts taken by the state. This will make the citizens influential, involved and responsible. It will strength the social capital and the education of the citizens. It will strive to get as much inclusive solution so that everybody will feel that she or 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.
  • Experts may be biased (as was suggested by Loerenz et al.[8])
  • 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

Distortions in Reason

For unloigical and intutive reasoning, see Intuitive Decision Making in "Decision Making"

hidden agenda

Psychological considerations

methods of deliberation

Criticism on deliberation

See Also

References

  1. ↑ Steenbergen, Marco R., et al. "Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index." Comparative European Politics 1.1 (2003): 21-48.(p.25)
  2. ↑ Habermas, Jürgen. "Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge." Polity 213 (1996).‏
  3. ↑ Saward, Michael. "Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy." Acta Politica 36.4 (2001): 361-379.‏
  4. ↑ Dahl A., R. (2000). On Democracy (1st ed., p. 224). New Haven: Yale University Press.
  5. ↑ Agger, Annika, and Karl Löfgren. "Democratic assessment of collaborative planning processes." Planning Theory 7.2 (2008): 145-164.‏
  6. ↑ Steenbergen, Marco R., et al. "Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index." Comparative European Politics 1.1 (2003): 21-48.‏
  7. ↑ Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press. p.10-12
  8. ↑ Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS
Retrieved from "http://www.delib.org/wiki/index.php?title=Deliberation&oldid=1416"