Difference between revisions of "Justification of deliberation"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(→Other perspectives of the legitimacy of deliberation) |
|||
| (21 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{en|[[User:WinSysop|Tal Yaron]] 01:32, 11 January 2013 (IST)}} | |
| − | + | In the most natural terms, a decision making system is evaluated based on it's ability to direct the best effective actions that will produce maximum ROI (Return On Investment) for the person who evaluate the system. When we speak on "Return" we may talk on optimization of resource usage and achieve high yields of benefits in goods , but also on strengthening the social-capital of the group. When we calculate investment, the efforts put into the decision system is also calculated. If the system of decision-making demands high investment of resources to achieve effective decisions, it's over-all evaluation may decrees. | |
| − | + | When a system of decision making is put in to effect, it is also has to take into account the values of the participants in the discussion or the values of the people who will be affected by the decisions. The resulting decisions should be effective in terms of the ROI, but also in producing actions that enhance the excepted values of the group. | |
| − | + | Therefore the actual evaluation can change from person to person, according to their values. Some will have more of a need to a clear and simple decision making process, that needs minimum intervention from the participants. Usually conservatives and action driven personalities, will value the more simple system of decision making with less participation. Others may want a more complex and subtle and participatory decision making, due to their need to explore and [[experience]] before omitting to actions. These will be usually liberals and especially people with ADD. A more complex account of the benefits and investment are describe in "[[Participation function|participation function]]"". | |
| − | + | When a a group is trying to decide the legitimacy of decision system, it will evaluate it according to the ability the system to benefit individuals and coalitions in the group. For instance, if a minority-elite members will feel that the decision that was taken by the state decision systems produced conditions that cause their ROI to be smaller then they could achieve if they have a state of their own, state or if they feel that their ROI is smaller then majority-elite ROI, they will try to influence the decision making process,and if they will fill that they are unable to influence the decisions, they will delegitimize the state's systems of decision making, in the eyes of other minority members. | |
| + | |||
| + | Wide scale deliberation is one of the ways to achieve decisions. It's usually more consuming on human resources then inner circles decisions by the government or the parliament. In today's technology and methods of deliberation, a lot of time and effort is needed to achieve conclusive and inclusive decisions by the citizens. On the other hand, if the whole citizenship will participate in the state decisions, it might be more inclusive, but much less effective and therefore result huge consumption of citizens effort, while producing law epistemic value, and therefore such a system might be delegitimized by the majority of the citizens. But such systems will first be delegitimized by conservatives. On the other hand, if most of the decisions will be taken by experts and politicians in the movement and parliament,while leaving the public the decision making circles, such a system will be delegitimized by liberals. Therefore the way to enhance the legitmecy of wide-scale deliberation, we have to invent new tools and practices of deliberation that will enhance the inclusiveness, and the ROI on goods and human-capital and will go along most of the population values, and the process itself, of decision making, should be as easy as can be to participate, and economic on resources as can be. | ||
| + | |||
| + | So decision making system and procedures should create best ROI to the citizens in order to achieve legitimacy. In reality, to achieve legitimacy by the public, a system should mostly achieve a legitimacy by public opinion shapers, and they to some extant may enhance the system legitimacy. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A legitimate system is one that take into account the needs of it's members and produce decisions that promote the ROI of the members. The system of decision making is also one of the consuming mechanism of invested resources. if the system of decision making is consuming a lot of the resources of the group members, and if it results low ROI for the members, it may lose it legitimacy (unless some imaginary world perception will favor systems of low ROI). Therefore [[conservatives]], which have inclination toward simplicity, will favor "strong and smart leadership" that will give sound and good decision for the benefit of the group. while liberals, who tend to be more individualistic and like to explore and rethink things and change the group convention will try to achieve more participatory decision making system. A legitimate large group deliberation, therefore will be one that will enable each participants to participate in the decision making process, while resulting maximum ROI to it's members. to achieve good ROI, the [[epistemology|epistemic]] quality should be as high as it can be. the [[SON]]s and the options taken should be corroborated and should be inspected and evaluated for their ability to produce the outcomes the deciding body predicted. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Other perspectives of the legitimacy of deliberation== | ||
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>. | 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>. | ||
| Line 13: | Line 21: | ||
# '''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. | # '''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. | ||
# '''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. | # '''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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Cohen J.'''<ref>Cohen,Joshua.1989.Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.Pp. 67–92 in Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (eds), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. p.22</ref>: “Outcomes are democratically legitimate if and only if they could be the object of free and reasoned agreement among equals." Young <ref>Young,IrisMarion.1996.Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. Pp.120–35 in Seyla Benhabib(ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton:Princeton University Press. p.122</ref>“The goal of deliberation is to arrive at consensus.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | See also the [[Fishkin's trilemma|Trilemma of democratic reform]], in James Fishkin, When the people speak, 2009 ,and Fung 2006<ref>Fung, A. (2006), "Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance", Public Administration Review-Washington Dc- 66: 66–75</ref> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[category: deliberation]] | [[category: deliberation]] | ||
Latest revision as of 02:39, 16 February 2014
 This page was writen by a non-English speeking writer. Please help us improve the quality of the paper.Tal Yaron 01:32, 11 January 2013 (IST) |
In the most natural terms, a decision making system is evaluated based on it's ability to direct the best effective actions that will produce maximum ROI (Return On Investment) for the person who evaluate the system. When we speak on "Return" we may talk on optimization of resource usage and achieve high yields of benefits in goods , but also on strengthening the social-capital of the group. When we calculate investment, the efforts put into the decision system is also calculated. If the system of decision-making demands high investment of resources to achieve effective decisions, it's over-all evaluation may decrees.
When a system of decision making is put in to effect, it is also has to take into account the values of the participants in the discussion or the values of the people who will be affected by the decisions. The resulting decisions should be effective in terms of the ROI, but also in producing actions that enhance the excepted values of the group.
Therefore the actual evaluation can change from person to person, according to their values. Some will have more of a need to a clear and simple decision making process, that needs minimum intervention from the participants. Usually conservatives and action driven personalities, will value the more simple system of decision making with less participation. Others may want a more complex and subtle and participatory decision making, due to their need to explore and experience before omitting to actions. These will be usually liberals and especially people with ADD. A more complex account of the benefits and investment are describe in "participation function"".
When a a group is trying to decide the legitimacy of decision system, it will evaluate it according to the ability the system to benefit individuals and coalitions in the group. For instance, if a minority-elite members will feel that the decision that was taken by the state decision systems produced conditions that cause their ROI to be smaller then they could achieve if they have a state of their own, state or if they feel that their ROI is smaller then majority-elite ROI, they will try to influence the decision making process,and if they will fill that they are unable to influence the decisions, they will delegitimize the state's systems of decision making, in the eyes of other minority members.
Wide scale deliberation is one of the ways to achieve decisions. It's usually more consuming on human resources then inner circles decisions by the government or the parliament. In today's technology and methods of deliberation, a lot of time and effort is needed to achieve conclusive and inclusive decisions by the citizens. On the other hand, if the whole citizenship will participate in the state decisions, it might be more inclusive, but much less effective and therefore result huge consumption of citizens effort, while producing law epistemic value, and therefore such a system might be delegitimized by the majority of the citizens. But such systems will first be delegitimized by conservatives. On the other hand, if most of the decisions will be taken by experts and politicians in the movement and parliament,while leaving the public the decision making circles, such a system will be delegitimized by liberals. Therefore the way to enhance the legitmecy of wide-scale deliberation, we have to invent new tools and practices of deliberation that will enhance the inclusiveness, and the ROI on goods and human-capital and will go along most of the population values, and the process itself, of decision making, should be as easy as can be to participate, and economic on resources as can be.
So decision making system and procedures should create best ROI to the citizens in order to achieve legitimacy. In reality, to achieve legitimacy by the public, a system should mostly achieve a legitimacy by public opinion shapers, and they to some extant may enhance the system legitimacy.
A legitimate system is one that take into account the needs of it's members and produce decisions that promote the ROI of the members. The system of decision making is also one of the consuming mechanism of invested resources. if the system of decision making is consuming a lot of the resources of the group members, and if it results low ROI for the members, it may lose it legitimacy (unless some imaginary world perception will favor systems of low ROI). Therefore conservatives, which have inclination toward simplicity, will favor "strong and smart leadership" that will give sound and good decision for the benefit of the group. while liberals, who tend to be more individualistic and like to explore and rethink things and change the group convention will try to achieve more participatory decision making system. A legitimate large group deliberation, therefore will be one that will enable each participants to participate in the decision making process, while resulting maximum ROI to it's members. to achieve good ROI, the epistemic quality should be as high as it can be. the SONs and the options taken should be corroborated and should be inspected and evaluated for their ability to produce the outcomes the deciding body predicted.
Other perspectives of the legitimacy of deliberation
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 decisions, 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. A solution that will enable all members to feel that they are benefiting from being a members in the group.
- 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.
Cohen J.[2]: “Outcomes are democratically legitimate if and only if they could be the object of free and reasoned agreement among equals." Young [3]“The goal of deliberation is to arrive at consensus.”
See also the Trilemma of democratic reform, in James Fishkin, When the people speak, 2009 ,and Fung 2006[4]
References
- ↑ Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, Cambridge University Press. p.10-12
- ↑ Cohen,Joshua.1989.Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.Pp. 67–92 in Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit (eds), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. p.22
- ↑ Young,IrisMarion.1996.Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. Pp.120–35 in Seyla Benhabib(ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton:Princeton University Press. p.122
- ↑ Fung, A. (2006), "Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance", Public Administration Review-Washington Dc- 66: 66–75