Difference between revisions of "Values of deliberative-democracy"
From Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki
(Improving learning from experience, and putting headers) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | ==Equality== | |
| − | + | In a democracy, all citizens are considered equal members of society, with equal rights to participate in public decision making. To ensure that all citizens could take part in decision making, scholars of deliberative democracy suggested the public decision should follow these values: | |
| − | + | ==Transparent and falsifiable knowledge== | |
Decisions should be based on corroborated knowledge, which is the knowledge that was tested and verified by the public<ref>Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics). Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449</ref><ref>Popper, Karl Sir. The open society and its enemies. Routledge, 2012.</ref><ref>Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. Habermas (1998f), 183–214.</ref>. All public knowledge is transparent and is ready for public analysis and [[inclusiv information|understanding]]<ref>[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN006507.pdf Dror, Yebezkel. "Transparency and openness of quality democracy." Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (1999): 25-43.]</ref>. The public enjoys a free public sphere to deliberate <ref>Habermas, Jürgen. "The public sphere: An encyclopedia article." Media and cultural studies (2001): 73.</ref>. Deliberation is free. No other force other than reason can be used<ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.</ref>. The public deliberate on common concerns<ref>Habermas 1989:xi</ref>. | Decisions should be based on corroborated knowledge, which is the knowledge that was tested and verified by the public<ref>Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics). Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449</ref><ref>Popper, Karl Sir. The open society and its enemies. Routledge, 2012.</ref><ref>Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. Habermas (1998f), 183–214.</ref>. All public knowledge is transparent and is ready for public analysis and [[inclusiv information|understanding]]<ref>[http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/NISPAcee/UNPAN006507.pdf Dror, Yebezkel. "Transparency and openness of quality democracy." Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (1999): 25-43.]</ref>. The public enjoys a free public sphere to deliberate <ref>Habermas, Jürgen. "The public sphere: An encyclopedia article." Media and cultural studies (2001): 73.</ref>. Deliberation is free. No other force other than reason can be used<ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.</ref>. The public deliberate on common concerns<ref>Habermas 1989:xi</ref>. | ||
| − | + | ==Inclusive and equal== | |
According to Habermas, Deliberation is [[Inclusive]], which means, every citizen, no matter what his qualities, should be able to participate on equal terms, without discrimination due to economic, education, or other causes: Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. Their voting is equal, and the knowledge should be engaged in a manner that will let every participant effectively understand the subject at hand<ref>Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref>. | According to Habermas, Deliberation is [[Inclusive]], which means, every citizen, no matter what his qualities, should be able to participate on equal terms, without discrimination due to economic, education, or other causes: Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. Their voting is equal, and the knowledge should be engaged in a manner that will let every participant effectively understand the subject at hand<ref>Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref>. | ||
| − | + | ==Openness== | |
The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.</ref>. | The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.</ref>. | ||
| − | + | ==Political capabilities== | |
The public develops political and deliberative competencies, as to manage his business with better competence in each iteration of dliberation<ref>[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/592f/ad7eb9d3a1a83115b0e0f938126ba880fd8b.pdf Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.]</ref>. | The public develops political and deliberative competencies, as to manage his business with better competence in each iteration of dliberation<ref>[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/592f/ad7eb9d3a1a83115b0e0f938126ba880fd8b.pdf Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.]</ref>. | ||
| − | + | ==Control== | |
The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl). | The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl). | ||
'''The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda '''(Dahl). | '''The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda '''(Dahl). | ||
| − | + | ==Learning from experience== | |
After a decision, actions are taken by the public or executives of the public. the actions and the results are transparent, and the public can learn and improve its future decisions <ref>[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/592f/ad7eb9d3a1a83115b0e0f938126ba880fd8b.pdf Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.]</ref>. It seems that increasing political capability and learning from experience deliberative efficacy<ref>[https://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1502&context=jpd Geissel, Brigitte, and Pamela Hess. "Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures-A Novel Methodological Approach." Journal of Public Deliberation 13.2 (2017): 4.]</ref>. | After a decision, actions are taken by the public or executives of the public. the actions and the results are transparent, and the public can learn and improve its future decisions <ref>[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/592f/ad7eb9d3a1a83115b0e0f938126ba880fd8b.pdf Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.]</ref>. It seems that increasing political capability and learning from experience deliberative efficacy<ref>[https://www.publicdeliberation.net/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1502&context=jpd Geissel, Brigitte, and Pamela Hess. "Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures-A Novel Methodological Approach." Journal of Public Deliberation 13.2 (2017): 4.]</ref>. | ||
| + | ==Choosing of solutions based on PORSC== | ||
| + | According to liberal values, choosing a common solution should use as much free agreement and less usage of force. To make this happen, I'll suggest the [[Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion]], which uses free choice as a criterion for selecting a solution for the group. | ||
| + | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[category: theory]] | [[category: theory]] | ||
[[category: values]] | [[category: values]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:52, 4 April 2021
Contents
Equality
In a democracy, all citizens are considered equal members of society, with equal rights to participate in public decision making. To ensure that all citizens could take part in decision making, scholars of deliberative democracy suggested the public decision should follow these values:
Transparent and falsifiable knowledge
Decisions should be based on corroborated knowledge, which is the knowledge that was tested and verified by the public[1][2][3]. All public knowledge is transparent and is ready for public analysis and understanding[4]. The public enjoys a free public sphere to deliberate [5]. Deliberation is free. No other force other than reason can be used[6]. The public deliberate on common concerns[7].
Inclusive and equal
According to Habermas, Deliberation is Inclusive, which means, every citizen, no matter what his qualities, should be able to participate on equal terms, without discrimination due to economic, education, or other causes: Citizens must have adequate and equal opportunities to form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other. Their voting is equal, and the knowledge should be engaged in a manner that will let every participant effectively understand the subject at hand[8].
Openness
The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws[9].
Political capabilities
The public develops political and deliberative competencies, as to manage his business with better competence in each iteration of dliberation[10].
Control
The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl). The public controls the process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl).
Learning from experience
After a decision, actions are taken by the public or executives of the public. the actions and the results are transparent, and the public can learn and improve its future decisions [11]. It seems that increasing political capability and learning from experience deliberative efficacy[12].
Choosing of solutions based on PORSC
According to liberal values, choosing a common solution should use as much free agreement and less usage of force. To make this happen, I'll suggest the Personal Optimising ROI Selection Criterion, which uses free choice as a criterion for selecting a solution for the group.
References
- ↑ Popper, K. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Routledge Classics). Routledge. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Scientific-Discovery-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415278449
- ↑ Popper, Karl Sir. The open society and its enemies. Routledge, 2012.
- ↑ Habermas, J. (1986). Communicative rationality and the theories of meaning and action. Habermas (1998f), 183–214.
- ↑ Dror, Yebezkel. "Transparency and openness of quality democracy." Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (1999): 25-43.
- ↑ Habermas, Jürgen. "The public sphere: An encyclopedia article." Media and cultural studies (2001): 73.
- ↑ Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.
- ↑ Habermas 1989:xi
- ↑ Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critiques. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- ↑ Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3-7.
- ↑ Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.
- ↑ Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy, 342.
- ↑ Geissel, Brigitte, and Pamela Hess. "Explaining Political Efficacy in Deliberative Procedures-A Novel Methodological Approach." Journal of Public Deliberation 13.2 (2017): 4.