Rethinking deliberative democracy: From deliberative discourse to transformative dialogue

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 295-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Healy
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Deliberative Discourse

Deliberative Democracy and the Internet: New Possibilities for Legitimising Law through Public Discourse?

2010 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 373-401
Author(s):  
Geoffrey W.G. Leane
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Public Sphere ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Active Engagement ◽  
Deliberative Discourse ◽  
Social Fact ◽  
Intermediate Medium

Does the Internet offer the promise of a newly empowered, egalitarian public sphere more completely informing the institutions of representative democracy through an engaged and articulate public sphere? The Internet is with us now as a social fact. Its potential remains inchoate at a time when mass media, already debased as an intermediate medium for public discourse, suffers further erosion. The limitations of the Internet as a new medium for an enriched deliberative discourse are not necessarily fatal. Indeed the time may well be right. The institutional means for realising it are largely untried and controversial but not likely beyond our capabilities. In short, there is a need and a promise but not yet an active engagement. Against idealised Habermasian criteria the prospects are bleak and indeed there is danger of further fragmentation of publics. But judged against already debased modes of political discourse and the reality of the erosion of their mass media forms the prospects are perhaps not so bleak. The utopian best ought not to be allowed to crowd out the achievable good.

scholarly journals The President Is in: Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Twitter

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630511985514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paromita Pain ◽  
Gina Masullo Chen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Deliberative Discourse ◽  
Private Citizen ◽  
Sexist Language

Analyzing President Trump’s Tweets ( N = 30,386) with the first tweet starting from 4 May 2009, this article looks at the nature of his conversations with the public and the building of public support for his candidacy, till he assumed office on January 2017. Drawing theoretically on deliberative democracy and technological populism as performance, this study, among the earliest to use interpretative qualitative analysis, reveals the different themes in his discourse, rather than only highlight specific attributes of his tweets. Our analysis shows that Trump tweets frequently and casts himself as a political outsider who can alone save America. His racist and sexist language with his confrontational style leaves no room for deliberative discourse. His messages may be populist in character, but they are aversive and uncivil and lack normative attributes of deliberation that one would expect in the leader of a powerful nation, such as the United States. These characteristics have been present in his tweets even as a private citizen. This research makes a new contribution to our understanding of how Trump uses Twitter, starting from before he emerged as a contender for the presidential office, and the discourses that emanate from his use of Twitter to make broader inferences about the messages the public is receiving from Trump.

scholarly journals THE STATE OF DEVELOPMENT OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE

2020 ◽  
pp. 106-118
Author(s):  
Viktoriia Medvedska
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
City Council ◽  
Rational Approach ◽  
Deliberative Discourse ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Local Initiatives

The relevance of the state of deliberative democracy development in Ukraine is connected with the low efficiency of interaction between civil society and public authorities in Ukraine, as well as the inadequate level of functioning of existing deliberative democracy instruments. Since the decision-making system that was developed in recent years in Ukraine does not provide a rational approach, but is based on a one-sided understanding of political realities without taking into account the views of civil society, it is necessary to explore the deliberative democracy in Ukrain, by which the author understands the model of democracy, which is based on institutionalized dialogue between government and civil society, rational discourse, discussion, persuasion, argumentation, compromise, in which compliance ensures rational decisions. The comparative method was used in comparing the procedural consolidation and, in particular, the actual holding of public hearings by the Ternopil City Council and the Ladyzhyn City Council. The structural-functional method allowed to study the main mechanisms of deliberative democracy (local initiatives, general meetings of citizens, public hearings) as a factor in increasing the level of citizen involvement in political decision-making. Based on this, an absence of the mechanism to control the decision-making process on local initiatives was identified. The article proved the incapacity of deliberative instruments in Ukraine, without overcoming which it is impossible to count not only on the ideal, but also, at least, on the optimal model of development of deliberative democracy. As a result, the author presented ways to improve the legal regulation of the general meetings of citizens at the place of residence in order to increase the level of citizens involvement in the deliberative discourse in Ukraine.

Deliberative Democracy in India

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramya Parthasarathy ◽  
Vijayendra Rao
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy

Toward quality discourse: Measuring the effect of user identity in commenting forums

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-486
Author(s):  
Arthur D. Santana
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Deliberative Democracy

Via a content analysis of 4,800 comments from online commenting forums of top news sites, this research examines the overall quality of the comments. Expanding the scope of previous research in this area and guided by the theory of deliberative democracy, the normative conditions for quality discourse were measured with six parameters: civility, reciprocity, reflexivity, rationality, diversity, and relevance. In measuring the quality of the comments, two conditions were the identity of the commenter.

The possibility of democratic socialism in Habermas

2021 ◽  
pp. 136843102098689
Author(s):  
Pedro A. Teixeira
Keyword(s):  
Political Economy ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Economic Organization ◽  
Democratic Socialism ◽  
Theory Of Justice ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Political Economic ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
Economic Regime ◽  
The Ideal

In keeping with the radical openness of his theory of democracy, Habermas avoided pre-determining the ideal mode of economic organization for his favoured model of deliberative democracy. Instead of attempting a full-blown derivation, in this article, I propose adapting the Rawlsian method of comparing different political–economic regimes as candidate applications of his theory of justice to Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy. Although both theorists are seen as endorsing liberal democratic world views, from the perspective of political economy, the corollary of their conceptions of democracy would arguably veer elsewhere: in Rawls’s case, into the territory of property-owning democracy or democratic socialism, and in Habermas’s, into any political–economic regime which guarantees the real exercise of full political and discursive liberties against the background of legitimate lawmaking. The ultimate aim of this article is to discuss whether a concrete conception of democratic socialism, if any, is compatible with Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document