Possible application of deliberative democracy in parliament

Human Affairs ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Branislav Dolný
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Political Practice ◽  
Dominant Paradigm ◽  
Discourse Quality ◽  
The Way

AbstractDeliberative democracy, as a dominant paradigm in contemporary democratic theory, offers a new, attractive conception of democratic legitimacy, which represents an alternative to a democracy that functions through the mechanism of political competition. A major problem with deliberation is the issue of its institutionalisation, as the theories of deliberative democracy have not produced a more specific institutional framework or form in which it could be used in political practice. Parliaments appear to be particularly suitable places for its potential implementation. Moreover, deliberative democracy could contribute to a change in discourse quality and the way decision-making is conducted in parliaments, which is often considered problematic. Due to its incompatibility with competitive democracy, the opportunities for introducing deliberative democracy into parliaments are very limited. The study also outlines three ways of reconciling deliberative democracy and parliaments.

Can Democracy be Deliberative & Participatory? The Democratic Case for Political Uses of Mini-Publics

Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Lafont
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political System ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Negative Conclusion ◽  
Political Decision Making

This essay focuses on recent proposals to confer decisional status upon deliberative mini-publics such as citizens' juries, Deliberative Polls, and citizens' assemblies. Against such proposals, I argue that inserting deliberative mini-publics into political decision-making processes would diminish the democratic legitimacy of the political system as a whole. This negative conclusion invites a question: which political uses of mini-publics would yield genuinely democratic improvements? Drawing from a participatory conception of deliberative democracy, I propose several uses of mini-publics that could enhance the democratic legitimacy of political decision-making in current societies.

The Philosophic Origins of Deliberative Ideals

2018 ◽  
pp. 54-69
Author(s):  
Simone Chambers
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
John Rawls ◽  
John Dewey ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
John Stuart Mill ◽  
American Pragmatism ◽  
The Core ◽  
Intellectual Heritage ◽  
The Way

Deliberative democracy is a relatively recent development in democratic theory. But the theorists and practitioners of deliberative democracy often reach far back for philosophical and theoretic resources to develop the core ideas. This chapter traces some of those sources and ideas. As deliberative democracy is itself a somewhat contested theory, the chapter does not present a linear story of intellectual heritage. Instead it draws on a variety of sometimes disparate sources to identify different ideals that become stressed in different versions of deliberation and deliberative democracy. The philosophic sources canvased include Aristotle, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, John Dewey and American Pragmatism, John Rawls, and Jürgen Habermas. The chapter pays special attention to the way different philosophical sources speak to the balance between the epistemic and normative claims of deliberative democracy.

scholarly journals Looking at the World Bank’s safeguard reform through the lens of deliberative democracy

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 465-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Law ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
World Bank ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
The World Bank ◽  
The World ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Law Making

AbstractThe sheer amount of non-state participation in the creation of the World Bank Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) is surely noteworthy. The aim of the Bank’s consultation was to get ‘global’ input and feedback, and with over 8,000 stakeholders from over 63 countries taking part, it is laudable. The extent of the participation challenges the positivist approach to international law-making, which views only states as having the power to make law and raises questions about how to legitimize such international soft-law making. Legitimacy is entangled with democracy, as scholars debate whether democracy is the required benchmark for decision-making processes at international organizations. This article uses deliberative democracy to analyse the ESF consultation process. Whilst, democratic legitimacy has been interpreted to mean inclusivity and participation, deliberative democracy raises a series of hard questions about equality and power that scholarship on global governance needs to grapple with. Although this participatory process at the World Bank challenges traditional narratives in international law, analysing it through a lens of deliberative democracy exposes the work that still needs to be done to discuss democracy in international decision-making.

Manipulation in Politics

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Noggle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Political Actor ◽  
Physical Force ◽  
The Social ◽  
State Of Mind ◽  
The Media ◽  
Information Sciences

Manipulation is a means by which a person is gotten to do something that the person was not initially inclined to do. As such, it is a form of power. Distinguishing it from other forms of power, such as persuasion, coercion, and physical force, is both important and difficult. It is important because it often matters which form of power a political actor uses, and manipulation is commonly thought to be a form of power whose exercise is undesirable. It is difficult because the line between manipulation and persuasion is often obscure, and because the term manipulation can be applied to tactics that influence the target’s state of mind, and tactics that change the target’s situation. Political theorists and philosophers have offered several accounts of manipulation: Some see it as deceptive influence, some see it as covert influence, some see it as influence with covert intent, some see it as offering bad reasons, and some see it as changing the external situation. While each of these approaches gets some things right about manipulation, each faces important challenges as well. One reason why manipulation seems undesirable is that it appears to undermine autonomy. This fact helps explain why concerns about manipulation arise in discussions of “nudges” that are meant to improve people’s decision making without coercion. Even if nudges benefit their targets, they may be undesirable on balance if they involve autonomy-undermining manipulation. Manipulation is a useful tool for autocrats, but it poses serious problems for democracies. This is because it appears to undermine the consent on which democratic legitimacy depends. Some political theorists argue that the problems posed by manipulation can be best addressed through deliberative democracy. Others dispute this suggestion. At the level of practice, there is reason to worry that late-20th- and 21st-century developments in psychology and the social and information sciences, as well as changes to the media landscape, threaten to make manipulation more prevalent and effective.

scholarly journals Colegialidade, Integridade e Deliberação: os Precedentes e o Contraditório no Novo CPC

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Dilly Patrus
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Decision Process ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
Minas Gerais ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
De Se ◽  
The Way

COLEGIALIDADE, INTEGRIDADE E DELIBERAÇÃO: OS PRECEDENTES E O CONTRADITÓRIO NO NOVO CPC  COLLEGIALITY, INTEGRITY AND DELIBERATION: JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE IN THE NEW BRAZILIAN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE  Rafael Dilly Patrus* RESUMO: Na conjuntura que se arma em torno do novo Código de Processo Civil, a questão relativa à forma como os tribunais decidem é elevada a uma posição de enorme relevância. O presente trabalho consiste em reflexão a respeito da ideia de deliberação para a produção e a prolação de decisões jurisdicionais colegiadas, em vista do sistema de precedentes vinculantes que se pretende implementar no ordenamento brasileiro. Conclui-se que, a despeito da necessidade de se conferir maior unidade aos acórdãos proferidos pelos tribunais, não se pode esvaziar a própria gênese do procedimento de tomada de decisões, o que abrange (ou deve abranger) não só o tipo de resultado e o contexto decisório, mas especialmente a intensidade das preferências daqueles que decidem. A divergência no curso da decisão não significa desatenção ao dever de integridade no decidir. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Sistema de precedentes vinculantes. Colegialidade jurisdicional. Integridade. Democracia deliberativa. ABSTRACT: In light of the new Brazilian Civil Procedure Code, the question concerning the way courts decide is elevated to a position of enormous importance. This paper consists in a reflection on the idea of the role of deliberation in collegiate jurisdictional decisions, in view of the binding judicial precedents system to be implemented in Brazil. The conclusion is that, despite the need to bring greater unity to courts’ decisions, the essence of the decision-making procedure cannot be emptied, since it includes (or should include) not only a kind of decision and the decision process, but especially the intensity of the preferences expressed by those making the decision. Divergences in the decision process does not mean lack of attention to the duty to decide with integrity. KEYWORDS: System of binding precedents. Jurisdictional collegiality. Deliberative democracy. SUMÁRIO: Introdução. 1 O Sistema de Precedentes no Novo Código de Processo Civil. 2 Os Precedentes e o Perigo da Fuga da Jurisdição. 3 Os Precedentes e o Contraditório. Conclusão. Referências.* Mestre em Direito pela Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG). Professor substituto de Direito Constitucional da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), entre os anos de 2014 e 2015. Consultor Legislativo na Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Minas Gerais. Vice-Presidente da Comissão de Estudos Constitucionais da Ordem dos Advogados de Minas Gerais (OAB-MG).

scholarly journals Can Deliberative Democracy Favor a Flourishing Relationship Between Humans and Carnivores?

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Vucetich ◽  
Jeremy T. Bruskotter ◽  
David W. Macdonald
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Participatory Governance ◽  
Carnivore Conservation ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Important Branch ◽  
Conservation Decisions ◽  
Conservation Of Biodiversity

There is considerable interest in improving participatory governance in decision-making processes for the conservation of biodiversity and management of conflicts between humans and wildlife. Among the various modes of participatory governance, deliberative democracy has received virtually no attention for decisions focused on conserving biodiversity. This is surprising given that deliberative democracy is an important branch of democratic theory and is associated with decision-making processes that have been successfully applied to a wide range of complicated decisions across diverse cultural settings. Moreover, deliberative democracy has several distinctive properties that would seem to make it well-suited for many conservation decisions. First, deliberative democracy is better-designed than other processes to handle cases where the object of conservation appears to be insufficiently valued by those who have the most detrimental impacts on its conservation. Second, deliberative democracy engenders a rich kind of representation and impartiality that is nearly impossible to achieve with participatory governance focused on managing conflicts among hyper-engaged stakeholders. Here, we review the principles of deliberative democracy, outline procedures for its application to carnivore conservation, and consider its likelihood to favor carnivore conservation.

Clinical Judgment Revisited

1999 ◽  
Vol 38 (04/05) ◽  
pp. 279-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. L. Weed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Practice ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Patient Records ◽  
Practice Of Medicine ◽  
The Way

AbstractIt is widely recognised that accessing and processing medical information in libraries and patient records is a burden beyond the capacities of the physician’s unaided mind in the conditions of medical practice. Physicians are quite capable of tremendous intellectual feats but cannot possibly do it all. The way ahead requires the development of a framework in which the brilliant pieces of understanding are routinely assembled into a working unit of social machinery that is coherent and as error free as possible – a challenge in which we ourselves are among the working parts to be organized and brought under control.Such a framework of intellectual rigor and discipline in the practice of medicine can only be achieved if knowledge is embedded in tools; the system requiring the routine use of those tools in all decision making by both providers and patients.

Patients’ practices for taking the initiative in decision-making in outpatient psychiatric consultations

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuya Kushida ◽  
Takeshi Hiramoto ◽  
Yuriko Yamakawa
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Conversation Analysis ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Close Inspection ◽  
Important Resource ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
The Way

In spite of increasing advocacy for patients’ participation in psychiatric decision-making, there has been little research on how patients actually participate in decision-making in psychiatric consultations. This study explores how patients take the initiative in decision-making over treatment in outpatient psychiatric consultations in Japan. Using the methodology of conversation analysis, we analyze 85 video-recorded ongoing consultations and find that patients select between two practices for taking the initiative in decision-making: making explicit requests for a treatment and displaying interest in a treatment without explicitly requesting it. A close inspection of transcribed interaction reveals that patients make explicit requests under the circumstances where they believe the candidate treatment is appropriate for their condition, whereas they merely display interest in a treatment when they are not certain about its appropriateness. By fitting practices to take the initiative in decision-making with the way they describe their current condition, patients are optimally managing their desire for particular treatments and the validity of their initiative actions. In conclusion, we argue that the orderly use of the two practices is one important resource for patients’ participation in treatment decision-making.

Rangda and the Goddess Durga in Bali

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-77
Author(s):  
Sarah Weiss
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Binary Opposition ◽  
Dynamic Relationship ◽  
The Witch ◽  
Purity And Impurity ◽  
Good And Evil ◽  
Negative Attributes ◽  
The Way

This article examines Rangda and her role as a chthonic and mythological figure in Bali, particularly the way in which Rangda’s identity has intertwined with that of the Hindu goddess Durga— slayer of buffalo demons and other creatures that cannot be bested by Shiva or other male Hindu gods. Images and stories about Durga in Bali are significantly different from those found in Hindu contexts in India. Although she retains the strong-willed independence and decision-making capabilities prominently associated with Durga in India, in Bali the goddess Durga is primarily associated with violent and negative attributes as well as looks and behaviours that are more usually associated with Kali in India. The reconstruction of Durga in Bali, in particular the integration of Durga with the figure of the witch Rangda, reflects the local importance of the dynamic relationship between good and bad, positive and negative forces in Bali. I suggest that Balinese representations of Rangda and Durga reveal a flux and transformation between good and evil, not simply one side of a balanced binary opposition. Transformation—here defined as the persistent movement between ritual purity and impurity—is a key element in the localization of the goddess Durga in Bali.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document