deliberative democracy

  • Deliberative democracy and citizenship

    The model of deliberative democracy poses a number of dificult questions about individual rationality, public reason and justification, public spiritedness, and an active and supportive public sphere. It also raises the question about what kind of civic involvement is required for the practices of democratic deliberation to be effective. The aim of this article is to examine the last question by looking at the role and value of citizenship understood in terms of participation. It argues that deliberative democracy implies a category of democratic citizens; its institutional framework calls for the activity and competence of citizenry, and consequently, the participatory forms of deliberative democracy come closest to the democratic ideal as such. Also, the model of participatory-deliberative democracy is more attractive as a truly democratic ideal than the model of formal deliberative democracy, but it certainly faces more dificulties when it comes to the practicalities, and especially the institutional design. This problem is raised in the last section of the article where the possible applicability of such a model to post-communist democracies is addressed. The major dificulty that the participatory-deliberative model poses for the post-communist democratization can be explained by a reference to the cultural approach towards democratization and to the revised modernization theory presented by Inglehart and Welzel. The problem of the applicability of such a model in the post-communist context seems to support the thesis presented here which suggests that active citizenship, civic skills and civic culture are indispensable for the development of deliberative politics.

  • Pluralizm racjonalności i pluralistyczna krytyka imparcjalizmu

    The article aims to present and critically analyze one of the currents of thought within the framework of deliberative democracy. The main dispute that we identify in the framework of this theory is the dispute between the impartialist and pluralistic approach. The role of reason towards the phenomenon of pluralism is the subject of these discussions. The impartialists base their arguments above all on the idea of public reason, while pluralists deny its value to other values. It can therefore be concluded that this dispute consists in opposing the rationality of pluralism to the pluralism of rationality. In addition to analyzing the arguments of the pluralist approach, we also focus on the criticism of the impartialism that these positions have put forward. The article distinguishes three possible forms of pluralism: rationality of pluralism, plurality of rationality prima facie and plurality of rationality sensu proprio. This allows us to show the relationship between impartialism (rationality of pluralism) and pluralism (plurality of rationalities prima facie) and the plurality of pluralism proposed by the critics of impartiality (plurality of rationalities prima facie) with a specific form of pluralism (plurality of rationality sensu proprio). In addition, in the article we identify the directives which pluralists propose to take place of public reason. The pluralistic approach which we analyze in the text is presented by such authors as: Iris Marion Young, Seyla Benhabib, Chantal Mouffe, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson. The impartialist tradition should be associated with John Rawles and his interpreters and critics such as Joshua Cohen and Brian Barry.

Wiadomość do:



© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart

Korzystając z naszej strony, wyrażasz zgodę na wykorzystywanie przez nas plików cookies . Zaktualizowaliśmy naszą politykę przetwarzania danych osobowych (RODO). Więcej o samym RODO dowiesz się tutaj.