Defending Deliberation for a Sustainable Democracy

Abstract

The main purpose of this thesis is to explore dynamic discussions on deliberative democracy and to suggest a feasible deliberative system. In contemporary societies, democracy is considered as an ideal system of government. However, sustainability of democracies is threatened by increasing social fragmentation and political alienation. In order to overcome these situations, political theorists and practitioners try to adopt deliberative governance. Starting from normative justification, the recent trend of deliberative democracy begins to receive broad coverage in practical discussion of democracy. However, recently, many scholars cast doubt on the impact of deliberation because they get unconnected and even undesirable results from empirical studies on deliberation. In order to defend deliberation, the complementary relationship between deliberation and the current mechanism should be clearly stated. I think the success of establishing pragmatic and beneficial deliberative system depends on how we set priorities in democratic system and specify the roles of deliberation. Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson do not suggest a concrete way of institutionalizing deliberation. However, based on the Gutmann and Thompsons deliberative democracy, I think we can suggest a useful guideline for deliberative system. First of all, I explore the efficacy of deliberation. According to Gutmann and Thompson, a purpose of deliberation is not to find a common goal but to promote mutual respect and produce considered opinions. In reality, people tend to avoid deliberation because they think it leads to polarization. However, the real problem is rejecting to solve conflicts. Continued deliberation of clarifying preferences may lead to find mutual benefits. In long-run, deliberation will promote social harmony. Also, in order to build a deliberative system, we have to consider the relationship between deliberation and other forms of political activity. Deliberative element cannot have the same importance to all phases of a political decision process. Therefore, deliberative institutions should be supported by compromising mindset,deliberation within, and silent yielding. Secondly, I examine whether deliberation process has to manage moral conflict or interest conflict. According to Gutmann and Thompson, moral conflict is a fundamental problem of democracy. However, it does not exclude interest conflict. It is important to build a deliberation stage that any interest should be stated. Lastly, I examine the deliberative competency of citizens. Deliberative democrats used to distinguishing between elites deliberation and lay peoples deliberation. However, I suggest that we should create a joint deliberation between experts and lay citizens. In this kind of deliberation, elites and lay citizens can check each other. Although their effects are not proven by measurement, number of forums are increasing and forum processes are evolving. People learn how to deliberate from deliberation. Based on the Gutmann and Thompsons deliberative democracy, I believe that we can suggest a useful guideline for establishing a deliberative system, which incorporates external and internal, micro and macro, elite and lay public deliberations with other forms of political activity.