Laws have colonised most of the corners of political practice, and now substantially determine the process and even the product of democracy. Yet analysis of these laws of politics has been hobbled by a limited set of theories about politics. Largely absent is the perspective of deliberative democracy – a rising theme in political studies that seeks a more rational, cooperative, informed, and truly democratic politics. Legal and political scholarship often view each other in reductive terms. This book breaks through such caricatures to provide the first full-length examination of whether and how the law of politics can match deliberative democratic ideals. Essential reading for those interested in either law or politics, the book presents a challenging critique of laws governing electoral politics in the English-speaking world. Judges often act as spoilers, vetoing or naively reshaping schemes meant to enhance deliberation. This pattern testifies to deliberation’s weak penetration into legal consciousness. It is also a fault of deliberative democracy scholarship itself, which says little about how deliberation connects with the actual practice of law. Superficially, the law of politics and deliberative democracy appear starkly incompatible. Yet, after laying out this critique, The Law of Deliberative Democracy considers prospects for reform. The book contends that the conflict between law and public deliberation is not inevitable: it results from judicial and legislative choices. An extended, original analysis demonstrates how lawyers and deliberativists can engage with each other to bridge their two solitudes.

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1.7, University of Bath, language: English, abstract: This essay examines deliberative democracy in recent theories and its limitations in reality. It starts by defining the term deliberative democracy along its own normative standards. Furthermore, the societal and political context in which deliberation as a form of governance by the people arose will be broached. The second section then addresses major shortcomings of deliberative thoughts, both theoretically and empirically. There is a huge difference between normative aspirations of deliberation theory on the one hand, and empirical evidence on the other. A prerequisite and similarity among all deliberative forms nevertheless is the existence of a lively public sphere, which guarantees communicative acting as well as the free exchange of information and opinions. The emergence and rise of deliberation brought forth both sympathizers and sceptics. While its proponents regarded deliberation as a solution to de-politicizing societies and people ́s disenchantment with politics, the latter ones remained pessimistic about the adaptability of the concept in practice. In theory, it seemed to be beyond question that deliberation would do better in terms of citizens ́ participation, legitimacy and accountability of the political outcome than its representative counterparts in Western societies. The idea was to give back an active role to the public in the process of policy-making, and as such it was a radical approach.

This volume assesses the strengths and weaknesses of deliberative democracy.

Drawing on political, legal, national, post-national, as well as American and European perspectives, this collection of essays offers a diverse and balanced discussion of the current arguments concerning deliberative democracy. Its contributions' focus on discontent, provide a critical assessment of the benefits of deliberation and also respond to the strongest criticisms of the idea of democratic deliberation. The essays consider the three basic questions of why, how and where to deliberate democratically. This book will be of value not only to political and democratic theorists, but also to legal philosophers and constitutional theorists, and all those interested in the legitimacy of decision-making in national and post-national pluralistic polities.

Deliberative democracy is a dominant paradigm in normative political philosophy. Deliberative democrats want politics to be more than a clash of contending interests, and they believe political decisions should emerge from reasoned dialogue among citizens. But can these ideals be realized in complex and unjust societies? This book brings together leading scholars who explore debates in deliberative democratic theory in four areas of practice: education, constitutions and state boundaries, indigenous-settler relations, and citizen participation and public consultation. This dynamic volume casts new light on the strengths and limitations of deliberative democratic theory, offering guidance to policy makers and to students and scholars interested in democratic justice.

In this ground-breaking study, John Dryzek argues that democratic theory is now dominated by a deliberative approach. As one of those responsible for this turn, John Dryzek now takes issue with the direction it has taken. Discussing the models of democracy advocated by both friends and critics of the deliberative approach, Dryzek shows that democracy should be critical of established power, transitional in extending beyond national boundaries, and dynamic in its openness to changing constraints upon and opportunities for democratization. - ;The past few years have seen a remarkable ferment in the theory of democracy. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond builds on a critical tour through recent democratic theory by one of the leading political theorists in the field. It examines the deliberative turn in democratic theory, which argues that the essence of democratic legitimacy is to be found in authentic deliberations on the part of those affected by a collective decision. The deliberative turn began as a challenge to established institutions and models of democracy, but it has now been largely assimilated by these same institutions and models. Drawing a distinction between liberal constitutionalist deliberative democracy and discursive democracy, the author criticizes the former and advocates the latter. He argues that a defensible theory of democracy should be critical of established power, pluralistic, reflexive in its questioning orientation to established traditions, transnational in its capacity to extend across state boundaries, ecological, and dynamic in its openness to ever-changing constraints upon and opportunities for democratization. Dryzek's reinvigorated approach enables deliberative democracy to respond more effectively to the criticisms that have been leveled against it. - ;Remarkable book ... Dryzek's discussions are unfailingly lucid, and his critical assessments of the literature remain comprehensive and illuminating ... Readers will find much to ponder in what he has to say. - Ethics;The most remarkable and subtle part of Dryzek's argument is his attempt to construct green theory of democratic communication, which takes account of agency and communication in the non-human natural world ... The argument is a bit like crossing a ravine on a bridge of eggshells, and is conducted with considerable intellectual excitement ... Dryzek's discussion is throughout careful, rigorous, detailed, and in dealing with views from which he distinguishes his own position, scrupulously sympathetic. - Democratizaton;This clear and imaginative presentation of recent attempts to make democracy more inclusive than traditional liberal models bounded by the institutions of the state is highly recommended for collections serving upper-division undergraduates, graduate students, and researchers. - Choice;Dryzek is a sharp and authoritative critic, and this will be an influential work ... even the sceptical will do well to engage closely with Dryzek's provocative vision. - Political Studies

Deliberative democracy has become the central reference point for democracy theorists over the last decade or so, influencing normative frameworks and the ways we conceptualize the workings of democratic societies. It has also been linked with a burst of experimentation with new procedures that involve citizens directly in deliberations about public policy. But there is a contradiction at the heart of deliberative democracy: it seems that it cannot deliver legitimate agreements. Deliberative decisions are said to be legitimate when all those subject to them take part in free and equal debate, but in complex societies that can never happen. Few people can deliberate together at any one time, certainly not in any strict sense, so how can the results of a deliberative event be legitimate for non-participants? And why would people with passionately held views sit down and deliberate when there seems little advantage in them doing so? This book explores these problems in theory and practice, searching for a solution that does not merely dismiss a strict understanding of deliberative democratic criteria. It reconsiders the theory of legitimacy and deliberative democracy, but goes further by examining cases of deliberation on health policy in the United Kingdom to see what problems emerge in practice, and how real political actors deal with them. The result is a complete rethink of the institutional limits and possibilities of deliberative democracy, one which abandons the search for perfection in any one institution, and looks instead to the concept of a multifaceted deliberative system.