Vivekananda School of Law and Legal Studies

VIVEKANANDA INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL STUDIES

Pitampura, Delhi-110034

CASE & TOPIC ANALYSIS

POLITICAL SCIENCE
Submitted by:
SHRESTH
BA LLB- 1C
ROLL NO. 12217703821

Submitted to:
Dr. Garima Maheswari
Professor VSLLS

DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CONSENSUAL POLICTICS

• Deliberative democracy was first coined by Joseph bessette in his book
deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republic government
(1980)
• He explained this idea in another book: Mild voice of reason (1994)
• The proponents of this idea were Carlos Nino, john Gastil, David held,
Joshna Cohe n, James Fiskin ,John Rawls ...They popularized this idea.
• This has 2 meaning:
o Simple and authentic meaning
o Simple language: It tells us that before any decision is taken there
must be discussion discourse and debate on that decision
o After a lot of discussion deliberation discourse and debate a decision
must be taken
o To make it clearer a decision of the government in relation to public
interest should not be taken oppositely or all of a sudden, it must be
taken after a lot of discussion deliberations discourse and debate
o By this the decision of the government will be accurate will be fruitful
and will be better one

• The authentic meaning of the deliberative democracy is:

o It has 5 important principles:
▪ It believes in deliberation before decision: Before any decision
is taken by the government about the public interest discussions
must be made deliberations must be made, debate should be
there on that decision, the decision shouldn't be taken all of a
sudden.
▪ Discussions on the basis of accurate information and evidence:
The decision must be based on accurate information and
evidences; discussion shouldn't be made on false ground.
Decision shouldn't be made without any important information.
If Discussion done on false information, then decision may
come wrong, so for decision to be accurate the discussion must
be done according to the right information.
 ▪ Alternative proposals must be discussed: Whenever a decision
is taken its alternative decision must be glanced, its alternative
proposals must be considered, after taking all the consideration
of alternative proposals, right proposals have to be taken and
right decision has to be taken, it means before taking any
decision, its alternative must be studied after that out of many
alternatives, correct alternative mut be chosen.
▪ Involvement of decisions makers, people's representatives,
supporters and opponents of decisions: In discussion many have
to be involved like decision makers, representative of people,
supporters of decision and opponents of decision. Whenever a
decision has to be taken, discussion must be there and in
discussion people of varieties of angles must be made involved.
▪ Final decision by unanimous decision primarily and majority
support secondarily : It means whenever a decision is taken that
decision must be taken unanimously , it means that decision
must be taken which will be supported by all , which must be
agreed by all, if the participants will have an agreement it is all
right if there will be a disagreement then decision will be taken
by the majority votes , if there will not be any unanimous
decision then there is no point that decision shouldn't be taken ,
the decision will have to be taken by majority votes .

o But now James s Fishkin has told before any decision will be taken by
the government there are 5 important principles must be taken into
consideration

▪ Information: It means whenever the participants will

participate in the discussion to take any decision they must have
correct information, on the basis of information they will have
to make argument
 ▪ Substantive Balance: There must be comparison among the
alternatives whenever any decision will be taken its alternative
must be compared
▪ Diversity: It means whenever a decision will be taken, its
alternatives must be considered, it is diversity
▪ Conscientiousness: It means the views of all the persons must
be given importance whenever there will be any discussion
views of all the persons must be given importance, it is
conscientiousness.
▪ Equal consideration: It means whenever there will be
discussion the weight should be given to a view which is based
on information and evidences and importance should not be
given to the argument which is being given by an important
person.

Why Is Deliberative Democracy Better Than Aggregative Democracy?

▪ To appreciate the worth of deliberative democracy, we'd like to

think about the alternatives. Obviously, there are many
conceptions of democracy, and lots of moral theories that
support these conceptions.
▪ To begin, we should always distinguish first- and second-order
theories.12 First-order theories seek to resolve moral
disagreement by demonstrating that alternative theories and
principles should be rejected.
▪ The aim of every is to be the lone theory capable of resolving
moral disagreement. the foremost familiar theories of justice—
utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberal egalitarianism,
communitarianism—are first-order theories during this sense.
▪ Each theory claims to resolve moral conflict, but does so in
ways in which require rejecting the principles of its rivals. In
contrast, deliberative democracy is best understood as a second-
order theory.
▪ Second-order theories are about other theories within the sense
that they supply ways of handling the claims of conflicting
first-order theories. they create room for continuing moral
conflict that first-order theories purport to eliminate. they will
be held consistently without rejecting a good range of moral
principles expressed by first-order theories.
▪ Deliberative democracy’s leading rivals among second-order
theories are what are referred to as aggregative conceptions of
democracy.
▪ The deliberative conception, as we've indicated, considers
the reasons that citizens and their representatives give for his or
her expressed preferences. It asks for justifications. The
aggregative conception, against this, takes the preferences as
given (though some versions would correct preferences
supported misinformation).
▪ It requires no justification for the preferences themselves, but
seeks only to combine them in various ways in which are
efficient and fair.
▪ The best thanks to reveal the essential differences between
these conceptions are to look at their responses to the essential
problem of democratic politics that both of them purport to
address—
▪ how to make legitimate decisions for the society as an entire
within the face of fundamental disagreement.
▪ The core of the matter isn't merely that folks disagree, but that a
number of the disagreement is reasonable. It's built into the
circumstances of social and political life. When citizens
disagree about such issues because the morality of
abortion, execution, starting a preventive war, or funding
health care, deliberation doesn't produce agreement, and maybe
even shouldn't.
 ▪ Allow us to assume, then, that there are some disagreements
that at any particular time can't be resolved by deliberation. Yet
governments must make decisions. How should they decide?
▪ Aggregative theories offer two seemingly different but
closely related methods. the primary may be a sort of
majoritarianism: put the question to the people and allow them
to vote (or allow them to record
their preferences publicly opinion surveys).
▪ The foremost common version of this method is to let the
representatives of the people make the choice, again by
majority vote, or some similar rule, in the legislature. The
representatives themselves are chosen in elections, which are
viewed as “competitive struggle[s] for the people’s
vote.”
▪ The electoral process is modeled on the analogy of the market.
Like producers, politicians and parties formulate their positions
and devise their strategies in response to the stress of voters
who, like consumers, express their preferences by choosing
among competing products (the candidates and their parties).
Whatever debate takes place within the campaign serves a
function more like that of advertising (informing the voters
about the comparative advantages of the candidates) than like
that of argument (seeking to vary minds by giving reasons).

The story of Iceland:

• One of the foremost impressive samples of deliberative democracy is that
the case of citizen panels in Iceland following the aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis.
• The Icelanders demanded the organization of extraordinary elections that
might end in a Constituent Assembly liable for the elaboration of a
replacement draft Constitution. Under the pressure of a disgruntled
 population, the leftist government agreed to a 3 phased mechanism of
constitutional revision.

• First, a « national forum » of 1,000 randomly selected citizens was created to

deliberate for the duration of 1 day to line the principles and values upon
which the new Constitution would be based. At this stage, the thought wasn't
to market a contradictory debate, but rather to spot the most questions and
issues that Iceland would face in its Constitutional revision.
• Next, a Constitutional Committee, composed of seven members appointed
by the govt was created to gather information and analyze the problems and
problems highlighted by the « National Forum » with the aim of creating
suggestions of constitutional revision. This phase resulted during a 700-page
report that might function a start line for deliberation.

• Finally, the Parliament of Iceland involved the creation of a « Constituent

Assembly » composed of 25 members, that might be elected through
national elections, during which 522 candidates competed. The aim of this
Constituent Assembly was to revise the Constitution, or alternatively draft a
totally new Constitution using the work of the « National forum » and of the
« Constitutional Committee » as a foundation.

• However, several events raised questions on the legitimacy of the method.

for instance, a rise within the amount of polling stations thanks to the
increased complexity and duration of the votes led to the cancellation of the
elections for the Constituent Assembly in January 2011, and this for purely
technical reasons. Following these cancelled elections, the govt decided to
appoint individuals that would are a part of "> a part of the Constituent
 Assembly to be part of a freshly created body called the « Constitutional
Council », which might have more or less an equivalent responsibilities and
tasks

• In terms of input legitimacy (i.e., who deliberates, level of data of

participants, and the way the agenda is set), the results for Iceland’s case are
mixed: during this three-phase process (i.e., randomly selected citizens
forming a national forum, appointed experts forming a Constitutional
Committee, and eventually the election of a Constituent Assembly), various
elements must be taken under consideration.

• First of all, the « National Forum » formed in 2009 gave citizens the chance
to precise their opinions and thoughts. In practice, 900 citizens were
randomly selected, and 300 additional representatives were selected amongst
various interest groups and associations in civil society. These 1200
individuals participating within the « National Forum » were divided into
small « round table discussion groups » which were managed and moderated
by professionals. At the top of the method, a document summarizing the
results of the deliberation was published. This document highlighted the
values and principles that these 1200 citizens put forward: honesty, equal
rights, respect, justice, responsibility, liberty, durability, democracy.

• However, in practice, a second « National Forum » was created in 2010.

This time, the initiative came from the govt rather than civil society. At this
stage, 950 citizens were randomly selected to participate, but levels of
 mobilization and public outcry were not as strong, making this second «
National Forum » less mediatized

• Problems faced by deliberate democracy:

o Every decision should be taken after a lot of discussion, so it is time
consuming.
o In this there is discussion of supporters and opponents of the topic of
the discussion so there will be conflicts, tussles among the people , it
will create a very built environment in the country