Copyright Is Owned by the Author of the Thesis. Permission Is Given for a Copy to Be Downloaded by an Individual for the Purpose of Research and Private Study Only
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. The Elusiveness of Preferences How adequately do the two models of democracy, representative and deliberative, recognize citizens’ preferences? A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Politics At Massey University, Albany, New Zealand. Patricia Veronica Price 2016 . i Abstract This thesis considers the way in which political decisions are made in New Zealand and how well the core democratic principles of equality and liberty are acknowledged. I begin by acknowledging the definition of deliberative democracy by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson and consider the three ways of doing politics set out by Jon Elster. I give special attention to Jürgen Habermas’s belief that political decision-making is a public matter and therefore dependent on the speech acts involved, as expressed in his theory of communicative action. This is a demanding theory but one which supports the deliberative ideal that all those affected by a decision are entitled to participate in arriving at the solution. One of the criticisms of deliberative democracy is that there is no procedure to legitimize the decision. Joshua Cohen disagrees. I look at his ‘intuitive’ belief that the process of arriving at the solution gives that solution legitimacy and he outlines the institutions that would assist in this process. The two case studies are examples of the two models of democracy in action: representative, the by-election, and deliberative, the proposed reorganisation of local government. As a region, Northland has challenges that have not been addressed; this suggests that our present political arrangements do not acknowledge citizens’ preferences adequately. In seeking a solution for a plural society, I look at the work of Jane Mansbridge, Anne Phillips, Will Kymlicka and Iris Marion Young, in particular, and also suggestions from local bloggers. ii Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my supervisor, Associate-Professor Grant Duncan, for his guidance in the writing of this thesis. By expecting the theoretical to be supported by the empirical he took me out of my comfort zone with the result that my thesis took a somewhat different direction from what I originally envisaged. And I am glad of it. Politics is, after all, about what is possible in real life. The theory might be interesting but it has to work, something I’m inclined to forget. I appreciate Grant’s patience with my false starts. He regularly challenged me to think more precisely and write more neutrally and thus present my argument more coherently. I am grateful. I would also like to thank Dr. Krushil Watene who read an early draft of the thesis and offered suggestions on structure. iii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter 1: An Historical Overview 2 1.1: In the beginning 4 1.1.2: Much later 7 1.2: The search for a more inclusive way 11 1.2.1: Three ways of doing politics 13 1.2.2: Jürgen Habermas and the public sphere 18 1.2.3: Joshua Cohen on legitimacy 25 Chapter 2: The Two Models of Democracy 31 2.1: The Case for Representative Democracy 34 2.2: The Case for Deliberative Democracy 47 2.3: Areas of Tension 56 2.4: Conclusion 65 Chapter 3: Two Case Studies and an Observation 67 Case Study 1: Northland By-election, 2015 69 Case Study 2: Draft Proposal for Local Government 82 Postscript: The Hundertwasser Decision 105 Chapter 4: Reflections on the Case Studies 108 Chapter 5: Looking Towards the Future 119 Bibliography 158 iv The Elusiveness of Preferences How adequately do the two models of democracy, representative and deliberative, recognize citizens’ preferences? Introduction The impetus for this thesis was my interest in deliberative democratic theory and the proposal for the reorganisation of local government in Northland, New Zealand. This was gazetted by the Local Government Commission (LGC) in November, 2013. My interest was engaged early in 2014 because as I read the proposal for a unitary authority for Northland, it seemed to me to miss an opportunity to bring more democracy to the community. My interest in deliberative democracy is grounded in its belief that those who are to be affected by a decision are entitled to contribute to that decision in a meaningful way. It is not enough, in my view, to elect a constituent representative once every three years and then, between elections, leave all decision-making to that representative and his fellow Members of Parliament (MP) or, in the case of local body elections, to the ward’s representative and fellow councillors. Citizens and representatives need to engage effectively one with another in the on-going process of finding the best solution for the current contentious issue. Such decision-making involves the democratic principles of equality and respect through the exchange of reasons. Deliberative democracy is therefore, in my view, important in matters of governance. 1 This thesis considers the two models of democracy, representative and deliberative, with particular reference to how adequately they acknowledge the preferences of citizens. Chapter 1 is in two sections. The first, ‘An Historical Overview,’ sketches the development of the theories that support both models of democracy, indicating how participatory and parliamentary democracy developed, respectively, into deliberative and representative democracy. This is followed by ‘The Search for a More Inclusive Way’ which opens with a definition of deliberative democracy. Then, to illustrate the variety of democratic theory, I consider three theorists who have been influential in promoting deliberative democracy. First, I consider Jon Elster’s essay “The Market and the Forum” which sets out three different strands of political behaviour. To conclude this chapter I outline the work of two foundational theorists: Jürgens Habermas and Joshua Cohen. Jürgen Habermas explains the reason for the flowering of deliberative democracy and its emphasis on communication; Joshua Cohen outlines a model for deliberative legitimacy. Chapter 2, also in two sections, reviews the attributes of the two models of democracy: representative and deliberative, in that order; I indicate the strengths and weaknesses each brings to solving moral disagreements. To conclude the chapter, I review three challenges: autonomy, legitimation, and access to information which are critical to both systems of governance. Chapter 3 examines representative and deliberative democratic 2 theory in action as demonstrated in the two case studies: the Northland By- election in March 2014 and the Draft Proposal for Re-organisation of Local Government in Northland.1 Both present opportunities that affect the governance of Northland, Aotearoa New Zealand. As a postscript, I consider the Hundertwasser Art Centre Process: a local government initiative by Whangarei District Council. Chapter 4 reflects on what can be learnt from the two case studies and I explain how my own position has shifted towards seeking ways in which deliberative democracy can aid representative democracy to more appropriately acknowledge and prioritise citizens’ preferences so that as a nation Aotearoa New Zealand enables all its citizens to live flourishing lives. Chapter 5 explores the relationship between political theory and practice and what the future may hold as new technologies encourage civic engagement in new directions. 1 Draft Proposal for Reorganisation of Local Government in Northland (Wellington: Local Government Commission, 2013). 3 Chapter 1: An Historical Overview. This chapter begins with an overview of the historical background that underpins democracy as we know it today, that is, liberal representative democratic government as exhibited by the Westminster system.2 In this introductory section I will indicate how the core principles of democracy, liberty and equality, bequeathed to us by the Greeks, have been taken up in two quite different ways.3 For some theorists, particularly deliberative democrats, the participatory democracy of the Greeks is a template of the equality and liberty we moderns aspire to in our political decision-making.4 For others, these same core principles, although admirable, are regarded as utopian and unsuited to large, complex polities and therefore, although fundamental, become less central to the procedural practices of decision-making bodies.5 2 The Westminster system is that followed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a centralised system with representatives serving the constituencies of the United Kingdom. 3 ‘Equality’ and ‘liberty’ can be interpreted in many different ways and according to context. See Helena Catt, Democracy in Practice (London: Routledge, 1999). In this thesis I use the first of each definition in Merriam-Webster, 1966. 4 See Amy Gutmann, and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, 1996). 5 See: Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd ed., (New York: Harper Perenial, 2008). Also: Antony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1957). 4 This is followed by ‘The Search for a More Inclusive way.’ I begin with the definition and then consider Jon Elster’s essay “The Market and the Forum”6 in which he considers three views of politics: social choice which regards the political process as instrumental rather than an end in itself and that the decisive political act is private rather than public. The other two views arise when one denies, first, the private character of political behaviour and then, secondly, denies as well the instrumental nature of politics, as does Jürgen Habermas who sees the decisive political act as engaging in public debate. According to theorists of participatory democracy, such as J. S. Mill and Carole Pateman, the goal of politics is the transformation and education of the participants.