398687 Vol1.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cultivating' Autonomy: A Case For Deliberative And Associational Democracy Stephen L Elstub Volume One PhD Thesis Department of Politics University of Sheffield April 2003 SUMMARY The thesis aims to justify liberal democracy on the cultivation of autonomy amongst its citizens. The potential of deliberative democracy and associational democracy to achieve this cultivation are then critically evaluated It is suggestedthat autonomy has intrinsic value and an intrinsic connection to democracy, particularly in Western democracies. Deliberative democracy is justified as the most suitable model of decision-making to cultivate autonomy due to its enhancement of public reason, speaker and hearer autonomy. All three factors therefore encourage reflective preference transformation. which is the defining mark of deliberative democracy. A perfectionist case of deliberative democracy is further presentedand associations in civil society are evaluated as a location of deliberative democracy. It is argued that the associations can achieve this by fulfilling four functions: they can be venues for subsidiarity; provide information and representation; be schools of democracy; and locations for governance. The fulfilment of these functions enables the institutionalisation of deliberative democracy to overcome some of the threats of complexity, pluralism, size and inequality. However, not all associationscan achieve all four functions and in order to do so, they must be internally democratic. The associationsalso need to pursue a dualist strategy in relation to the state. This involves a critical public spherewith informal networks of communication based upon the norms of deliberative democracy. The public sphere should then set the agenda for legislation through the `outside accessmodel'. The second strand of the dualist strategy is to gain access to legislative arenas. Associational mediating forums with power devolved from the state, again based on the norms of deliberative democracy, are advocatedas a suitable method by which to achieve this. This associationalmodel differs from the neo-pluralistmodel of interestgroups because it is basedupon the norms of deliberativedemocracy and can therefore promote the commongood and avoid the `mischiefof factionalism'. Finally, a case study of the StanageForum is considered I suggestthat it approximates the associational mediating forums and highlights where trade-offs between the ideal and practice needto be, can be, should be and will be made. ACKNOWl, 1;1NPF, NIFN rS I would firstly like to thank my two supcrvisors,Dr Matthew 1-cstcnstcinand Mr Anthony Arblastcr, for their invaluableadvice, experienceand support ovcr the ycars. Many thanks must go to the cntirc Departmentof i'otitics, cspccially Sarah Cooke whosehelp madethe submissionprocess as stress-frccas thcscthings can be. Thanks too to all those who participatedat the StanagcForum, particularly Matthew Croncyand StcvcSmith. I would also like to thank all my friendsand family for thcir supportand cncouragcmcnt - you know who you arcl Two pcoplc dcscrvc an cxtca spccial acknowlcdg;cmcnt - Lindscy and my mothcr Marprct, without whom this thcsis would ncithcr havc bccn possibicor probablc. MINýlr LF, N'tls' VOLUMEONE page 1 INTRODUCflON CORE OF DEMOCRACY AUTONOMY: TILE NORMATIVE 1: pagel' 1.0Introduction i'nbc a8 1.1 Autonomy and Dcmocracy page 14 1.2 Liberal Dcmocracyand Autonomy pageagee 1.3The Value of Autonomy 2204 Autonomy page 1.4The Requirementsof 60 Authority Page 1.5The Conflict BetweenAutonomy and page 85 1.6Conclusion ANI) AUTONOMOUS i)ECISION-MAKING DLLIBERAT1VI DEMOCRACY 2: pagc 2.0 Introduction page 888 2.1 Defining Dclibcrativc Dcmocracy page 93 2.2 DclibcrativcDemocracy and Autonomy page 103 2.3 Challenges page 137 2.4 Conclusion DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATIONS 3: AUTONOMY ANI) DELIBERATIVELY paSe139 3.0 Introduction Dcmocrncy pagc 14?aa 3.1 The InstitutionalRcquircmcnts ofDclibcrativc c1 3.2 Mining Associations pagc 153 3.3 Vcnucsfor Subsidiarity 163 GroupRcprescntation bC"c 3.4 Provisionof Infonnation and 170 3.5 Schools Dcmocracy of Abc I177177 3.6 Locationsof Govcrnnncc pagc 3,7 Conclusion VOLilnt1: 't WO 4. ASSOCIATIONS AND IN fERNAL DEMOCRACY 194 4.0 Introduction page pa1;c 198 4.1 Exit and Voicc page201 4.2 Frccdomof Association page208 4.3 The Iron Law of Oligarchy 212 4.4 Empirical Restrictions page 214 4.5 Conclusion page S. A DUALIST MODEL OF ASSOCIATIVE DEMOCRACY 2t5 5.0 Introduction page page 218 5.1 Justifications of Dualism page 233 5.2 External Relations and the Public Sphere 249 5.3 Mediating Forums page Democracy page 271 5.4 Towards a Dualist Model of Associative 293 5.5 Conclusion page 6. AVOIDING TIl MISCHIEF OF I'ACTIONAl. ISt1i 295 6.0 introduction page 297 6.1 The RepublicanModel andthe CommonGood page 304 6.2 DeliberativeDemocracy and the CommonGood page 310 6.3 AssociationalismVersus Nco-Libcral Pluralism page 322 6.4 Conclusion page FORUMSIN PRACTICE.' 7.'I11E STANAGE FORUM: ASSO ' IA'ilONAL NMEI)IA'i7NG 325 7.0 Introduction page page327 7.1 About Stanagcand the Purposcof the Forum Forums page330 7.2 Approximationof the AssociationalMcdiating 353 7.3 Critical Appraisalof the Resultsand Dccisions page 3f,2 7.4 Conclusion page 364 CONCLUSION parc 371 APPENDIX1 page 372. 11111LIOCILU'llY r' l N"i'ir,,,,ODI ff"T I ON Over the last ten to fiflccn years,deliberative democracy has becomean increasingly dominantstrand ofdcntocratic theory(Dryrck, 2000,p. 1). This thesisintends to add to this literatureon both justification and institutionalisation.The justification is that it is the mostsuitable model ofdemocratic dccision"makingto cultivate citizens' autonomy. In terms of institutionalisation,voluntary associationsin civil society arc analysedas suitablelocations for deliberative democracy.This then links the current litcraturc on deliberativedemocracy with the recentlyrcjuvcnatcd ideas of civil society, ollen termed nco-tocqucvillianismor the second wave of civil society. 'This popularity is not restrictedto political theory although Lester Salamonand Anhcicr inform us that the world is undergoing`a major reappraisalof the whole state' (Salamon and Anhcicr, 1996, p. 1) and that this is being counteredby `a global associational revolution' (Salamonand Anhcicr, 1996,p. 81). The most dominantstream of the thesishowever is how to cultivateautonomy, and the thesisinvestigates to what extent deliberativeand associationaldemocracy can achievethis. The approachis predominantlytheoretical andnormative, and the thesisshould be seenas an attemptto contribute to three areasof literatureon autonomy,dclibcrativc democracyand associationalism. In doing so, the thesistries to addressand add substanceto severalkey issuesthat the presentliterature on theseareas has failed to considerin explicit detail. The analysisof thesetopics can also be sccn as a seriesof suggestionsfor democratic deepening.According to John Dryzck there arc three dimensions through which democracycan be deepened. the first is the expansionof the franchisewhere more pcoplc participatein collective decision; the secondis scope,,where more issuesand topics are opened to democratic decision-making;and the third is 'authenticity of control', which requires'the effective participationofautonomous and comment actors (Dryzck, 2000, p. 29). It is this third methodthat the thesisfocuses upon; arguing that deliberativedemocracy can lead to more authentic preferences,and believing more autonomouspreferences arc more authentic. For Dryr.ck authenticity is `thc degreeto which democraticcontrol is cnggcd throughcommunication that encouragesrctlcction uponpreferences without coercion' (Uryak, 2000, p. 8). 2 ChapterOne presentsthe case that the cultivation of the value of autonomy is the normativecore of democracy.It is suggestedthat autonomyand democracyboth aim to maketheir agentssclf-determining and so the relationshipbetween them is implicit. I arguethat autonomyis an intrinsic value for its own sake,especially in western literal democracies,as both the theory and practice of liberal democracyhave assumedits citizens to be autonomous. However, the argumenthere is that autonomouscitiicns cannot be assumed,because the right conditions need to be in place to cultivate this autonomy.I outline the core elementsof autonomyas free choicebased upon rationally formed preferencesand then defend the possibility of autonomy as defined against several challengesthat maintain the impossibility of justifying democracy upon autonomy.These arc that it is not a political value, that pcoplcarc dctcrrnincdso cannot be autonomous,that autonomyinevitably leadsto perfectionismor paternalismand that autonomyis incompatiblewith authority. Although there is alreadya vast literature on autonomy,which I useas the basisof my arguments,the thesismaintains key elements of originality as the chapter looks specifically at cultivating autonomy in decision- making. In ChapterTwo, l arguethat the model of deliberativedemocracy is the best decision- making methodto cultivate the autonomyof all participantsequally. This argument acceptsRobert Dahl's argument,that `democracycannot be justified merely as a system for translatingthe raw, uninformedwill or a popular majority into public policy' (Dahl, 1994,p. 30). For preferencesto be authentic,they must be cnlightcned, and as Dahl assertsthis requireseducation, discussion and public debate (Dahl, 1994,p. 31). From this Dahl concludesthat 'alternative proceduresfor making decisions ought to be evaluated according to the opportunities they furnish citizens for acquiring