STREAMS 9 Political Sociology New ways of deeping democracy: the deliberative democracy. An approach to the models of j. Cohen and j. Habermas Carmen Sancho 1 NEW WAYS OF DEEPING DEMOCRACY: THE DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY. AN APPROACH TO THE MODELS OF J. COHEN AND J. HABERMAS CARMEN SANCHO This paper deals with Deliberative Democracy. A new conception of democracy which is based on debate and public reasoning among free and equal citizens. In deliberative democracy, collective decision-making requires the parties to give one another mutually acceptable reasons. Thus, it aims to overcome an individualistic view focused on personal interests and preferences and to encourage the public interest and the common good. I will begin with the main features of this new paradigm (I). Then I will examine in greater detail two different approaches of deliberative democracy: J. Cohen’s model (II) and J. Habermas’ model (III). Both authors have played a key role in developing deliberative theory. The analysis of both perspectives will allow us to establish, first, the main ideas of the debate and, second, the questions in dispute and the elements which should be developed more thoroughly. All this shapes the framework of this deliberative model whose aim is to comply with the growing demands of democratic progress. I. WHAT IS DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? During the last decades, democracy has suffered a double paradoxical process: on the one hand, the collapse of communism involves the conclusive triumph of democratic system; on the other hand, while democratic ideal spreads becoming a widely accepted goal, critics about its application arise from many and different fields. Democracy holds the legitimacy of being the best possible regime, but suspicions are being raised on the Establishment and institutional performance, as well as the indifference towards political parties. Liberal-representative democracy appears now as an imperfect democracy which needs to be enhanced and deepened; it is demanded an increased participation of citizenship as well as a different way of doing and understanding politics. It is in this context where the model of deliberative democracy fits. Its origin can be traced to the article by J. M. Bessette Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government, published in 1980, where the concept of deliberative democracy first appears.1 It is a way of understanding 1 J. M. Bessette: “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government”, in R. A. Goldwin and W. A. Schambra (eds.): How Democratic Is The Constitution, Washington, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1980. However, the idea of deliberation is not entirely new. Back in Athens, the debate and the reflection previous to the political action were essential. Much later, with the emergence of modern democracy, the idea of deliberation will be highlighted as the guarantee of correction in political actions, since it allows to take decisions having in mind the common good of a country and it is subjected neither to personal nor partial interests. (Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol). But since Bessette’s article, it is no longer a question of attaching importance to the idea of deliberation inside politics but a question of the deliberative democracy appearing as a model of democracy with its own identity. 2 democracy based on dialogue, debate and discussion as the fundamental elements of the political process. During these last 20 years many authors have gradually taken an interest in this view of democracy and their proposals differ in numerous aspects.2 In any case, it is possible to outline a common framework in which all of them have their place and which was useful for identifying the key ideas present in deliberation. The deliberative conception if democracy is expressly built versus a way of understanding democracy labelled strategic perspective and which is associated with the predominant forms of democracy; that is, the liberal-representative model. Since one of the distinctive features of contemporary society is the coexistence of numerous and varied interests, values and beliefs, of different opinions on what to do and how to do it, we must ask ourselves: what is the most appropriate way of making political decisions in this context?; how is it possible to reconcile all these differences while ensuring citizens’ liberty and equality? According to the strategic perspective, there are two mechanisms which make it possible to answer these questions. The first is the aggregation of preferences, that is, the sum of different interests so that the majority interest will prevail over the rest. This is the standard procedure in elections. The second is the bargaining among conflicting interests. The final result will depend on the power and resources of each party. When making a political decision and when there are preferences in conflict, the parties negotiate until they reach an agreement. From this strategic view, the purpose of democracy is to generate collective decisions that respect individual preferences.. However, it cannot be said that the strategic perspective rules out public debate. But the goal of this debate is to persuade the other party to accept the proposals which favour one’s benefit. In other words, it is a question of evaluating the alternatives according to their coherence with one’s personal interests. On the other hand, the deliberative approach is focused on the collective search for the proposal that is best for all. It is true that there are different political preferences, but the process of political decision-making must be based on the exchange of reasons and arguments until reaching an agreement all the parties involved can accept. This way, it would not be a question of preserving personal preferences, but rather of producing political decisions favourable for the common good. Open and public 2 Some of the most important proponents of deliberation (besides those who will be studied on this paper) are: S. Benhabib: “Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy”, Constellations, nº1 (1), 1994, pp. 26-53; Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1996. J. Bohman: Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1996; “The coming of ages of deliberative democracy”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, nº6 (4), 1998, pp. 400-425. J. S. Dryzek: Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberal, critics, contestation, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000. J. Fishkin: Democracia y deliberación. Nuevas perspectivas para la reforma democrática. Barcelona, Ariel, 1995. A. Gutmann and D. Thompson: Democracy and disagreement, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996; “Why deliberative democracy is different?”, Social Philosophy and Policy, nº17 (1), 2000, pp.161-180. S. Macedo: (ed.) Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. C. Nino: La constitución de la democracia deliberativa, Barcelona, Gedisa, 1997. 3 debate aimed towards this purpose allows to increase information, to improve the quality of the decisions and also making it possible a better disposition towards co-operation and a more political legitimacy. 3 At once I will come back to these questions since they are the main arguments in favour of deliberative democracy. But first it is necessary to make a brief excursus. As I have stated, the deliberative model is, at first, opposed to the liberal-representative model, although this does not mean that proponents of deliberation defend a system of direct democracy; only a minority actually does. Therefore, direct participation of citizens and deliberation do not always come together and, in fact, the degree of citizen participation varies from one theory to another.4 A proposal combining deliberation and representation is offered by John Rawls. Rousseau would represent the opposite extreme, that is, direct participation of citizens but without deliberation. To summarise, deliberative democracy implies a process of making political decisions based on the exchange of reasons and arguments. In this process all citizens participate (either directly or through their representatives) by going beyond their own personal interests and viewpoints in order to reflect on the common good. From this approach, virtues of deliberation improve democracy in five basic aspects. First, it enhances the legitimacy of political decisions.5 If the democratic exercise of political power is only legitimate when it is the outcome of the people’s will, then citizen participation in deliberation (understood as a formation process of the general will) seems to perfectly fit that demand for legitimacy. It is a will which is shaped during the deliberation process: it does not go before to political debate and it is not merely the sum of the different individual wills. In this process, citizens exchange ideas and opinions about what they consider to be the best political proposal. But -and this is essential in deliberative democracy- they must give reasons in favour or against these proposals in order to reach an agreement. However, these reasons cannot be considered true or false; at the most they can be considered strong or weak, whether they can get more or less support. This is why deliberation is particularly well-suited to