Dryzek Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building

8/3/2019 Dryzek Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building

1/25

http://cps.sagepub.com

Comparative Political Studies

DOI: 10.1177/00104140093321297, 2009;

2009; 42; 1379 originally published online AprComparative Political StudiesJohn S. Dryzek

Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building

http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/42/11/1379

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Comparative Political StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/42/11/1379Citations

by Pamela Cceres on October 9, 2009http://cps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/42/11/1379http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/42/11/1379http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://cps.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


2/25

Comparative Political Studies

Volum 42 Numbr 11

Novmbr 2009 1379-1402

2009 Sage Publictions

10.1177/0010414009332129

http://cps.spub.comhostd t

http://onlin.spub.com

1379

Authors Note: Vrsions of this rticl wr prsntd t th 2008 Noy Univrsity

Confrnc on Constructivist Politicl Thory, Jpn, th 2008 confrnc on Unity ndDivrsity in Dlibrtiv Dmocrcy t th Univrsity of Brn, Switzrlnd, nd th 2008

confrnc of th amricn Politicl Scinc assocition. For commnts, I thnk Robrt

goodin, Bon H, Richrd Muln, Vivin Schmidt, Dnnis Thompson, Shiki Uno, nd

Mrk Wrrn. This rsrch ws supportd by austrlin Rsrch Council grnt No.

DP0773626.

Democratization asDeliberative CapacityBuildingJohn S. DryzkAustralian National University, Canberra, Australia

effctiv dlibrtion is cntrl to dmocrcy nd so should ntr ny dfinition

of dmocrtiztion. Howvr, th dlibrtiv spct now ubiquitous in th th-

ory, prctic, nd promotion of dmocrcy is nrlly missin in comprtiv

studis of dmocrtiztion. Dlibrtion cpcity cn b distributd in vribl

wys in th dlibrtiv systms of stts nd othr politis. a frmwork is

dscribd for loctin nd nlyzin th contributions of its componnts nd so

vlutin th dr to which politys dlibrtiv systm is uthntic, inclu-

siv, nd consquntil. an mphsis on dlibrtion rvls importnt dtrmi-

nnts of dmocrtic trnsition nd consolidtion, thrby providin substntil

xplntory s wll s vlutiv nd normtiv purchs.

Keywords: democratization; deliberative democracy; deliberative system;

democracy promotion

T h comprtiv study of dmocrtiztion hs missd wht, to mnynlysts nd dmocrtic innovtors, is th most importnt spct ofdmocrcy: dlibrtion. I outlin th id of dlibrtiv cpcity, pinpoint

whr it should b souht, show how it cn b dployd in comprtiv

mpiricl nlysis, numrt its impcts on dmocrtic trnsition nd

consolidtion (whil rconizin th problmtic ntur of ths concpts),

nd cnvss its dtrminnts.

Most dmocrtiztion scholrs dfin dmocrcy in trms of lctorl

comptition nd ffctiv constitutionl rspct for bsic civil librtis nd

http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/


3/25

1380 Comprtiv Politicl Studis

humn rihts. In this liht, th first txonomic tsk is to cptur th dr

to which () ostnsibly dmocrtic politicl systms fll short of librl

lctorlist idls nd (b) ostnsibly uthoritrin rims miht mbodysom of thm; mny rim typs hv bn concptulizd (armony &

Schmis, 2005; Collir & Lvitsky, 1997). On th lctorl or comptitiv

sid, shortfll coms, for xmpl, whr mmbrs of on prty or

ldrship roup ffctivly mnipult th systm so tht thy cnnot los,

wht Crothrs (2002) clls dominnt-powr systms, prvsiv in post-

Sovit countris, with aNC-domintd South afric. On th librl sid,

Zkris illibrl dmocrcy (2003) nd ODonnlls dltiv dmocrcy

(1994) ftur comptitiv lctions, but winnrs rul without nyconstitutionl chcks, ccountbility, nd rspct for th rihts of thir

popl. Som scholrs prfr to cll such systms competitive

authoritarianism (Lvitsky & Wy, 2002).

This rticl dos not ru tht librl lctorl dfinitions of dmocrcy

r wron (still lss try to t to rips with pprochs tht dploy ths

dfinitions in ll thir vrity nd subtlty), just tht thy miss ky

spctdlibrtion. This spct is ubiquitous in th thory, nlysis, nd

prctic of dmocrcytht is, vrywhr xcpt comprtiv sttdmocrtiztion studis. Just s librl lctorl dmocrtiztion studis

hv n pplid countrprt in dmocrcy promotion, by th U.S. ancy

for Intrntionl Dvlopmnt nd othr public nd privt bodis, so dos

dlibrtiv dmocrcy find ppliction in lobl movmnt to introduc

dlibrtiv institutions into ovrnnc (gstil & Lvin, 2005). Dmocrcy

promotrs hv discovrd dlibrtion nd finncd dlibrtiv xrciss

in countris such s Chin. Dlibrtiv cpcity dos not hv to b souht

in ny prticulr st of institutions (such s lctions), but it cn b

mnifstd in diffrnt wys, in diffrnt systms.

In dlibrtiv liht, th mor uthntic, inclusiv, nd consquntil

politicl dlibrtion is, th mor dmocrtic politicl systm is. Politicl

systms (includin stts) cn b rryd on continuum ccordin to th

xtnt of thir dlibrtiv cpcity. at th ntiv nd li not just

utocrcis but lso routinizd dministrtiv systms nd thos domintd

by strtic mchintion or rmd conflict. This dos not mn tht

dmocrcy is bout dlibrtion only; it is lso bout dcision, votin, th

rul of lw, nd uncorrupt dministrtion, mon othr thins. Butdmocrcy cnnot do without dlibrtion. This rticl trts dlibrtion

s bin cntrl to dmocrcy.

http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/http://cps.sagepub.com/


4/25

Dryzk / Dmocrtiztion s Dlibrtiv Cpcity Buildin 1381

Deliberative Capacity

Dlibrtion invoks tlk-cntric spct of dmocrcy (Chmbrs,

2003, p. 308). as such, dmocrtic litimcy rsids in th riht, bility,

nd opportunity of thos subjct to collctiv dcision to prticipt in

dlibrtion bout th contnt of tht dcision (Bnhbib, 1996, p. 68;

Cohn, 1989, p. 22). This rquirmnt pplis to ll prticipnts, b thy

rprsnttivs, citizns, or ctivists; litimtion is scurd in thir

intrction. In prticiptin in dlibrtion, individuls rflct on thir

prfrncs nd should b opn to prfrnc chn. Dlibrtion itslf is

kind of communiction. In som ccounts (.., Hbrms, 1996),rsond rumnt is privild, but dlibrtion cn b opn to vrity

of forms of communiction, such s rhtoric, tstimony (th tllin of

storis), nd humor. Rl-world politicl communiction nrlly mixs

ths diffrnt forms, nd thos tht do not involv rumnt cn b

ffctiv in inducin rflction. Howvr, som kinds of communiction,

such s lis, thrts, nd commnds, r intrinsiclly ntidlibrtiv.

Communictions r dlibrtiv to th dr tht thy r noncorciv,

r cpbl of inducin rflction bout th prfrncs tht individulshold, nd bl to rlt th prticulr intrsts of individuls nd roups to

mor univrsl principls (Dryzk, 2000, p. 68). gutmnn nd Thompson

(1996) dfin th ky dlibrtiv virtu s rciprocitytht is, mkin

rumnts in trms othrs cn ccpt. With rrd to communiction othr

thn rumnt, this virtu cn b sttd s communictin in trms tht

othrs cn ccpt. Rhtoric, for xmpl, cn b usd to inflm th

pssions of ons rliious, thnic, or ntionl roup nd so mrit

condmntion. But in contxt tht fturs myrid idntitis, rliions,thnicitis, nd ntionlitis, spkrs rhtoric cn try to ppl to th

symbols vlud by ths roups to induc rflction on thir prt.

Politicl systms r dlibrtivly undmocrtic to th xtnt tht thy

minimiz opportunitis for individuls to rflct frly on thir politicl

prfrncs. autocrcis my b intrstd in individuls prfrncs but

only to convinc popl to ccpt th rims doctrin, bckd by thrt

of corcion. If dmous ppl to thnic ntionlist vlus, thn th

critrion of connction to mor univrsl principls is violtd. authoritrins

miht ppl to nrl principls; for xmpl, th Sovit ldrship

would justify its ctions in trms of Mrxist principls nrlizbl to

humnity. Howvr, tht kind of justifiction cnnot rch thos who do not

shr wll-dfind idoloicl frmwork, thus violtin rciprocity. Th



5/25


sm miht b sid of thos invokin conomic fficincy s nonnotibl

principl for mrktizin ovrnmnt.

applyin dlibrtiv principls to vlut instncs of communictiondos not utomticlly trnslt to concpt tht is usful in nlyzin nd

vlutin whol rims or politicl systms. For tht w nd n ccount

of dlibrtiv cpcity.

Dlibrtiv cpcity my b dfind s th xtnt to which politicl

systm posssss structurs to host dlibrtion tht is uthntic, inclusiv, nd

consquntil. Pursuit of this cpcity dos not connot ny prticulr

institutionl prscription (b it comptitiv lctions, constitution, or st of

forums), but it my b scurd in connction with diffrnt sorts of institutionsnd prctics. authnticity cn b undrstood in liht of th tsts just introducd;

tht is, dlibrtion must induc rflction noncorcivly, connct clims to

mor nrl principls, nd xhibit rciprocity. Inclusivnss pplis to th

rn of intrsts nd discourss prsnt in politicl sttin. Without

inclusivnss, thr my b dlibrtion but not dlibrtiv dmocrcy. Mutz

(2006) worris tht dlibrtion works inst inclusion bcus hrin th

othr sid inducs popl to prticipt lss. But Mutz is rfrrin only to

unstructurd tlk in vrydy lif, not dlibrtionstill lss, dlibrtion tidto prticulr loctions in politicl systm.

Consequential mns tht dlibrtiv procsss must hv n impct on

collctiv dcisions or socil outcoms. This impct nd not b dirct

tht is, dlibrtion nd not involv th ctul mkin of policy dcisions.

For xmpl, public dlibrtion miht hv n influnc on dcision

mkrs who r not prticipnts in dlibrtion. This miht occur whn n

informl dlibrtiv forum mks rcommndtions tht r subsquntly

tkn into ccount by policy mkrs. Nor nd th outcoms in qustion b

xplicit policy dcisions; thy miht, for xmpl, b informl products of

ntwork, thus ntilin ovrnnc without ovrnmnt.

a polity with hih dr of uthntic, inclusiv, nd consquntil

dlibrtion will hv n ffctiv dlibrtiv systm. Bfor dscribin

th concptully ncssry fturs of such systm, I numrt som

politicl sits tht miht fd in to it.

Where Can Deliberation Be Found?

W cn bin with th cntrl institutions of stts, such s lislturs,

cbints, constitutionl courts, nd corportist councils tht mpowr



6/25


rprsnttivs of lbor nd businss fdrtions nd ovrnmnt xcutivs.

Rwls (1993, p. 231) blivs tht th U.S. Suprm Court is n xmplry

dlibrtiv institution. Dsind forumssuch s citizns juris ndssmblis, dlibrtiv polls, consnsus confrncs, stkholdr dilous

cn lso contribut, nd ths hv pprd in dvlopin countris so r

not just n ttribut of dvlopd librl dmocrcis. For xmpl,

widly prisd nd occsionlly copid dlibrtiv pproch to prticiptory

civic budtin hs bn dvlopd in Brzil, notbly in Porto alr

(Fun, 2003, pp. 360-362).

Bnhbib (1996) nd Hbrms (1996) strss th informl public sphr,

whr dlibrtion nrts public opinion, which thn ouht to influncdlibrtion in th lisltur. Th public sphr my ply n spcilly

importnt rol in countris whr forml lisltiv dlibrtion is wk or

bsnt. For xmpl, Polnd in th rly 1980s fturd no lisltur with

ny dlibrtiv cpcity. But th country did hv flourishin public

sphr ssocitd with th Solidrity movmnt, in which dlibrtion ws

prcticd nd dlibrtiv cpcity built. ekirt nd Kubik (1999) ru

tht vn ftr 1989, th public sphr in Polnd ws kind of rmdil sit

tht compnstd for dlibrtiv filur in stt institutions. But th publicsphr in ny dmocrcy is whr prspctivs nd ids r nrtd,

policy dcisions r qustiond, nd citizn comptncs r dvlopd.

Diffrnt sits cn contribut to dlibrtiv cpcity in diffrnt

proportions, in diffrnt socitis nd systms. W should not fixt on ny

on institutionl contributor to this mix nd ssum tht it is the ky to

dlibrtiv cpcity. For xmpl, w miht dismiss contmporry Chin

s thorouhly lckin in dlibrtiv cpcity if w focus on cntrl stt

institutions nd th public sphr, svrly circumscribd by controls ovr

th mdi nd rstrictions on ssocition, dvoccy, nd xprssion. If

Chin dos hv ny dlibrtiv cpcity, thn it miht b found in

prticiptory innovtions t th locl lvl, dsind in prt to cop with th

unwntd sid ffcts of rpid conomic rowth. Thos intrstd in th

dmocrtiztion of Chin could look for wys of buildin up from this

loclizd cpcity. Som ldrs of th Communist Prty hv smd

rcptiv to such possibilitis. In 2005 Li Junru, vic prsidnt of th

Cntrl Prty School, clld for th xpnsion of dlibrtiv dmocrcy in

Chin (H & Lib, 2006, p. 8). Skptics cn point to locl ssmblis thtrmin controlld by prty officils, but css do xist whr forums hv

ovrruld th dcisions of prty officils. Dlibrtiv dmocrtiztion

nd not b top-down rform of cntrl stt institutions.



7/25


Dlibrtiv cpcity cn lso b souht in nontrditionl institutionl

forms, such s ovrnnc ntworks (Srnsn & Torfin, 2006). Ntworks

trnscnd forml politicl institutions nd somtims cross stt boundris.Thy cn b md up of vrity of public nd privt ctors. Somtims

thy r purly informl; somtims thir rol is vlidtd by ovrnmnts

or introvrnmntl orniztions; somtims thy hv littl dlibrtiv

cpcity. So lobl finncil ntworks, s dscribd by Cstlls (1996),

work on th bsis of unrflctiv shrd commitmnt to mrkt-orintd

nolibrlism. Howvr, th wbs of trnsntionl rultion dscribd by

Brithwit nd Drhos (2000) involv nonovrnmntl orniztions,

businsss, ctivists, publicists, nd ovrnmnt officils in rltionshipstht nd to dvlop dlibrtiv cpcitybcus intrctions bin with

comptin undrstndins nd vlus, which nd to b bridd to crft

ffctiv rultion in th bsnc of sovrin uthority. Whn ntworks

trnscnd stt boundris, thy my still contribut to th dlibrtiv

cpcity of stts. Considr, for xmpl, th trnsntionl ntwork tht

monitors th socil nd coloicl crtifiction of forst products: It

ctivly ns timbr producrs nd ovrnmnt officils in timbr

xportrs such s Indonsi, throuh th Forst Stwrdship Councilschm, possibly contributin to th dlibrtiv cpcity of Indonsi.

On on ccount, ovrnnc ntworks r incrsinly displcin th

sovrin stt in th production of collctiv outcoms. Intrnlly, th

stt is hollowd out (Rhods, 1994); xtrnlly, trnsntionl ntworks

ovrshdow th stts dcisiv policy ctions. It is not ncssry to tk

position on ths controvrsil propositions hr. It should simply b

notd tht concptuliztion of dmocrtiztion s dlibrtiv cpcity

cn b pplid to ovrnnc ntworks, whrs lctorl pprochs to

dmocrtiztion cnnot. Ntworks do not hold lctions, nor do thy hv

constitutions.

The Deliberative System

anlysis of dmocrtiztion in trms of dlibrtiv cpcity buildin

rquirs wy to ccount for th dr of compltnss of dlibrtiv

systm, which for Mnsbrid (1999) rchs from vrydy tlk to rpr-snttiv lislturs. Hndriks (2006) xtnds this notion, showin how

informl public sphrs cn b linkd to dlibrtion in mor forml

ovrnmntl sttins, with crucil rol for dsind forums popultd by

mix of public nd privt ctors. Prkinson (2006, pp. 166-173) shows how

multipl ctors nd institutions (ctivists, xprts, burucrcy, dsind



8/25


forums, mdi, lisltur, rfrnd, nd ptitions) cn combin to nrt

dlibrtiv litimtion in public policy. In this systm, diffrnt kinds of

communiction miht b pproprit in diffrnt plcs: Prkinson thinks thtrhtoric hs plc in ctivists nd sttin but not lswhr

(p. 172). Constitutionl courts, which could b sily ddd to Prkinsons

schm, my ftur skillful ppliction of rumnt in public intrst trms to

ll nd policy issusbut rrly do justics (t lst on th U.S. Suprm

Court) ctully tlk to on nothr, still lss subjct thmslvs to public

ccountbility. This sort of schm cn ccommodt th prdox tht ffctiv

dlibrtion somtims bnfits from momnts of scrcy, llowin rpr-

snttivs to try to undrstnd on nothr without immditly bin pulldbck by skpticl constitunts (Chmbrs, 2004). Publicity cn ntr ltr or

lswhr in th dlibrtiv systm.

Th dlibrtiv systms sktchd by Mnsbrid, Hndriks, nd Prkinson

r too tid to th institutionl dtils of dvlopd librl dmocrcis to b

pplicbl in th comprtiv study of dmocrtiztion. W cn imin dlib-

rtiv systms without, sy, lisltur, or intrnlly dlibrtiv politicl

prtis, or dsind forums, or lctions. a mor nrl schm for dlib-

rtiv systm would b composd of th followin lmnts:

Public space: dlibrtiv spc (or spcs) with fw rstrictions on who cn

prticipt nd with fw ll rstrictions on wht prticipnts cn sy,

thrby fturin divrsity of viwpoints. Such spcs my b found in

connction with th mdi, socil movmnts, ctivist ssocitions, physicl

loctions whr popl cn thr nd tlk (cfs, clssrooms, brs, public

squrs), th Intrnt, public hrins, nd dsind citizn-bsd forums of

vrious sorts (which rstrict on th bsis of numbrs but not on th kinds of

prsons who cn dlibrt).Empowered space: dlibrtiv spc for ctors, rconizbly prt of institu-

tions producin collctiv dcisions. Such spc miht b hom to or

constitutd by lisltur, corportist council, sctorl committs in

corportist systm, cbint, constitutionl court, or n mpowrd stk-

holdr dilou. Th institution nd not bformally mpowrd; s such,

ntwork producin collctiv outcoms would constitut on such spc.

Public spc nd mpowrd spc cn both b tstd for th dr to which

thy r inclusiv of rlvnt intrsts nd voics.

Transmission: som mns by which public spc cn influnc mpowrdspc. Ths mns miht involv politicl cmpins, th dploymnt of

rhtoric, th mkin of rumnts, or culturl chn ffctd by socil

movmnts tht com to prvd th undrstndins of formlly mpowrd

ctors, or prsonl links btwn ctors in th two kinds of spcs. Th



9/25


rltionship btwn public spc nd mpowrd spc cn b criticl; it

cn b supportiv; or it miht b both.

Accountability: som mns whrby mpowrd spc is ccountbl to publicspc. Such ccountbility is ky to th nrtion of brod dlibrtiv

litimcy for collctiv outcoms. Th lmnts mntiond undr empow-

ered space miht lso ct s ccountbility mchnisms, s miht lction

cmpins whr mpowrd politicins hv to justify thir positions to

brodr public.

Decisiveness: som mns whrby ths first four lmnts r consquntil

in influncin th contnt of collctiv dcisions. For xmpl, undr

empowered space, prlimnt my b flourishin dlibrtiv chmbr

but hv no impct on th dcisions of prsidnt who ruls by dcr (thinkBoris Yltsin in Russi in th 1990s). Or ovrnmnt my ppr intrnlly

dlibrtiv but hv its ky policy dcisions dicttd by intrntionl finn-

cil institutions.

Th kinds of communiction prsnt in th first four lmnts cn b

mor or lss dlibrtiv, ccordin to th uthnticity critri introducd

rlir. Stinr, Bchtir, Sprndli, nd Stnbrn (2004) hv dvl-

opd n mpiricl msur of dlibrtiv uthnticity, in th form of

discours qulity indx. applyin this indx involvs prsin th trnscript

of dbt nd codin ch intrvntion on multipl critri. Th scors for

ch contribution r summd nd vrd to iv msur of th qulity

of th dbt s whol. Stinr t l. comprd similr typs of dbts in

similr institutions of diffrnt countris, findin tht prsidntil, consn-

sul, nd bicmrl fturs of stt institutions fcilitt qulity prli-

mntry discours. To dt, th rsrchrs hv comprd only dvlopd

librl dmocrcis, but it would b strihtforwrd mttr to xtnd thir

nlysis to othr systms, in rsrch prorm on th institutionl dtr-minnts of dlibrtiv uthnticity. Howvr, systm fturin qulity

lisltiv dlibrtion my concivbly hv poor dlibrtion whn it

coms to othr prts of mpowrd spc or public spc. Idlly, w wnt

to pply discours qulity indx to communiction in ll ths loctions.

Th dlibrtiv systm s whol is diminishd by ny nondlibrtiv

substitut for ny lmnt. For xmpl, trnsmission miht b scurd by

thos in mpowrd spc frin th politicl instbility tht thos in public

spc miht unlsh if thy r inord. This mns miht b th only onvilbl for locl dlibrtions in Chin to hv cumultiv impct on

mpowrd spc (currntly nondlibrtiv) in modifyin Chins dvlop-

mntl pth (H & Wrrn, 2008). Or ccountbility miht b souht in

plbiscit with no opposition llowd to cmpin.



10/25


Dspit ths xmpls, no prticulr institution is rquird by ny of

th lmnts of dlibrtiv systm. Thr r potntilly mny kinds of

dlibrtiv systms, nd th kind tht w s in, sy, trnsntionlntwork will not rsmbl wht w s in n dvrsril anlo-amricn

librl dmocrcy, which will not rsmbl wht w s in th europn

Union, which will not rsmbl wht w s in mor consnsul

Confucin stt.

Prticulr dlibrtiv systms my hv pculir or uniqu fturs. In

trnsntionl rultory ntworks, mpowrd spc my b cotrminous

with public spcfor instnc, th contnt of forst crtifiction rultion

is notitd in dilou ncompssin nonovrnmntl orniztions,timbr corportions, crtifirs, ovrnmnt officils, nd consumr rpr-

snttivs. This dlibrtiv systm flls short on dcisivnss ivn th

xtnt of timbr production not rultd by th ntwork. In th europn

Union, th opn mthod of coordintion, linkin th europn Commission

nd th policy dcisions of mmbr stts, is uniqu dlibrtiv form in

mpowrd spc tht is dcisiv in producin collctiv outcoms (eriksn,

Jors, & Nyr, 2003). In europn Union institutions mor nrlly,

th norm is tht mmbr stt rprsnttivs hv to ru in trms ofshrd ll principls nd/or common intrst justifictions. Th union

flls short on public spc, ivn th lck of europn public sphr, with

nonovrnmntl orniztions, prtis, nd th mdi ll ornizd on

ntionl bsis. accountbility is wk: europn lctions r fouht by

ntionl prtis on ntionl issus, nd no ccountbility mchnism

ffctivly substituts for lctions.

a systm with hih dlibrtiv cpcity will ftur uthntic dlibrtion

in th first four lmnts (public spc, mpowrd spc, trnsmission,

ccountbility); it will b inclusiv in th first two; nd it will b dcisiv. Rl-

world politicl systms will fll short to rtr or lssr drs, nd thy my

concivbly miss on or mor lmnts ntirly. Ths fiv loicl rquirmnts

constitut strtin point for th dscription nd vlution of ll rl-world

dlibrtiv systms nd thir comprison cross spc nd tim. It is in this

sns tht dlibrtiv cpcity buildin provids th bsis for comprhnsiv

pproch to th study of dmocrtiztion.

Dmocrtiztion rquirs th dvlopmnt of ll fiv lmnts, but it dos

not ncssitt ny spcific institutions, b thy comptitiv lctions or constitutionl sprtion of powrs. Thus, som of th problms tht dmocrcy

promotion hs whn tid to librl lctorl bluprint cn b voidd. as

Crothrs (2002) points out, dmocrcy promotrs r oftn prplxd whn

lmnts of th bluprint sm unttinbl (such s truly comptitiv lctions);

thinkin in trms of dlibrtiv cpcity would iv promotrs mor options.



11/25


12/25


not sily stblishd or dvlopd in lctorl or constitutionl trms,

bcus uthoritrin rims (by dfinition) lck fr nd fir lctions

undr constitution. Ldrs with bckround in dlibrtiv publicspc r mor likly to s trnsition in trms of stblishin dmocrcy

rthr thn puttin thmslvs in powr. Th public spc in qustion nd not

involv lr numbrs of popl, s th 1989 xprinc of Czchoslovki

shows. Dlibrtiv prticiption in oppositionl civil socity coms with

slf-limitin oblition tht my b crrid into th trnsitionl crisis,

which my xplin why fiurs with this bckround oftn subsquntly

prov no mtch for strtic powr-skin politicins mor ruthlss in

skin lctorl dvnt nd buildin colitions.Dlibrtiv cpcity undr uthoritrin rims my b found most

strihtforwrdly in oppositionl public sphrs. But it is concivbl tht

th old rim my dvlop som such cpcity; in which cs, thos

schoold in it my b mor likly to tlk to, rthr thn rprss, opponnts

s crisis looms. Dlibrtiv cpcity my lso dvlop within socity t

distnc from stt powr, not clrly oppositionl but not prt of th

dministrtiv structur. althouh prticipnts in such procsss r

unlikly to ply prt in pk politicl vnts in trnsitionl crisis, thymy b mor likly to support nw dmocrtic rim. H nd Wrrn

(2008) hv this hop for Chin.

Dlibrtion my lso b found in th crisis itslf. at th pk lvl,

dlibrtion cn com in notitions btwn old rim ldrs nd thir

opponnts. It is possibl to nlyz such tlks in purly strtic trms, s

positionl brinin in which uthoritrin ldrs iv up powr in rturn for

urnts bout thir sttus in th nw ordr. Howvr, s elstr (1998, p. 105)

points out, roundtbl tlks in Polnd nd spcilly Hunry in 1989 involvd

dlibrtion s wll s brinin. Prticipnts md wrnins bout wht

miht hppn (wrnins tht hd to b xplind nd justifid), not thrts

bout wht thy could do to th othr sid. Thy rud in trms of th public

intrst. Whil ruin in fvor of th public intrst could b sn s hypocrisy

on th prt of old-rim prticipnts (s elstr points out), if public intrst

justifictions wr trnsprntly dishonst, thn thy would prsud nobody

nd thr would b no point in mkin thm. On indictor of dishonsty is

prfct corrspondnc btwn ons intrst nd th lld public intrst;

this mod of ruin forcs prticipnts to shift wy from pur slf-intrst.On elstrs ccount, thrts nd slf-intrstd rumnt would hv riskd

brkdown of th tlks.

Mor widsprd public dlibrtion my ntr th crisis, s with popl

powr in th Philippins in 1986, th utumn of th popl in 1989 est



13/25


Cntrl europ, nd th color rvolutions in gori (2003) nd Ukrin

(20042005). To th xtnt tht prticipnts in such movmnts bid by

dlibrtiv prcpts of noncorciv communiction tht not only inducsrflction but conncts prticulr dmnds to nrl principls, prticipnts

bcom morl forc for dmocrcy, rthr thn mob skin rvn

inst opprssors. elit notitors fl this forc.

Deliberation in Consolidation

Dmocrtic consolidtion is concpt with multipl mnins. Schdlr(1998) rus tht w should rstrict th concpt to rim survivl,

ntilin only voidnc of brkdown nd rosion of dmocrcy; tht is,

w should not pply it to th buildin of dmocrcy: Th concpts of

dmocrtic qulity nd dmocrtic dpnin r still unclr nd contro-

vrsil such tht concptulizin consolidtion s dpnin mounts to

fr-for-ll (p. 104). Howvr, t th cor of th id of dlibrtion is

dvlopd notion of dmocrtic qulity such tht th rtr th dlibrtiv

cpcity of systm, th hihr th qulity of its dmocrcy. Not only cn thdlibrtiv ffcts numrtd blow contribut to rim survivl, but thy

cn lso incrs dmocrtic qulityspcificlly, mkin rims () mor

litimt, (b) mor ffctiv in copin with divisions nd solvin socil

problms, (c) bttr bl to solv th bsic problms of socil choic, nd

(d) mor rflxiv in corrctin thir own dficincis.

Legitimacy

any nw rim is fcd with th chlln of scurin litimcy in th

ys of its popl. Litimcy cn b chivd in mny wys, not ll of

thm dmocrtic. But in dmocrcy, n spcilly scur bsis involvs

rflctiv ccptnc of collctiv dcisions by ctors who hv hd

chnc to prticipt in consquntil dlibrtion. This clim is t th

hrt of dlibrtiv thory, which bn s n ccount of litimcy.

empiricl study hs ld bhind, lthouh Prkinson (2006) shows how

dlibrtiv litimcy cn b nrtd in dlibrtiv systm for hlth

policy mkin vi multipl forums nd prctics. Dlibrtiv litimcycn ithr substitut for or supplmnt othr sourcs of litimcy, such s

th consistncy of procss with constitutionl ruls or trditionl

prctics.



14/25


Coping With Deep Division

In mny socitis, dmocrtiztion is chllnd by dp division onthnic, rcil, ntionl, rliious, or linuistic lins. althouh numbr of

solutions hv bn proposd to this problmnotbly, consocitionl

powr shrin (Lijphrt, 1977)dlibrtion lso cn ply prt in hlin

division. Whr this miht b ccomplishd, howvr, is n opn qustion.

OFlynn (2006) sks mor dlibrtion linkd to consocitionl institutions.

Dryzk (2005) strsss intrctiv forums composd of individuls from

diffrnt blocks, t distnc from contsts bout th construction of

sovrin uthority, concrnd mor with prticulr nds nd concrt

problms. exmpls includ mixd-rc discussion roups in post-prthid

South afric nd District Policin Prtnrships in Northrn Irlnd. a lr

litrtur in conflict rsolution mphsizs th ffctivnss of dlibrtion

mon ky prtis to disput, in producin durbl solutions to conflicts

spcilly in mdition nd throuh consnsus-buildin xrciss (Susskind,

McKrnn, & Thoms-Lrmr, 1999). Ths xrciss yild not consnsus

intrprtd s univrsl rmnt on cours of ction nd th rsons for

it but rthr n rmnt to which ll sids cn rflctivly ssntif for

diffrnt rsons (includin fr of wht miht othrwis hppn). In thisliht, onistic critics of dlibrtion cross idntity diffrnc, such s

Mouff (1999), who ll ddnin mphsis on consnsus miss th

point. Morovr, thy provid no ltrntiv wy to rch collctiv

dcisions in th mor pssiont ncountrs of onism.

Dlibrtion cn hv socil lrnin spct tht hlps to dtrmin how

diffrnt smnts liv tothr, without ncssrily bin vlidtd in xplicit

policy dcisions. Knr (2005) shows tht in Turky, thr r substntil

possibilitis for dlibrtiv lrnin cross Islmists nd sculr lft-librlstht cnnot sily b xprssd in public policy, bcus of th wy tht

polriztion btwn militryntionlist Kmlists nd Islmists hs bn

ntrnchd in lctorl politics. Such socil lrnin could nvrthlss hv

consquncs for politicl rconfiurtion nd socil pc.

Dlibrtions contribution to conflict rsolution coms with mutul

rconition of th litimcy of disputd vlus nd idntitis (Dryzk &

Nimyr, 2006, pp. 639-640). Th bsnc of such rconition mns tht

politics bcoms, not contst in which som losss nd compromiss rccptbl, but rthr fiht to rdict th vlus of th othr sid. This

bsnc dfins, for xmpl, rliious fundmntlisms tht cnnot tolrt

wht thy s s sinful bhvior or hrsy in thir socitis. Nithr sid in

such contst cn ccpt th possibility of vn tmporry dft, nd



15/25


collctiv outcoms will lck litimcy in th ys of whichvr sid such

outcoms disdvnt. In contrst, functionin dmocrcis ftur

substntil normtiv mt-consnsus on th litimcy of disputd vlus.Mt-consnsus hs forc in structurin intrdivisionl politicl intrction

to th dr tht it is rflctivly ccptd by ky politicl ctors; for tht,

dlibrtion is ndd.

Tractability in Collective Choice

Dlibrtion offrs on wyprhps th most ffctiv dmocrtic

wyto displ th problms of instbility nd rbitrrinss tht somsocil choic thorists bliv ouht to plu dmocrcis, s clvr

politicins wrk hvoc in thir strtic ms by introducin nw options

nd nw dimnsions of choic. Such problms my b cut in nw

dmocrcis, with unclr ruls nd contstd procdurl undrstndins.

Rikr (1982) susts tht this to b th norml condition of dmocrtic

politicstht is, not just in nw dmocrcis. For xmpl, h blms th

outbrk of th U.S. Civil Wr on th mchintions of lctd politicins

tkin dvnt of opportunitis to mnipult nds nd vots. Vn Mill(1996) rus tht th conditions of fr dlibrtion r xctly thos most

likly to xcrbt th problms tht Rikr idntifis. Th puzzl thn bcoms

why w obsrv so littl chos in stblishd librl dmocrcis (Mcki,

2003). On nswr is tht mtur dmocrcis hv dvlopd mchnisms

ndonous to dlibrtion tht cn structur intrction nd so ovrcom th

dir prdictions of Rikrs thory (Dryzk & List, 2003). Dlibrtion cn

produc rmnt on sinl dimnsion on which prfrncs r rryd,

thus rulin out th introduction of othr dimnsions to confound collctiv

choic on th prt of clvr strtists (Millr, 1992). It cn lso produc

rmnt on th rn of ltrntivs considrd ccptbl. as arrows

thorm (1963) implis, if dmocrtic procsss cnnot find wy to induc

such rmnts, th min vilbl ltrntiv is dicttorship. To th xtnt

tht nw dmocrcis dvlop dlibrtiv cpcity, thy bcom bl to cop

with th dnrs idntifid by socil choic thory: rbitrrinss, instbility,

civil conflict, nd lps into dicttorship. Votin in lctions nd in th

lisltur cn thn procd without fr.

Effectiveness in Solving Social Problems

Dlibrtion is mns for joint rsolution of socil problms. Of

cours, problms cn b rsolvd top-down, tchnocrticlly; or, thy cn



16/25


b lloctd to qusi-mrkt mchnisms. But lr public policy

litrtur points to th ffctivnss of dlibrtion on th prt of thos

concrnd with common problm in nrtin solutions tht r bothffctiv nd mutully ccptbl (s, .., Inns & Boohr, 2003)nd

thn cn work whn top-down solutions r rsistd by thos whos

intrsts nd rumnts r ovrriddn. This is not th plc to ssss th

ffctivnss of dlibrtion in comprison with its ltrntivs in socil

problm solvin. But s lon s som dr of plurlism is sn s bin

instrumntl to ffctiv dcision mkintht is, considrin multipl

prspctivs ( stpl of librl dmocrcy)dlibrtion cn hlp nrt

mutul ccptnc of th crdibility of disputd blifs. Such mutulccptnc ouht to b promotd to th dr tht ctors try to stt

positions nd supportin blifs in trms ccptbl to th ctors on th

othr sid of n issu. ain, rciprocity coms into ply. Th bsnc of

such ccptnc mns tht th othr sid is sn s trffickin in flshoods

rthr thn diffrnt prspctiv on common problms. Such lld

flshoods miht concrn conomic doctrins (Mrxist or mrkt librl),

intrprttions of history (idntifyin opprssors, librtors, frinds, nd

nmis), or thoris bout th impct of policy.

Reflexivity

elstr, Off, nd Pruss (1998) likn th dmocrtiztion nd mrkti-

ztion of postcommunist systms to rbuildin th ship t ss

opposd to th construction of nw ship from st of plns. On spct

of dlibrtiv cpcity involvs distributd bility to rflct criticlly on

prfrncs, includin thos bout th structur of th politicl systm

itslf. Thus, dlibrtiv cpcity ouht to promot th bility of systm

to idntify its shortcomins nd rform itslf. Without this bility, rformrs

my b tmptd by mor uthoritrin pthwys. Th nti-dlibrtionist

adm Przworski (1991) indvrtntly puts th issu into strk prspctiv

whn h stts tht post-trnsition conomic rforms r bsd on modl

of conomic fficincy tht is hihly tchnicl. Thy involv choics tht

r not sy to xplin to th nrl public nd dcisions tht do not

lwys mk sns to populr opinion (p. 183). Similrly, Brucn (1992)

rus tht rform policy is not on tht mrs from brod prticiption,from consnsus mon ll th ffctd intrsts, from compromiss

(p. 24). Przworski nd Brucn my b rihtbut only to th xtnt tht

th socity in qustion lcks dlibrtiv cpcity.



17/25


This rflxiv qulity my b nhncd insmuch s th xprinc of

dlibrtion incrss th comptnc of politicl ctors. Som vidnc

susts tht prticiptin in dlibrtiv forum hs n ndurin ffct onth politicl fficcy of citizn prticipnts (Dlli Crpini, Cook, & Jcobs,

2004, p. 334). Howvr, this vidnc coms minly from dlibrtiv polls

in dvlopd dmocrcis; s such, it is not clr how nrlizbl th

ffct is nor whthr th ffct xtnds to prtisn politicl ctors, s

opposd to ordinry citizns.

In sum, th bility to promot litimcy, hl division, scur trctbl

collctiv choic, solv socil problms ffctivly, nd promot rflxivity

mns tht dlibrtiv cpcity contributs to stt buildin s wll sdmocrtic consolidtion. Crothrs (2002, pp. 8-9) points out tht mny

dmocrcy promotrs ssum tht dmocrtiztion is don to wll-functionin

stt, s opposd to procdin in tndm with stt buildin. a dlibrtiv

cpcity pproch cn pprcit this dul tsk, in prt bcus it cn pply to

situtions with ny dr of sttnssincludin zro.

The Determinants of Deliberative Capacity

Lt m turn now from th impcts of dlibrtiv cpcity to th

dtrminnts. Dlibrtiv cpcity my b fcilittd by th followin:

Literacy and Education

Litrcy nd duction fcilitt dlibrtiv cpcity insmuch s thy

influnc th communictiv comptnc of politicl ctors nd ordinry

citizns. Sndrs (1997) worris tht, t lst in th Unitd Stts, dlibrtiv

forums will b domintd by prticipnts who r whit, ml, hih incom,

nd wll ductd. Cook, Dlli Crpini, nd Jcobs (2007) dmonstrt tht

lthouh inqulitis in dlibrtiv prticiption do xist, thy r smllr in

rltion to incom thn thy r in othr forms of prticiption. But vn if

Sndrs is riht, dlibrtiv cpcity will bnfit from mor qul ccss to

duction.

Shared Language

Kymlick (2001) susts tht dmocrtic politics hs to b politics in

th vrnculr, implyin tht dmocrcy cross lnu roups cn b

problmticlthouh th cs of socitis such s Switzrlnd nd Indi,



18/25


with multipl lnus, susts tht this brrir is not insuprbl. a

much bir obstcl to dlibrtiv cpcity my b whn lits cultivt

form of lnu unvilbl to th msss s wy of bolstrin thirstndin nd powr (andrson, 2007). Historicl xmpls hr miht

includ th us of Hih grmn by Prussin lits, Frnch by th Russin

ristocrcy (fmously rcountd by Tolstoy in th opnin ps of War

and Peace),futsubun by politicins in pr-1945 Jpn (andrson, 2007, p.

32), nd vn th distinctiv ccnt of th British uppr clsss.

Voting System Design

Horowitz (1985) nd Rilly (2001) rcommnd prfrntil votin for

dividd socitis, on th rounds tht it dvncs th prospcts of modrt

politicins nd prtis bcus thy cn ppl for scond nd third

prfrncs cross th divid. althouh not xplicitly concptulizd by

Horowitz nd Rilly, dlibrtiv cpcity my lso bnfit bcus such

ppl rquirs politicins to cultivt rciprocity: to communict in trms

tht votrs from th othr sid cn ccpt.

State Structures and Institutions

Diffrnt sorts of stt structurs nd institutions my b mor or lss

conduciv to dlibrtion. Of cours, prlimnts nd constitutionl courts

ouht to b bttr thn xcutivs who rul by dcr. Byond such comprisons,

it is not lwys clr which sorts of institutionl combintions bst promot

dlibrtiv cpcity in prticulr sttins, spcilly whn ths institutions

r combind in dlibrtiv systm. Stt structurs my hv unintndd

nd surprisin consquncs tht cn b rvld only by mpiricl nlysis.

For xmpl, th xclusiv chrctr of Wst grmn corportism until th

mid-1980s providd fw opportunitis for politicl ccss to socil intrsts

othr thn businss nd lbor, thrby mkin ny dlibrtion tht did occur

fr from inclusiv. Howvr, politicl ctivity ws chnnld into dlibrtiv

public spc, t distnc from th stt, whr profound critiqus of public

policy wr constructd by rn, fminist, nd pc movmnts, mon

othrs. evn whn thos dvlopin th critiqus lckd forml ccss, thir

influnc ws flt on mpowrd spc nd so public policyt first throuhprotst ction nd ltr throuh th dvlopmnt of xprtis vi rsrch

cntrs ssocitd with movmnt roups. Only whn th wlls of corportism

crumbld did rstwhil movmnt ctivists tk thir dlibrtiv comptnc

into ovrnmnt (Dryzk, Downs, Hunold, & Schlosbr, 2003).



19/25


Political Culture

Dlibrtion my ply out quit diffrntly in diffrnt kinds of politiclculturs. Th comprtiv nlysis of culturl dtrminnts of dlibrtiv

cpcity ot off to qustionbl strt in gmbtts vlution (1998) of th

dlibrtiv possibilitis in nlyticl culturs (th prdim for which is th

Oxford Univrsity committ), s comprd to indxicl culturs. In indxicl

culturs such s Itly, discursive machismo mns tht on cnnot dmit

uncrtinty or ny lck of comptnc or knowld. a comptnt politicl

ctor in n indxicl cultur systm hs to b n xprt on vrythin.

gmbtts provoctiv ssy is hih on ntrtinmnt vlu nd ncdot but

low on mpiricl vidnc. Discursiv mchismo nd its opposit, dlibrtion,

r likly to ppr in diffrnt wys in diffrnt loctions in diffrnt politicl

culturs (Sss, 2006). Comprtiv mpiricl nlysis miht rvl th subtlty

of thir forms nd loctions. Thr r plnty of othr hypothss concrnin

th ffcts of politicl cultur tht mrit mpiricl study. For xmpl, it is

plusibl (but by no mns crtin) tht dlibrtion trvls to Confucin,

Islmic, nd som indinous culturs fr mor sily thn do th dvrsril

politics ssocitd with comptitiv lctions or n individulistic concption

of humn rihts. aspcts of dlibrtiv dmocrcy my rsont with thConfucin mphsis on rsond consnsus, th Islmic mphsis on consul-

ttion, nd th sorts of communictiv pprochs to conflict rsolution found

in mny indinous socitis. Dlibrtion my ply out in rdiclly diffrnt

wys mon diffrnt kinds of socitisjust s dmocrcy in nrl dos

(Dryzk & Holms, 2002).

Obstructions to Deliberative Capacity

Dlibrtion my b obstructd by th followin.

Religious Fundamentalism

Fundmntlist dhrnts of rliious doctrins by dfinition strul

with dlibrtiv rciprocity bcus thy s no rson to communict in

trms tht rspct th frmworks hld by nonblivrs. Nor r thyintrstd in th kind of rflction upon vlus nd blifs tht is cntrl to

dlibrtion. Dlibrtiv cpcity is in troubl whn fundmntlists

control th stt. evn hr, thouh, dlibrtiv cpcity is not ncssrily

totlly bsnt. evn in country such s Sudi arbi, Islmic trditions



20/25


rltd to consulttion cn involv som modicum of dlibrtiv cpcity. and

to th xtnt tht fundmntlists disr mon thmslvs bout wht th

word of god rlly mns, spc for dlibrtion miht vntully opn.

Ideological Conformity

If th stt hs n officil idoloicl doctrin tht is not rdily

chllnd, thn dlibrtiv cpcity is impird. Momnts of idoloicl

conformity cn impd th dlibrtiv cpcity of ny politys illustrtd

by th cs of th Unitd Stts in th wk of th trrorist ttcks of

Sptmbr 11, whn critics of dubious prsidntil inititivs could bstimtizd s bin unptriotic.

Segmental Autonomy

Lijphrt (1977) spcifis smntl utonomy s on of th dfinin

fturs of consocitionl dmocrcy, conduciv to stbility in dividd

socitis. But smntl utonomy provids no opportunity for mmbrs of

diffrnt blocks to communict with on nothr. Consocitionlists mihtru tht thr is hih dr of ood dlibrtion in consocitionl

systms, but this obsrvtion would pply only t th lit lvl, purchsd

t th xpns of mor socilly prvsiv cpcity. Som dividd socitis

ftur ubiquitous nd intns politicl tlk, but this should not b confusd

with dlibrtiv cpcity, if popl intrct only with lik-mindd othrs.

enclv dlibrtion of this sort hs polrizin ffct. Sunstin (2000)

criticizs dlibrtion on th rounds tht it inducs roups to o to

xtrms, but his rumnt holds only to th xtnt tht roup contins no

countrvilin viws t th outst. In sum, rliious fundmntlism,

idoloicl conformity, nd smntl utonomy ll rprss th vrity in

points of viw ncssry for dlibrtion to work.

The Historical Dynamics of Deliberative Capacity

Th rflxiv spct of dlibrtiv cpcity intimts th possibility of

virtuous circl in which dlibrtiv cpcity bts mor dlibrtiv cpcity.Howvr, rrss is possibl, s is prorss. Considr th followin css.

Th history of th rly bourois public sphr, s rcountd by Hbrms

(1989), portrys dlibrtiv public spc tht ros with th dvlopmnt of

cpitlism in europ. Th mrin bouroisi ws xcludd from powr by



21/25


th lndd ristocrcy nd by th church. Thus, bourois politicl intrction

ws forcd into n oppositionl public sphr, fturin dbt in nwspprs

nd coffhouss. With tim, th bouroisi bcm ccptd into thstt, throuh librl rvolutions or mor rdul procsss. Nwspprs

bcom commrcilizd, thrby compromisin thir bility to host robust

politicl dbt. Thus th public sphr wnt into dclin; its dlibrtiv

cpcity bcm lost. Th librliztion of politics tht ttnds bourois ntry

into th stt my mn n incrs in th contribution of mpowrd spc to

dlibrtiv cpcity (spcilly in prlimnts), prhps compnstin for th

loss in th contribution of public spc. Only dtild comprtiv study cross

tim could dtrmin whthr th in in mpowrd spc fully compnstsfor th loss in public spc.

Old, s wll s nw, dmocrcis cn xprinc losss in dlibrtiv

cpcityfor xmpl, whn ntionl crisis nbls critics of ovrnmntl

policy to b lbld unptriotic nd, thus, illitimt prticipnts in

public dbt. Som ovrnmnt policis cn involv dirct ttck on

dlibrtiv cpcity. For xmpl, on pproch to incrsin fficincy in

locl ovrnmnt sks to construct popl s customrs or consumrs of

ovrnmnt srvics, s opposd to citizns potntilly nd in thco-production of ovrnmntl dcisions (alford & ONill, 1994). To th

xtnt tht pproch succds, homo civicus is displcd by homo

economicus, who cn mk choics but not iv voic.

Th trd-off btwn dlibrtiv cpcity in public spc nd mpowrd

spc cn b obsrvd in connction with socil movmnts. as notd rlir,

until th lt 1980s Wst grmny fturd corportist stt tht dnid

ccss to socil movmnts. In contrst, in th lt 1960s Scndinvin

countris bn ctivly incorportin socil movmnts such s fminism nd

nvironmntlism into stt structurs. Th rsult ws not ncssrily rtr

dlibrtiv cpcity in Scndinvi bcus th inclusion of socil movmnts

ws bouht t th xpns of thir rdiclism. So whrs Scndinvi fturd

modrt movmnts with smll mmbrship whos ldrsnd only thir

ldrscould dlibrt on policy-mkin committs, grmny fturd

criticl public sphr nd by movmnt ctivists nd, in th cs of

nvironmntlism, n ssocitd ntwork of rsrch instituts. In public spc,

grmny hd dlibrtiv cpcity hihr thn tht of th Scndinvin

countris (Dryzk t l., 2003).Polnd illustrts th trd-off btwn dlibrtion in public nd

mpowrd spc. althouh th public spc stblishd by Solidrity did

crry ovr (to dr) ftr 1989, mpowrd spc hs sinc bn

problmtic. Nolibrl conomic rforms wr ccptd rthr thn



22/25


dlibrtd; subsquntly, prtis ld by populists nd thnic ntionlists

hv prosprd. althouh prrvolutionry dlibrtiv cpcity is importnt

in dtrminin th outcom of crisis in th old rim (s bov), itslcy in th lon run is mor uncrtin.

Dlibrtion is dmndin ctivitylmost crtinly not for ll of th

popl, ll of th tim. But it miht b for most of th popl, som of th

tim. ackrmn (1991) intrprts U.S. politicl history in trms of thr

dcisiv dlibrtiv momnts tht institd socity-wid dlibrtion

bout constitutionl fundmntlsnmly, th foundin, th Civil Wr

mndmnts to th constitution, nd th grt Dprssion. Politics hd n

unusul intnsity nd brdth in both public spc nd mpowrd spc.Momnts of similr intnsity nd impct cn b found lswhrfor

xmpl, in instncs of popl powr dirctd inst uthoritrin ldrs

or in th color rvolutions in gori (2003) nd Ukrin (20042005).

Th inclusivnss nd intnsity of dlibrtion tht cn surround

trnsitionl momntswht ODonnll nd Schmittr (1986) cll th

lyrs of n xplodin socity (p. 48)r hrd to sustin. For Linz nd

Stpn (1996), th subsqunt rplcmnt of politics of truth by

politics of intrsts is ctully ood for dmocrtic stbility. Howvr, thisdos not mn tht in th lon dmocrtic run w should fort bout

dlibrtion in fvor of intrst nd strty. as rud rlir, thr r

mny rsons why dmocrtic consolidtion cn bnfit from uthntic,

inclusiv, nd consquntil dlibrtion. Ths rsons shd into th

numrous rumnts tht thorists nd prctitionrs lik hv dvncd

for th ncssity of dlibrtion in dmocrtic politics. Thus, th full

intllctul, finncil, nd orniztionl rsourcs of th lobl movmnt

for th institutionliztion of dlibrtiv dmocrcy (gstil & Lvin,

2005) cn b brouht to br in buildin dlibrtiv cpcity tht will look

quit diffrnt from tht which xplods in trnsitionl momnts.

Conclusion

Dlibrtion tht is uthntic, inclusiv, nd consquntil is cntrl

to dmocrcy nd so ouht to b incorportd into ny dfinition of

dmocrtiztion. Dlibrtiv cpcity is instrumntl in dmocrtic trnsitionnd crucil to dmocrtic consolidtion nd dpnin. exmintion of th

dvlopmnt of this cpcity dos not rquir spcifyin ny wll-dfind

binnin or nd, nd so it cn pply in ll kinds of politicl sttins: undr



23/25


uthoritrin rims, in nw nd old dmocrtic stts, nd in ovrnnc

tht luds stts.

References

ackrmn, B. a. (1991). We the people: Vol. 1. Foundations. Cmbrid, Ma: Hrvrd

Univrsity Prss.

alford, J., & ONill, D. (eds.). (1994). The contract state. Mlbourn, austrli: Dkin

Univrsity Prss.

andrson, R. D. (2007). Discours nd th xport of dmocrcy. St. Antonys International

Review,2(2), 19-35.armony, a. C., & Schmis, H. e. (2005). Bbl in dmocrtiztion studis. Journal of

Democracy,16, 113-128.

arrow, K. J. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd d.).Nw York: Wily.

Bnhbib, S. (1996). Towrd dlibrtiv modl of dmocrtic litimcy. In S. Bnhbib

(ed.),Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 67-94).

Princton, NJ: Princton Univrsity Prss.

Brithwit, J., & Drhos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid

Univrsity Prss.

Brucn, S. (1992). Dmocrcy t odds with mrkt in post-communist socitis. In M. Krn

& g. Ofr (eds.), Trials of transition: Economic reform in the former Soviet bloc(pp. 19-25). Bouldr, CO: Wstviw.

Crothrs, T. (2002). Th nd of th trnsition prdim.Journal of Democracy,13, 5-21.

Cstlls, M. (1996). The information age: Vol. 1. The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK:

Bsil Blckwll.

Chmbrs, S. (2003). Dlibrtiv dmocrtic thory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6,

307-326.

Chmbrs, S. (2004). Bhind closd doors: Publicity, scrcy, nd th qulity of dlibrtion.

Journal of Political Philosophy,12, 389-410.

Cohn, J. (1989). Dlibrtion nd dmocrtic litimcy. In a. Hmlin & P. Pttit (eds.), The

good polity (pp. 17-34). Oxford, UK: Bsil Blckwll.Collir, D., & Lvitsky, S. (1997). Dmocrcy with djctivs: Concptul innovtion in com-

prtiv rsrch. World Politics, 49, 430-451.

Cook, F. L., Dlli Crpini, M. X., & Jcobs, L. R. (2007). Who dlibrts? Discursiv pr-

ticiption in amric. In S. Rosnbr (ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy:

Can the people govern? (pp. 25-44).Houndmills, UK: Plrv Mcmilln.

Dlli Crpini, M. X., Cook, F. L., & Jcobs, L. R. (2004). Public dlibrtion, discursiv

prticiption, nd citizn nmnt: a rviw of th mpiricl litrtur.Annual Review

of Political Science, 7, 315-344.

Dryzk, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations.

Oxford, UK: Oxford Univrsity Prss.

Dryzk, J. S. (2005). Dlibrtiv dmocrcy in dividd socitis. Political Theory,33, 218-242.

Dryzk, J. S., Downs, D., Hunold, C., & Schlosbr, D. (with Hrns, H.-K.). (2003). Green

states and social movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom,

Germany, and Norway. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univrsity Prss.



24/25


Dryzk, J. S., & Holms, L. (2002). Post-communist democratization: Political discourses

across thirteen countries. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

Dryzk, J. S., & List, C. (2003). Socil choic thory nd dlibrtiv dmocrcy: a rcon-cilition.British Journal of Political Science,33, 1-28.

Dryzk, J. S., & Nimyr, S. (2006). Rconcilin plurlism nd consnsus s politicl idls.

American Journal of Political Science,50, 634-649.

ekirt, g., & Kubik, J. (1999).Rebellious civil society: Popular protest and democratic con-

solidation in Poland, 19891993. ann arbor: Univrsity of Michin Prss.

elstr, J. (1998). Dlibrtion nd constitution mkin. In J. elstr (ed.),Deliberative democ-

racy (pp. 97-122). Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

elstr, J., Off, C., & Pruss, U. (1998). Institutional design in post-communist societies:

Rebuilding the ship at sea. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

eriksn, e. O., Jors, C., & Nyr, J. (eds.). (2003).European governance, deliberation andthe quest for democratisation. Oslo, Norwy: aReNa.

Fun, a. (2003). Rcips for public sphrs: eiht institutionl dsin choics nd thir con-

squncs.Journal of Political Philosophy,11, 338-367.

gmbtt, D. (1998). Clro! an ssy on discursiv mchismo. In J. elstr (ed.),Deliberative

democracy (pp. 19-43). Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

gstil, J., & Lvin, P. (eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook. Sn Frncisco:

Josy-Bss.

gutmnn, a., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cmbrid, Ma:

Hrvrd Univrsity Prss.

Hbrms, J. (1989). Structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into acategory of bourgeois society. Cmbrid, Ma: MIT Prss.

Hbrms, J. (1996).Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and

democracy. Cmbrid, Ma: MIT Prss.

H, B., & Lib, e. J. (2006). editors introduction. In e. J. Lib & B. H (eds.), The search

for deliberative democracy in China (pp. 1-19). Houndmills, UK: Plrv Mcmilln.

H, B., & Wrrn, M. (2008, auust).Authoritarian deliberation. Ppr prsntd t nnul

mtin of th amricn Politicl Scinc assocition, Boston.

Hndriks, C. (2006). Intrtd dlibrtion: Rconcilin civil socitys dul rols in dlib-

rtiv dmocrcy. Political Studies, 54, 486-508.

Horowitz, D. (1985).Ethnic groups in conflict. Brkly: Univrsity of Cliforni Prss.Inns, J. e., & Boohr, D. e. (2003). Collbortiv policymkin: govrnnc throuh dilou.

In M. a. Hjr & H. Wnr (eds.),Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance

in the network society (pp. 33-59). Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

Knr, B. (2005). Islm, dmocrcy nd dilou: Th cs of Turky. Government and

Opposition, 40, 515-540.

Kymlick, W. (2001). Politics in the vernacular. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univrsity Prss.

Lvitsky, S., & Wy, L. (2002). Th ris of comptitiv uthoritrinism. Journal of

Democracy, 13, 51-65.

Lijphrt, a. (1977). Democracy in plural societies: A comparative exploration. Nw Hvn,

CT: Yl Univrsity Prss.Linz, J. J., & Stpn, a. e. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation:

Southern Europe, South America, and post-communist Europe. Bltimor: Johns Hopkins

Univrsity Prss.

Mcki, g. (2003).Democracy defended. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.



25/25


Mnsbrid, J. (1999). evrydy tlk in th dlibrtiv systm. In S. Mcdo (ed.),

Deliberative politics (pp. 211-239). Oxford, UK: Oxford Univrsity Prss.

Millr, D. (1992). Dlibrtiv dmocrcy nd socil choic. Political Studies, 40, 54-67.Mouff, C. (1999). Dlibrtiv dmocrcy or onistic plurlism? Social Research,66, 745-758.

Mutz, D. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy.

Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

ODonnll, g. (1994). Dltiv dmocrcy.Journal of Democracy, 5, 55-69.

ODonnll, g., & Schmittr, P. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule. Bltimor: Johns

Hopkins Univrsity Prss.

OFlynn, I. (2006).Deliberative democracy and divided societies. edinburh, UK: edinburh

Univrsity Prss.

Prkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative

democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univrsity Prss.Przworski, a. (1991).Democracy and the market: Political and economic reform in Eastern

Europe and Latin America. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

Rwls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. Nw York: Columbi Univrsity Prss.

Rilly, B. (2001).Democracy in divided societies: Electoral engineering for conflict manage-

ment. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

Rhods, R. a. W. (1994). Th hollowin out of th stt: Th chnin ntur of th public

srvic in Britin. Political Quarterly, 65, 138-151.

Rikr, W. H. (1982).Liberalism against populism. Sn Frncisco: Frmn.

Sndrs, L. (1997). ainst dlibrtion. Political Theory, 25, 347-376.

Sss, J. (2006, auust).Does culture count in political deliberation? Claro! Ppr prsntdt th Confrnc on Dilou across Diffrnc, Cnbrr, austrli.

Schdlr, a. (1998). Wht is dmocrtic consolidtion?Journal of Democracy, 9, 91-107.

Srnsn, e., & Torfin, J. (eds.). (2006). Theories of democratic network governance.

Houndmills, UK: Plrv Mcmilln.

Stinr, J., Bchtir, a., Sprndli, M., & Stnbrn, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in

action: Analysing parliamentary discourse. Cmbrid, UK: Cmbrid Univrsity Prss.

Sunstin, C. (2000). Dlibrtiv troubl: Why roups o to xtrms. Yale Law Journal, 100,

71-119.

Susskind, L., McKrnn, S., & Thoms-Lrmr, J. (eds.). (1999). The consensus-building

handbook. Thousnd Oks, Ca: S.Vn Mill, D. (1996). Th possibility of rtionl outcoms from dmocrtic discours nd

procdurs.Journal of Politics, 58, 734-752.

Zkri, F. (2003). The future of freedom: Illiberal democracy at home and abroad. Nw York:

Norton.

John S. Dryzek is n austrlin Rsrch Council Fdrtion fllow nd profssor of

politicl scinc in th Rsrch School of Socil Scincs t austrlin Ntionl Univrsity.

H works mostly on lobl ovrnnc, dmocrcy in thory nd prctic, nd nvironmntl

politics.

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	virginia-romanutti
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Dryzek Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building

Documents