Demokracja deliberacyjna jako jeden z instrumentów wyrazania woli politycznej spoleczenstwa
Journal Title: Науковий вісник Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича. Історія - Year 2016, Vol 1, Issue
Abstract
In the contemporary world political scientists fight the crisis of democracy. The problem of a low turnout, little participation of citizens in making political decisions, a weakness of political leaders whether finally not working democratic institutions etc. cause it. Thus they have to search new methods (procedures) in order to deal with it and improve the quality of democratic political system. Appearing innovations in political literature like e.g. citizen technology panels, participatory budgeting, consensual conferences whether deliberative democracy are a reply to these negative tendencies in the democracy. The last one is the subject of this paper. It is worthwhile to notice, that deliberative democracy is intended to complement the institutions of democracy rather than supplant them. As a form of expressing the political will by citizens is a kind of the forum which a result is a political decision. The aim of the paper is to answer the following questions: can the concept of deliberative democracy be applied universally? Where is it possible to apply it? What conditions should be qualified to improve the position of citizens in relation to the state? What is the idea of deliberative democracy? A more fundamental difficulty is the amount of knowledge on political issues people possess. A lot of estimates show that citizens are not interested in public affairs. Anthony Downs with his well-know phrase of rational ignorant insist that it is a normal and natural attitude as a member of the society. Nonetheless, advocates of the deliberative democracy want citizens to actively include into the process od making decisions by seriously deliberating over important issues. So far people, who participated in elections, could cast their votes for or against candidates put forward by political parties. In deliberative democracy they also have the possibility to vote, but with deliberation over arguments why they do in such way. If people think and know little about politics, they should discuss with others. In particular with citizens who do not share similar views. Deliberation as an empirical and practical tool can provide it. But some objections must be obeyed. Arguments presented during the process should be accurate, appropriate, balanced, informative and factual. The participants should be willing to talk and listening in mutual respect and nobody can not monopolize whole deliberation, in other words, everybody must have equal opportunities. It is not easy to realize. The rules of deliberation and political equality have proven hard to achieve simultaneously. Fiskin (one of the most influential deliberative democrats) and his colleagues from Standford University emphasize that march toward political equality has had the unintended consequence of diminishing deliberation. But deliberative democracy can embody both through random, representative samples. Random samples assure everyone can be chosen to by lot. The procedure, typically lasting a weekend, is launching with selecting participants. Those who agree to participate in this undertaking are sent special briefing materials containing balanced short arguments for and against some solution. Then, the participants are deliberating in randomly assigned small groups which are led by trained moderators who keep guard to maintain the atmosphere of civility and mutual respect. After it, group members prepare two or three questions to panel experts collecting them from all groups, and policy experts explain the most controversial issues. The goal of deliberative polling (the term coined by James Fiskin) is to reveal the changes in preferences. Participants are interviewed just before being invited to participate and again at the end of deliberative weekend. But, what is the most important? The result of deliberation should be to make a decision. Therefore, after meeting, participants views are measure by knowledgeable experts. It provides the anonymity of answers and guarantees protecting participants from any pressure. The research results are submitted to the governing body. However, deliberative democracy is exposed to some limitations and some threats like the law of group polarization political ignorance, rational irrationality, deep and frequent changes in preferences, possibilities of manipulation of participants, costs and difficulties in organizing of process. In order to acquire knowledge citizens must devote lots of time and effort. They economize it with potential benefits. Political ignorance and rational irrationality contain these anxieties. Some scholars contend that engagement in political activity is just unprofitable. Besides, discussing in small groups is associated with the danger of group polarization because people tend to be conformist. They want to achieve a psychic gratification by understanding others who share their views and confirming themselves prejudices. Moreover, people also often express their opinions that fit to social expectations and seek how to avoid pejorative reactions from other members of the community. If people have got inability of getting full and factual information on political issues, because it is just impossible especially at the macro level, they should search alternative ways to deliberate for example in small communities. Patrick Denn suggests that deliberative democracy is more feasible on the small scale, where we are likely to know and care about our fellow citizens. There, they can truly engage in the process of deliberation and to be also concerned about the outcomes of the discussion. Regardless of critical voices for deliberative democracy, citizens have a great opportunity to meet people who do not think in the same way like themselves, who have different experiences, ideas and dreams. Confronting our views with others, we enhance our lives.
Authors and Affiliations
Pawel Stepien
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP202994
- DOI -
- Views 118
- Downloads 0
Політика УСРР/СРСР стосовно української еміграції у Чехословаччині (1920-ті роки)
During the 1920s, the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR / USSR conducted an active policy of eliminating, including physical, emigration from the former Russian Empire. Emigration was regarded as a threat to the existence...
Історія як зображення: екранізація короля Данила Романовича
The formation of the Soviet image of the past in the context of the doctrine of «our great ancestors» was extended not only to historiography, fiction and journalism. A special place was occupied by cinema. The Bolshevik...
Київський віце-губернатор (1860-ті – 1917 рр.): історико-політичний портрет
This article briefly reviews the authorities, conferred to the vice-governor by the supreme imperial bodies in the system of provincial government and reasons, which were followed by the central authorities during their...
Вплив інформаційних комунікацій на проєвропейський вибір української молоді
The definition of «community» is one of the key concepts in the theory and practice of Public Relations. Community is an active social formation, which is focused on the issue to find its solution. This issue should be o...
Роль О. Довженка у формуванні та становленні М. Вінграновського як кінорежисера
In the article «The role of O. Dovzhenko in the formation and becoming of M. Vingranovskyias a film director» I. Koliada highlights facts from biography of the outstanding poet, film director, scriptwriter and actor M. V...