8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

1/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

2/21

Different Democracies

Defining what democracy means nowadays has become more problematic as several

alternative democratic visions are being developed and contrasted in normative theory and political

practice. On the one hand, some scholars seem to be content with a formal and minimal explanation

of democracy (Sartori 1993, Dahl 199 !. "n this explanation, citi#ens are endowed with political

rights, incl$ding the rights of speech, association, and s$ffrage% citi#ens advance their interests by

exercising their political rights, in partic$lar by voting for representatives in reg$lar elections%

elections are organi#ed by competing political parties% and electoral victory means control of

government, which gives winning candidates the a$thority to shape p$blic policy thro$gh

legislation and control over administration. &olitics'$nderstood in terms of a competition among

private interests'designates the process of aggregating the preferences of citi#ens in choosing

p$blic officials and policies (Downs 19 ), Sartori 19 ), Dahl 19)1!. Representative democracy has

been long identified with this conception.

On the other hand, different interpretations have emphasi#ed the normative potential still

present in liberal societies* according to them, democracy m$st be fed by achieving more, not less,

democracy. +h$s, the most relevant wor for c$rrent democrats is that of either -democrati#ing

(Santos /00/! or -deepening democracy ( $ng and 2right /003!. Ordinary citi#ens o$ght to be

bro$ght bac to the attention of democratic theory and, above all, to the center of the decision

ma ing process* notions s$ch as p$blic participation, rational deliberation, and citi#en

empowerment sho$ld gain a renewed political appreciation (4osenberg /00)% Dry#e /009!. +hese

more radical perspectives'while showing some common normative elements'can be regarded as

belonging to two distinct democratic traditions. Some of them interpret the principle of pop$lar

sovereignty in a radical fashion* they are committed to broaden participation in p$blic decision

ma ing. 5n a$thentically democratic order entails promoting the political involvement of people in

arenas s$ch as family, wor place, and civic associations as well as p$blic instit$tions (6ynd 197 ,5rnstein 1979, &ateman 19)0, 8achrach 19) , 8arber 19 !. +ho$gh maintaining several

concept$al differences, these democratic visions embody the same political ideal* the tenet that

democratic legitimacy is excl$sively based on an active and end$ring participation of ordinary

citi#ens. :onse;$ently, this tradition can also be defined as participatory democracy .

On the contrary, some conceptions aim to stress the disc$rsive ;$ality of the democratic

space in order to free it from c$lt$ral domination, power relations, and non rational attit$des.

Democracy is seen here as a domain of p$blic disc$ssion, dominated by -the $nforced force of the better arg$ment (

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

3/21

transformation rather than simply the aggregation of preferences (?lster 199 , 3!. +hese

democratic paradigms attempt to p$t -p$blic reasoning of free and e;$al citi#ens (:ohen 19 9%

8enhabib 1997! bac at the center of the political process. +hey favor an idea of democracy in

which people address collective problems by deliberating together abo$t how best to solve them*

democracy is th$s associated with the image of deliberation. "n this case, a democratic order can be

defined as legitimate insofar as it is the res$lt of a reasoned agreement among all individ$als. +his

political pro@ect is defined as deliberative democracy.

5ll these different traditions have contrib$ted to expanding and deepening the meaning of

democracy, enriching the political debate and offering new arrangements for democratic

instit$tions. +his research attempts to in;$ire whether'beyond the representative model'it is

possible to envisage an alternative and stronger idea of democracy based on a common framewor

of participatory and deliberative norms* is democratic theory going toward a -participatory

deliberative model of legitimacyA "n the first two sections, participatory and deliberative

democratic conceptions are distinctively dealt with alongside their main characteristics. +he third

section compares their differences more closely, whereas the fo$rth foc$ses on their complementary

feat$res. +he fifth section emphasi#es the emerging political li eness between these two theoretical

paradigms to investigate the potential rise of a specific participatory deliberative design of

democracy. inally, the last section proposes to single o$t a stronger normative standard for existing

democracy by drawing on the characteri#ing aspects of this innovative participatory deliberative

theori#ation.

Participatory Democracy

Over the past forty years, liberal societies have not only faced -$ndemocratic challenges

(e.g. no acco$ntability between r$led and r$lers% crisis of the party system! and -challengers (e.g.

economic, invisible elitist s$premacy!, b$t they have also been ;$estioned by the p$blic entry of

new social actors demanding more radical rights (Bel$cci 19 9! and participatory ideals ofdemocracy (6ynd 197 , 5rnstein 1979, &ateman 19)0!. +his democratic era has diff$sely

experienced the political contention of so called -new social movements (+o$raine 19) , Bel$cci

19 , Offe 19 , Della &orta e Diani 199)! claiming innovative and more incl$sive democratic

instit$tions. 8eginning in the 1970s, participatory theorists and practitioners spelled o$t a

conception of democracy based on the premise that citi#ens participating in collective decision

ma ing on matters that affect their lives sho$ld be -an integral moral val$e of contemporary

democratic theory (8achrach 19) , /!. or them'since any social relation is -political in that itrevolves aro$nd a str$ct$re of a$thority'increasing and extending the scope of participation and

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

4/21

political e;$ality entails democrati#ing society. Society -can be seen as being composed of vario$s

political systems, the str$ct$re of a$thority of which has an important effect on the psychological

;$alities and attit$des of the individ$als who interact with them% th$s, for the operation of a

democratic polity at national level, the necessary ;$alities in individ$als can only be developed

thro$gh the democrati#ation of a$thority str$ct$res in all political systems (&ateman 19)0, 3 !. or

this reason, -it is important that individ$als ta e all the possible chances to participate (Cbi pi

/00 , 109!. - $ll participation designates th$s a process wherein -each individ$al member of a

decision ma ing body has e;$al power to determine the o$tcome of decisions (&ateman 19)0, )1!.

5ccording to 6ynd, participatory democracy proposes to accomplish two specific goals*

-= > that each individ$al ta es part in all decisions affecting the ;$ality and cond$ct of hisEher life%

and that society is arranged to promote the independence of h$man beings and to provide the means

for their common participation (6ynd 197 !. +his means that the participatory ideal can be

interpreted as a design of social inclusion , which aims at instit$tionali#ing a new democratic

sovereignty relying on the dialectic between civil society and the political system (Santos /00/!.

5llegretti reaches the same concl$sion in Democrazia partecipativa. Esperienze e prospettive in

Italia e in Europa (/010!, when describing participatory democracy as a dynamic and open ended

pro@ect based on a -game of active confrontation between civil society and instit$tions. "n this

light, social movements are regarded as one of the most important vectors of political change and

transformation. On the one hand, they -carry on conflicts and antagonistic practices, brea ing the

limits of the systems in which s$ch acts occ$r (Bel$cci 19 , )9 !* collective mobili#ations

contest dominant codes and disco$rses of society. On the other hand, they point at creating a new

symbolic order, a new c$lt$ral hegemony offering different interpretations of the social $niverse* in

this respect, movements aspire to establish innovative definitions of norms and p$blic sit$ations, to

promote new ideas, iss$es and sol$tions, and finally to invent alternative instit$tions. ?ven more

radically, Santos retains that -democracies m$st transform themselves in social movements, in the

sense that State m$st transform itself in an =open> space of c$lt$ral experimentation (Santos /00/,

1!. "n the same vein, :la$de 6efort envisions modern democracy as an -empty place (6efort

/00)! that possesses no definitive goals'or rather, it possesses many s$ch goals b$t none can

s$cceed -in being accepted as the incarnation of the people as one (:$nningham /00/, 1 7!. +his

is why participatory principles can best adhere to the dynamics of liberal society. +hey do not trace

-a model of democratic life = > that maps o$t the external bo$ndaries and internal proced$res of

democratic decision ma ing (Bartin /009, 107!, b$t rather strive to b$ild an incl$sive political

formation, advancing an idea of -f$gitive democracy (2olin 1997!'that is, a condition

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

5/21

permanently open to contention and change. Democracy is envisioned here as -a process of

constant reinvention (6ittle and 6loyd /009, /0 !.

&articipatory democracy is th$s lin ed to a very strong notion of pop$lar sovereignty,

insom$ch as it conceives of grassroots participation as a way to constit$te, demolish, and

reconstit$te -the category of the people (ibid ., !. "n other words, this position does not simply

ass$me -the fact of the demos (as a pre existing body with a shared identity! as the base for

democratic politics. -"t arg$es, instead, that the demos (the democratic FweF! is prod$ced, albeit

contingently, thro$gh democratic politics'when the excl$ded demand to be incl$ded (ibid., 7!.

+his means that radical democratic sovereignty s$bstantiates an ongoing conflict between those

politically incl$ded and those not for the -re signification of the bo$ndaries and identity of demos

itself (4anciGre /00)!. "n this perspective, democracy becomes -a pro@ect concerned with the

political potentialities of ordinary citi#ens % with their capacity to become -political beings (2olin

1997, 31!.

+o synthesi#e, participatory approach addresses the -;$antitative dimension of mass

democracy by emphasi#ing the political role of civil society. "t intends to find o$t -how many

people ta e part in how many political ven$es to ma e how many decisions (:itroni /010, 1!.

5ccordingly, participatory theory embraces and promotes the political incl$sion of all individ$als

aiming at the enlargement and radicali#ation of democratic citi#enship.

Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative ideals have been diff$sed widely d$ring the last few years and have received

pop$lar recognition and appreciation d$e to the mobili#ations of the -Clobal H$stice Bovements

(CHB! (della &orta /00 % /00)!. On the one hand, this fact has appeared to be very positive*

precisely by virt$e of the diff$sion of political tas s and scientific st$dies on s$ch a matter. On the

other hand, it has also created several problems for scholars committed to concept$al clarification

and rationali#ation of deliberative democracy. "n this research, deliberative democracy essentiallyrefers to the 5nglo 5merican and ?$ropean philosophical traditions based on 4awls and

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

6/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

7/21

acts are regarded as politicalA iii! Forms of communication * how do the styles of comm$nication

manifest themselvesA iv! Ends of democracy * hat are the ideals of democracyA v! Public outcomes *

what res$lts does the democratic process bring abo$tA vi! Democratic legitimacy * what is the so$rce

of -ideal validity (

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

8/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

9/21

paradigms have recently developed (:ohen and $ng /00 , Cbi pi /00 , 8obbio /007, della &orta

/00 and /010, 8if$lco /010!. 5ccording to s$ch interpretations, participatory and deliberative

theories are more complementary than competitive in that -deliberation is a ind of participation or

somehow essential to it (

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

10/21

the core of deliberative democracy. "t seems to show the best manner to exercise power witho$t

rec$rring the vote* people ta e decisions appealing to the -force of the better arg$ments (

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

11/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

12/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

13/21

participatory democracy. +hey share the same idea of e;$ality (1!. or all these interpretations,

rational deliberation is not the only and most important means to combat social and c$lt$ral

excl$sivity% ;$ite the opposite, deliberation, with its emphasis on rational arg$ment and common

good, brings abo$t an increase rather than a decrease in political ine;$ality. Bany social gro$ps

co$ld never ta e part in the deliberative p$blic sphere beca$se they spea with alternative ling$istic

codes. 4ecogni#ing the political legitimacy of these comm$nicative styles, incl$ding h$mor,

-greeting, rhetoric, and storytelling (Jo$ng 1997!, entails opening the p$blic sphere to the entry of

-the other and raising the level of political incl$siveness.

Second of all, both theories advance similar concepts of -the political (/!. 5ccording to

them, deliberation in the p$blic sphere is not the main political act of civil society. 8eside this

comm$nicative action, civil society enables -contentio$s politics (+arrow 199 ! in the p$blic

sphere'that is, the $se of -disr$ptive techni;$es s$ch as demonstrations, stri es, riots, and civil

disobedience to change corporate and government policy. +his means that -the political of civil

society consists of protest, agonism, and mass activism as well* for these visions of democracy,

-deliberation and conflict ( lyvb@erg 199 ! th$s constit$te the complementary moments of the

political str$ggle.

&articipatory and radical deliberative democracies seem th$s to tend toward a $ni;$e

theoretical paradigm encompassing two specific normative feat$res* the notion of citizen

empo erment 'stemming from a wider interpretation of the concept of -the political 'and that of

political inclusion 'deriving from a stronger comprehension of the idea of -political e;$ality.

:iti#en empowerment is tho$ght of as the radicali#ation of the principle of pop$lar sovereignty% that

is, the idea that the people possess the a$thority to infl$ence decision ma ing processes by

employing both conventional and $nconventional repertories of action. Bore specifically, to

empower the people means fostering the b$ilding of two different yet complementary inds of

political instit$tions. +he first type aims to create high ;$ality deliberative participation with a

direct impact on the exercise of power. +hese collective spaces are conceived of as formal

instit$tional arrangements in which ordinary citi#ens, deliberating together on iss$es of common

concern, affect the o$tcome of s$ch decisions. :iti#en @$ries, electronic town meetings, deliberation

polls, table scheme displays, and participatory b$dgeting can be considered some examples of these

arenas (8obbio /007!. On the contrary, s$pporting the proliferation of the second type of

organi#ations means aiming to broaden deliberative participation within the associations of civil

society.

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

14/21

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

15/21

constit$te the s$preme stage of historical development. Iowadays democracy is diff$sely regarded

as the only legitimate political way of organi#ing complex society.

Coing beyond the democratic ideal is not a political matter c$rrently $nder disc$ssion either

in theory or in practice.

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

16/21

competitive representation. 5ccording to :ohen and $ng, the participatory deliberative form of

democracy manages to p$rs$e the val$es of responsibility, e;$ality, and a$tonomy better than the

representative. 1!"t improves the level of acco$ntability of the political system to the extent that

participatory deliberative arenas f$nction as p$blic spaces that bridge ordinary citi#ens with the

r$ling elite. On the one hand, these arenas'as schools of formal and informal deliberation'

promote the formation and infl$ence of new ideas, opinions, and interests on representatives and the

legislat$re (inp$t!. On the other hand, they strengthen the bond between the governed and

governors by operating as spheres of control and criticism for the implementation of policies and

their impact (o$tp$t!. /!&articipatory deliberative democracy increases the principle of e;$ality.

?xpanding and enhancing the deliberative participation in p$blic instit$tions may be the most

effective strategy for challenging the ine;$alities that derive from asymmetric concentration of

interest and from traditional social and political hierarchies* -=...> deliberation, beca$se it bl$nts the

power of greater reso$rces with the force of the better arg$ments% participation, beca$se shifting the

basis of political contestation from organi#ed money to organi#ed people is the most promising

antidote to the infl$ence conferred by wealth (:ohen and $ng /00 , / !. 3! inally, participatory

deliberative conception enco$rages the reali#ation of a stronger vision of political a$tonomy by

enabling people to debate laws and policies that representatives and governors enforce for them.

+a ing part in a variety of collective arenas, citi#ens learn to advance and defend their own

sol$tions to common problems and to arg$e in s$ch sit$ations on the basis of different yet relevant

reasons.

+his more radical vision of democracy therefore introd$ces an innovative conception of

democratic ;$ality gro$nded on the idea of participatory deliberative arenas* the greater the n$mber

of these p$blic spaces, the higher the democratic legitimacy of liberal society. S$ch arenas of

deliberation'both instit$tional and informal'constit$te the most appropriate instr$ment for

meas$ring the f$rther democrati#ation of act$al democracy. &romoting their proliferation indeed

means democrati#ing a$thority str$ct$res thro$gho$t society. Bore specifically, the lesser or greater

capacity of arranging these collective spheres in terms of deliberation , political inclusion , and

citizen empo erment affects the extent of deliberative participation present in democracy.

"!Deliberation entails the disc$rsive ;$ality of a p$blic space*

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

17/21

how m$ch is their voice p$blicly listened toA &olitical incl$sion re;$ires instit$tional assets in

which people can form$late, disc$ss, and ma e decisions on p$blic iss$es that directly affect their

own lives (8achrach 19) !. """!:iti#en empowerment indicates the grade of political infl$ence of

ordinary citi#ens in decision ma ing process* 2hat decisional weight do these new sites haveA

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

18/21

References

5llegretti M. /009, Democrazia partecipativa e processi di democratizzazione , -Democra#ia e

diritto , / /00 , pp. 1) /1).5llegretti M. /010, -Democra#ia partecipativa* $n contrib$to alla democrati##a#ione della

democra#ia , in 5llegretti M. (a c. di!, Democrazia partecipativa. Esperienze e prospettive in

Italia e in Europa , iren#e Mniversity &ress* iren#e.

5rnstein S. 4. 1979, ! $adder of "itizen Participation , -H5"& , 3 , , pp. /17 // .

8achrach &. 19) , -"nterest, &artecipation and Democratic +heory , in &ennoc 4., :hapman H. (a

c. di!, Participation in Politics , 6ieber 5therton* Iew Jor .

8 chtiger 5., Iiemeyer S., Ieblo B., Steenbergen B. 4., Steiner H. /010, Disentangling Diversity

in Deliberative Democracy "ompeting )'eories, )'eir lind Spots and "omplementarities ,

-+he Ho$rnal of &olitical &hilosophy , 1 , 1, pp. 3/ 7 .

8aiocchi C. /003, -&articipation, 5ctivism, and &olitics* +he &orto 5legre ?xperiment, in

Deepening Democracy. Institutional Innovations in Empo ered Participatory /overnance ,

Lerso* 6ondon and Iew Jor .

8arber 8. 19 , Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a 0e !ge , Mniversity of :alifornia

&ress* 8er eley.

8enhabib S. 1997, -+oward a Deliberative Bodel of Democratic 6egitimacy , in 8enhabib,

Democracy and Difference. "ontesting t'e oundaries of t'e Political , &rinceton Mniversity

&ress* &rinceton.

8if$lco 4. /010, -Democra#ia deliberativa, partecipativa e rappresentativa. +re diverse forme di

democra#iaA, in 5llegretti M. (a c. di!, Democrazia partecipativa. Esperienze e prospettive in

Italia e in Europa , iren#e Mniversity &ress* iren#e.

8oavent$ra de So$sa Santos /00/, Democratizzare la democrazia. I percorsi della democrazia

partecipativa , :ittP 5perta ?di#ioni* +roina.

8obbio I. 19 , Il futuro della democrazia. 1na difesa delle regole del gioco , ?ina$di* +orino.

8obbio 6. /007, Dilemmi della democrazia partecipativa , -Democra#ia e diritto , , pp. 11 /7.

8ohman H, 199 , )'e "oming !ge of Deliberative Democracy , -Ho$rnal of &olitical &hilosophy , 7,

, pp. 399 /3.

:itroni C. /010, -ai pi2 soli. 0ote sulla democrazia partecipativa , 8onanno ?ditore* iren#e.

:ohen H. 19 9, -Deliberation and Democratic 6egitimacy , in

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

19/21

:ohen H., $ng 5. /00 , Radical Democracy , -Swiss Ho$rnal of &olitical Science , 10, , pp. /3 3 .

:ro$ch. : /003, Postdemocrazia , 6ater#a* 4oma 8ari.

:$nningham . /00/, )'eories of democracy a critical introduction . 4o$tledge* Iew Jor .

Dahl 4. 19)1, Poliarc'y, Participation and #pposition , Jale Mniversity &ress* Iew

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

20/21

$ng 5. /00 , Deliberation efore t'e Revolution )o ards an Et'ics of Deliberative Democracy

in an 1n7ust 8orld, -&olitical +heory , 33, pp. 39) 19.

Cbi pi 8. /00 , Dalla teoria della democrazia partecipativa a quella deliberativa quali possibili

continuit94, -Stato e Bercato , )3, pp. 9) 1/ .

C$tmann 5.. +hompson D. 1997, Democracy and Disagreement. 2hy Boral :onflict :annot 8e

5voided in &olitics, and 2hat Sho$ld 8e Done 5bo$t "t,

8/12/2019 Warwick 2011

21/21

4anciGre H. /00), Il disaccordo , Beltemi* 4oma.

4osenberg S. 2 /00), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. "an t'e People /overn4 ,

&algrave Bacmillan* Iew Jor .

Sanders 6. 199), !gainst Deliberation , -&olitical +heory , / , pp. 3 ) )7.

Sartori C. 1993, Democrazia. "osa =4 , 4i##oli* Bilano.

+arrow S. 199 , Po er in -ovement. Social -ovements and "ontentious Politics, :ambridge

Mniversity &ress* Iew Jor .

2olin S. 1997, Fugitive democracy , in S. 8enhabib (a c. di!, Democracy and difference. "ontesting

t'e boundaries of t'e political , &rinceton Mniversity &ress* &rinceton, pp. 31 .

Jo$ng ". B. /000, Inclusion and democracy , Oxford Mniversity &ress* Oxford.

Jo$ng ". B. /001, !ctivist c'allenges to deliberative democracy , -&olitical +heory , /9, pp. 7)0

790.