Does Inequality Makes Deliberative Democracy Impossible? Essay

Introduction

Equality is often regarded as a critical democratic value. It is normally realized when opinions and votes of participants are equally considered while making decisions. Deliberative democrats often contend that a well-informed deliberation and offering justification that is accepted by every member of the forum is an assurance to substantive equality. Because of this argument, a designed, organized deliberative process can allow marginalized persons to make their decisions considered, compensate for lack of resources or knowledge and be an essential tool for inclusion. Nonetheless, reports have revealed that even a well-organized deliberative meeting can accommodate inequalities. In particular, Young (2001) note that deliberation is susceptible to numerous forms of discriminatory practices such as exclusion from the discussion, lack of chance to participate in conditions of formal inclusion, reserved alternatives, as well as, availability of hegemonic discourse. Besides, entering into the deliberative forum is strictly regulated by political elites, and thus the interest of the majority are not considered or represented. Moreover, even in the formal inclusion, completely divided societies, the powerful and socially privileged have additional resources and can dictate the discussion. Equally, the political aim of the debate is limited to topics selected by political elites, as such; the marginalized or disadvantaged groups have no influence. More importantly, Young (2001) stated that even a formal agreement could reflect existing power structures when participants reach agreement on premises, but such assumptions make injustice and power. Based on the past distinction, exclusion from the discussion forum depicts the formal inequality. Because of these divergent views, there is a need to establish whether inequality plays some roles in deliberative democracy. Therefore, the present paper discusses whether disparity makes deliberative democracy impossible or not.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Overview of Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy revolves around issues of political will or what needs to be done. It encompasses making decisions that represent informed and mutual consent. At the center of deliberative democracy is the concept that when equal and free persons gather to deliberate on essential issues jointly, the resulting policy will benefit both the society and participants. On the deliberative view, democracy is a framework of institutional and social conditions that facilitate democratic deliberations among citizens by offering appropriate conditions for association, participation, as well as, expression (Beetham, 1992). To this extent, the notion that democracy focuses on the transformation instead of just aggregating preferences has become one of the leading positions in the democratic theory.

Although the concept of deliberative democracy is intuitive and simple, there is no global consensus original meaning of deliberative democracy. However, the idea is undergirded by three broad principles. One of the major features of deliberative democracy is the benefit of incorporating the public into the decision-making process. Principally, a democracy founded on deliberation requires that people should not be handled merely as objects of legislation, or passive subjects to be controlled but as independent agents who participate in the governance of their community directly or through their elected representatives (Habermas, 2006). Ultimately, all democratic theories contend that the concept of deliberative democracy encompasses incorporating all participants in decision making as the decision made will affect the participants or their representatives.

Another important principle of deliberative democracy entails the nature of the deliberation itself. Reportedly, in a genuinely deliberative government, the participants must be equal to ensure that their voices are considered. Moreover, these participants must be open to arguments, facts, as well as, proposals submitted to them and must be ready to learn from their associates and others (Beetham, 1992). This implies that individuals engaging in the discussion must not have fixed and unchallengeable preferences. Moreover, they should not be reluctant to change their viewpoints, and their relative positions should not outdo other competing voices. However, individuals engaging in the deliberative enterprise must be ready to consider other conflicting opinions and incorporate them into their worldview. Therefore, at its core, deliberative democracy demands that participants should candidly weigh issues according to their merits.

The last principle of deliberative democracy requires that decision makes must offer reasoned justification. Mansbridge et al. (2012) argued that deliberative democracy lies on argumentation, not only on the logic that it precedes by argument but also because the provided arguments must be justified. Therefore, to fulfill the promise stated above, justifications need to be substantively and procedurally accessible. As such, reasons and explanations that decision makers provide must be made public, and that reasoning must not occur solely in the discretion of one's mind. Principally, deliberative democracy values openness and governments that engage in secretive discussions behind closed doors would stand completely in contrast (Benhabib, 2010). In fact, it is difficult to kick off deliberative justification when individuals whom the discussion is addressed to cannot understand the critical content of the deliberation. Thus, the proffered explanation, as well as, the public record on the process of making decisions should not be made in a language that is quite difficult for the public to understand. More importantly, most justifications need not be done on minutiae or technicalities.

Principally, the foundational principles of deliberative democracy discussed above appear to portray an abstraction of people's unequal social conditions. They indicate that the impacts of unequal social situations can be counterbalanced within the deliberative forum provided that the deliberators be NIL ready and willing to give reasons that others can accept and are all provided with equal chance to speak their minds. Fraser (1990) noted that all deliberators are equally demanded to establish goals that are compelling to others and that the conditions for equality are fulfilled since the existing distribution of resources and power hardly determines who should speak (Cohen, 1997). Similarly, some deliberative theorists assert that a substantial decrease of economic and social inequality is critical to deliberative democracy. In particular, James Bohman argues that for deliberative democracy to be realized, certain social conditions must be corrected, and that huge social disparity varies with public types of deliberation especially in egalitarian institutions (Fraser, 1990). On an equal note, Habermas (2006) approved redistribution of wealth and income since citizens must have a given degree of resources and income to deliberate effectively. However, these arguments were opposed by Habermas (2006) who contended that in case people regard equal distribution as a major prerequisite condition for deliberation, individuals may wait for long. Further, Healy (2011) argued that disadvantaged persons or groups usually succeed in getting representatives from within their niche who are very good at championing for their ideas and interests. This sentiment implies that persons disadvantaged by social inequality are not limited within a well-constituted deliberative forum.

Arguments for Inequality as a Hindrance to Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy is difficult to achieve in countries where authorities control institutions, the media, and politicians. Manipulation of institutions is inevitable even in constitutional democracies. For instance, Cohen and Rogers (2003) exercised significant influence on mainstream media during his tenor as the prime minister in a progressive democracy. Besides, deliberate justice is manifested through social domination, whereby a particular social sect exercises control over several components of the deliberative system. This aspect of deliberative democracy is popular in capitalist economies in which the owners of factors of production impose their interests on other parts of the system without due consideration for the welfare of the public. The social control view of deliberative democracy can be detrimental when individuals use their wealth to influence policies and laws in a country (Beetham, 1992). The wealthy elite usually finances political campaigns and own media houses with the aim of influencing followership from policymakers and civil-groups.

The last aspect of deliberate democracy is that it plunges countries into political crises when sharp differences emerge among various groups. As stated previously, some parts of the deliberative system may fail to deliberate as people may hold divergent views on certain ideas and belief systems. The public may oppose the implementation of government policies, but their representatives may have stakes and pledges that may hamper legislative processes. The political class can engineer mass action and biased journalism that are geared towards either advancing new ideologies or reconsidering old ones. The success of these political deliberations largely depends on how the public, members of the fourth estate, and the international community receives the proposed changes. The deliberative systems require that the politicians avoid zealous polarization of the masses so that they can internalize their proposals and weigh in on important ideas. When people engage in civil disobedience and economic boycotts, they are giving themselves an opportunity to reflect on their actions. These actions form the foundation of political reforms and social justice as the audience becomes rational thinkers. Research shows, however, that civil disobedience and economic boycotts promote positive deliberations only if people can pay attention to political logic without clinging to particular views (Dillard, 2011).

As a theorist, Cohen (1997) conceptualized freedom as a product of deliberations that are free from unwarranted hurdles. Democratic debates produce results that are directed by the purpose and goals of reasoned arguments. The defining feature of free a democratic deliberation is that the conversation does not create expectations that may not be met without deviating from the real issues (Cohen, 1997). On logical grounds, it could be argued that deliberators should halt deliberations as soon as they realize that the process has been compromised in any way because it is likely to be a waste of time and resources pursuing the policy. The primary concern about a deliberation that is not free is that the findings and recommendation may be illegitimate. Therefore, lack of free process may limit the effectiveness of deliberative systems unless the deliberators put measures in place to mitigate against external interferences.

The deliberation may be free, but power differences among the deliberators may affect the outcomes. Disparities in power, wealth, and communication ability usually cause misunderstandings and resistance during deliberation. One compelling justification of power difference is the feeling that some deliberators are more experienced than others are, thereby leading to weak submissions. Besides, people may be reluctant to contradict the position taken by the majority due to partisanship. In a constitutional democracy, cultural differences form a hindrance to free deliberations by creating ethical and cognitive inequalities that impede mutual understanding. In this respect, delibe...