Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Journals name baner

Nr 2(02) (2014)

Artykuły

Demokracja deliberatywna i jej słabości

Opublikowane: 2014-12-31

Abstrakt

The aim of the article is to present and critically discuss the theory of deliberative democracy in light of its potential to replace the current model of representative democracy. The author believes that whereas deliberation can be an important supplement to any democratic system – improving the quality of political life as well as increasing civic activity – deliberative democracy is not a comprehensive doctrine offering an alternative to institutions of political representation. The article underlines both theoretical and practical difficulties in realizing the deliberative ideal in its more ambitious, comprehensive form. Theoretical weaknesses of deliberative democracy lay in many critically important, yet unresolved questions, e.g. what are the limits of deliberation, i.e. which issues and by whom may be deliberated upon?; how one should arrive at political decisions – by means of simple voting or by reaching an unanimous consensus?; what will be the status of such decisions, i.e. will they be subject to renegotiation and if so, under what conditions? The discussion on practical challenges in realizing the deliberative ideal focuses on James Fishkin’s Deliberative Poll – the most ambitious project of this kind undertaken so far.

Bibliografia

  1. Benhabib Seyla (1996), Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy, w: Seyla Benhabib (red.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press, s. 67−94. [Google Scholar]
  2. Breiner Peter (1993), Review of James Fishkin’s „Democracy and Deliberation”, „The Journal of Politics”, t. 55, nr 2, s. 547−550. [Google Scholar]
  3. Cohen Joshua (1989), Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, w: Alan Hamlin, Philip Pettit (red.), The Good Polity. Normative Analysis of the State, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, s. 17–34. [Google Scholar]
  4. Dahl Robert (1967), Pluralist Democracy in the United States, Chicago: Rand McNally. [Google Scholar]
  5. Dahl Robert (1970), A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fearon James (1998), Deliberation as Discussion, w: Jon Elster (red.), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 44–68. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fishkin James (2002), Deliberative Democracy, w: Robert L. Simon (red.), The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, s. 221–238. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fishkin James (2009), When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Fishkin James, Luskin Robert, Jowell Roger (2000), Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation, „Parliamentary Affairs”, nr 53, s. 657−666, http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2000/fishkin-dpoll-consultation.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  10. Friberg-Fernros Henrik, Karlsson Schaffer Johan (2010), The consensus paradox: Why deliberative agreement impedes rational discourse, http://www.mothugg.se/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/The-consensus-paradox.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gould Carol (1996), Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences, w: Seyla Benhabib (red.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton: Princeton University Press, s. 171−186. [Google Scholar]
  12. Gutmann Amy, Thompson Dennis (1999), Democracy and Disagreement, w: Stephen Macedo (red.), Deliberative Politics. Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 243–280. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gutmann Amy, Thompson Dennis (2004), Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Held David (2010), Modele demokracji, tłum. Wojciech Nowicki, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. [Google Scholar]
  15. Luskin Robert, Fishkin James, Jowell Roger (2002), Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain, „British Journal of Political Science”, t. 32, s. 455−487, http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2002/considered-opinions.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mansbridge Jane (2010), Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard, „The Good Society”, t. 19, nr 1, s. 55−62, http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2010/mansbridgetgs-gold.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  17. Posner Richard (2003), Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  18. Przeworski Adam (1999), Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense, w: Ian Shapiro, Casiano Hacker-Cordón (red.), Democracy’s Value, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, s. 23–55. [Google Scholar]
  19. Raciborski Jacek (2011), Obywatelstwo w perspektywie socjologicznej, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ryan Alan (2004), Time out?, „New York Review of Books”, 21 października. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schumpeter Joseph (1995), Kapitalizm, socjalizm, demokracja, tłum. Michał Rusiński, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. [Google Scholar]
  22. Shapiro Ian (1999), Enough of Deliberation: Politics is about Interests and Power, w: Stephen Macedo (red.), Deliberative Politics. Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 28–38. [Google Scholar]
  23. Talisse Robert (2005), Deliberative Democracy Defended: A Response To Posner’s Political Realism, „Res Publica”, nr 11, s. 185−199. [Google Scholar]
  24. Walzer Michael (1999), Deliberation and What Else?, w: Stephen Macedo (red.), Deliberative Politics. Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, s. 58–69. [Google Scholar]
  25. Waśkiewicz Andrzej (w druku), Dobro wspólne i społeczeństwo obywatelskie w teorii demokracji deliberatywnej i reprezentacji grupowej, w: Anna Giza, Anna Przybylska (red.), Partycypacja obywatelska: od teorii do praktyki społecznej, Warszawa: Scholar. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.