Representation, equality, and inclusion in deliberative systems: desiderata for a good account

Abstract

What has become known as ‘the systemic turn’ in the recent literature on deliberative democracy looks like a promising development. However, while much theorizing has been devoted to the question of what a deliberative system may look like, very little has been offered in terms of criteria for what is required for a system to be deliberative democratic. This paper aims to contribute to the systemic approach by setting out a number of desiderata that a satisfactory account of deliberative systems should consider when developing such criteria. This is done by analyzing the main properties of a deliberative system in relation to three essential aspects of democracy: representation, equality, and inclusion. Among other things, it is argued that when theorizing criteria for what a deliberative system requires, a systemic account should carefully distinguish between political and epistemic representation, between political and epistemic equality, and between political and epistemic inclusion.

Keywords:

• deliberative system
• deliberative democracy
• political equality
• John Dryzek
• James Bohman
• Jane Mansbridge

Acknowledgments

The author owes special thanks to Lisa Hill and Anthoula Malkopoulou for comments on earlier drafts of this paper as well as the editor and reviewers of CRISPP. Furthermore, she thanks Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation and the Swedish Research Council for the generous funding of her research.

Notes

1. Thomas Christiano's chapter is an exception here. However, in contrast to the other contributors of the volume, Christiano theorizes deliberative systems within a larger theory of justice, in which democratic discussion primarily plays an epistemic and practical function (2012, p. 27).

2. Consider, for example, an equal say or equal decision power through different forms of lottery or through unanimity or consensus.

3. For a good systemic analysis of this, see Chambers 2012, p. 60.

4. For another elaborate criticism of mini-publics, see Parkinson 2006, Chambers 2009, and Pateman 2012.