Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics
Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics
复制标题
克里斯蒂娜·拉丰对协商性小公众的挑战
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
James S. Fishkin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
James S. Fishkin
这篇文章是对克里斯蒂娜·拉丰对思考性微型公共的批判的回应。我从以下几个主要步骤来考虑问题：(1)这种小型公共机构不应拥有任何真正的“决策权”的论点；(2)将它们作为“第二好”的依赖在民主上是不可接受的，因为它们只涉及一小部分人口(138-139人)。在她看来，只有“第一好”的策略才行得通。(3)如何达致“第一个最佳”解决办法的挑战，我先前曾就我所说的民主改革“三难”问题概述过。(4)为什么我认为拉丰的解决方案--“协商民主的参与性概念”--实际上并没有提供解决三难困境的办法，因为它参与性不够(拉丰2019：第三部分)。(5)正如我在《当人民思考时的民主》(Fishkin 2018)一书中概述的那样，我自己处理三难困境的方法，我会争辩说，既更具参与性，也更具深思熟虑。我列出了一个实际的解决方案。虽然它是复杂和昂贵的，但除了集体政治意愿外，实现这一目标在理论上或实践上没有任何障碍，除非有向前迈进的共同决定。这两种解决方案的对比是本文最后一部分的重点。
This essay is a response to Cristina Lafont’s critique of deliberative minipublics. I consider the problem in these main steps: (1) The argument that such minipublics should not have any real ‘decisional-power’ and (2) that it is not democratically acceptable to rely on them as a ‘second best’ because they only engage a small portion of the population (138–139). Nothing but a ‘first best’ strategy will do in her view. (3) The challenge of achieving a ‘first best’ solution, which I have previously outlined in terms of what I call the ‘trilemma’ of democratic reform. (4) Why I believe Lafont’s solution, a ‘participatory conception of deliberative democracy’, does not actually offer a solution to the trilemma because it is insufficiently participatory (Lafont 2019: Part III). (5) My own approach to dealing with the trilemma, as outlined in my book Democracy When the People Are Thinking (Fishkin 2018), is, I will argue, both more participatory and more deliberative. I lay out an actual solution. While it is elaborate and expensive, there is no theoretical or practical impediment to realizing it, except for collective political will, except for a shared decision to move forward. The contrast between the two solutions is the focus of the last part of the essay.