Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy
Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy
复制标题
协商民主的合法性问题
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2003
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Parkinson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Parkinson
对协商民主的经典描述也是对合法性的描述：“在某种程度上，结果是合法的，因为它们通过参与有关决定的所有主体的真实审议而得到反思的同意”（Dryzek, 2001，第651页）。然而，在复杂的社会中，所有受集体决策影响的人的审慎参与是极不可能的。审议对参与者施加的苛刻程序要求也存在合法性问题。考虑到这些问题，协商民主似乎无法产生它所定义的合法结果。针对规模问题，本文提出了一种利用表象的尝试性解决方案，而表象这个概念本身就存在问题。在此过程中，论文强调了专家的合法角色，统计和选举代表的不同合法用途，以及推动当前将审议原则付诸实践的研究和民主必要性之间的差异等问题，并以莱斯特卫生政策辩论中的一个案例为例。虽然在如何将达成的原则转变为工作机构方面仍有许多工作要做，但它们确实提供了一种批评现有审议做法的手段。
The classic accounts of deliberative democracy are also accounts of legitimacy: ‘that outcomes are legitimate to the extent they receive reflective assent through participation in authentic deliberation by all those subject to the decision in question’ (Dryzek, 2001, p. 651). And yet, in complex societies deliberative participation by all those affected by collective decision-making is extremely implausible. There are also legitimacy problems with the demanding procedural requirements which deliberation imposes on participants. Given these problems, deliberative democracy seems unable to deliver legitimate outcomes as it defines them. Focusing on the problem of scale, this paper offers a tentative solution using representation, a concept which is itself problematic. Along the way, the paper highlights issues with the legitimate role of experts, the different legitimate uses of statistical and electoral representation, and differences between the research and democratic imperatives driving current attempts to put deliberative principles into practice, illustrated with a case from a Leicester health policy debate. While much work remains to be done on exactly how the principles arrived at might be transformed into working institutions, they do offer a means of criticising existing deliberative practice.