Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?
Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jopp.12031
复制
发表时间：
2015-03-01
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Lafont, Cristina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lafont, Cristina
对协商民主的实证研究提出了许多创新的制度建议，使当前社会更接近这一理想。[1]虽然这些建议可能有着共同的目标，但它们往往是出于对不同民主价值观的相对重要性的广泛不同看法。通过分别关注微观、宏观和地方审议的方法，可以说明关键的差异。[2]第一种方法关注于在随机选择的公民组成的小群体中对一般政治问题的审议，这些小群体是“微型公众”，如公民陪审团、共识会议、审议性民意调查等。[3]这些制度建议主要关注提高面对面审议的质量，而很少关注提高政治审议的群众参与度或公民参与地方政治的程度。[4]相比之下，关注广泛公共领域的宏观审议过程的提案[5]更关注公民参与对一般政治问题的审议，而不是提高面对面审议的质量或公民参与解决当地问题。我非常感谢J. Bohman，H. Buchstein，T.克里斯蒂安诺湾Neblo和B。Talibracy，以及一个关于为什么不Epistocracy会议的观众提出的有趣的问题？政治合法性和“专业知识的事实”，2012年在奥斯陆大学，以及2011年阿帕中央分部会议上关于协商民主实践的研讨会，我在那里介绍了本文的早期版本。也要感谢罗伯特·古丁和
EMPIRICAL research on deliberative democracy suggests many innovative institutional proposals for bringing current societies closer to that ideal. 1 Although these proposals may share a common aim, they are often motivated by widely divergent views regarding the relative importance of different democratic values. Key differences can be illustrated by looking at approaches that focus on micro, macro, and local deliberation respectively. 2 The first approach focuses on deliberation concerning general political issues among small groups of randomly selected citizens—“mini-publics” such as citizen juries, consensus conferences, deliberative polls, and so on. 3 These institutional proposals are mostly concerned with increasing the quality of face-to-face deliberation and far less with increasing mass participation in political deliberation or citizen engagement in local politics. 4 In contrast, proposals that focus on macro deliberative processes in the broad public sphere5 are more concerned with the inclusion of citizens in deliberation about general political issues, and much less with increasing the quality of face-to-face deliberation or the engagement of citizens in solving local problems. This latter* I am grateful for helpful feedback from J. Bohman, H. Buchstein, T. Christiano, M. Neblo, and B. Talbott, as well as for interesting questions raised by the audience of a conference on Why not Epistocracy? Political legitimacy and “the fact of expertise,” at the University of Oslo in 2012 and a symposium on The Practice of Deliberative Democracy, at the 2011 APA Central Division Meeting, where I presented earlier versions of this article. Thanks are also due to Robert Goodin and the