Die Neue Zeit
5th May 2012, 16:20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Democratic_reform_trilemma
Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation - widespread participation in the decision making process by the people effected; deliberation - a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality - all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making. However, the more participants there are the more time and money is needed to set up good quality discussions with clear neutrally presented briefings. Also it is hard for each individual to contribute substantially to the discussion when large numbers are involved. For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fiskin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fiskin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality - because widespread participation is allowed there will rarely be sufficient resources to compensate people who give up their time to take part in the deliberation, and so the participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided, and therefore will often not be representative of the overall population. Fiskin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small but still representative number of people from the general public.
Fiskin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system is to be integrated into mainstream politics. To an extent, the Occupy movement attempted to create a system that satisfies all three desirable requirements at once, but at a cost of the resulting system being widely criticized for being slow and unwieldy.
I really don't agree with Fiskin's definitions here. Precisely because "deliberative democracy" "adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy), that part employs consensus at times seems to break the equality principle (the minority has too much veto power).
There is also the distinction between deliberation and decision-making. The body responsible for deliberation may be different altogether from the body responsible for decision-making. Those leaning more towards direct democracy may wish for the deliberation body to be formed demarchically, but for the decision-making to be more direct. Conversely, both participation and deliberation can be had with a larger participatory body and a demarchic decision-making body.
Thoughts?
Democratic theorists have identified a trilemma due to the presence of three desirable characteristics of an ideal system of direct democracy, which are challenging to deliver all at once. These three characteristics are participation - widespread participation in the decision making process by the people effected; deliberation - a rational discussion where all major points of view are weighted according to evidence; and equality - all members of the population on whose behalf decisions are taken have an equal chance of having their views taken into account. Empirical evidence from dozens of studies suggests deliberation leads to better decision making. However, the more participants there are the more time and money is needed to set up good quality discussions with clear neutrally presented briefings. Also it is hard for each individual to contribute substantially to the discussion when large numbers are involved. For the system to respect the principle of political equality, either everyone needs to be involved or there needs to be a representative random sample of people chosen to take part in the discussion. In the definition used by scholars such as James Fiskin, deliberative democracy is a form of direct democracy which satisfies the requirement for deliberation and equality but does not make provision to involve everyone who wants to be included in the discussion. Participatory democracy, by Fiskin's definition, allows inclusive participation and deliberation, but at a cost of sacrificing equality - because widespread participation is allowed there will rarely be sufficient resources to compensate people who give up their time to take part in the deliberation, and so the participants tend to be those with a strong interest in the issue to be decided, and therefore will often not be representative of the overall population. Fiskin instead argues that random sampling should be used to select a small but still representative number of people from the general public.
Fiskin concedes it is possible to imagine a system that transcends the trilemma, but it would require very radical reforms if such a system is to be integrated into mainstream politics. To an extent, the Occupy movement attempted to create a system that satisfies all three desirable requirements at once, but at a cost of the resulting system being widely criticized for being slow and unwieldy.
I really don't agree with Fiskin's definitions here. Precisely because "deliberative democracy" "adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy), that part employs consensus at times seems to break the equality principle (the minority has too much veto power).
There is also the distinction between deliberation and decision-making. The body responsible for deliberation may be different altogether from the body responsible for decision-making. Those leaning more towards direct democracy may wish for the deliberation body to be formed demarchically, but for the decision-making to be more direct. Conversely, both participation and deliberation can be had with a larger participatory body and a demarchic decision-making body.
Thoughts?