Debate and Discussion on Political Issues

In modern liberal democracies, debate and discussion on political issues exists in legislative bodies, committees, or cabinet offices. Ideally, the decisions made by democratic bureaucracies is determined by outcome which secure the common good through reason. However, in modern liberal democracies, decisions are often based on a competition between conflicting interests that seek to gain political power. As a result, decisions made by democratic governments that serve the public good are susceptible to threats such as uninformed voters, irrational voter behaviour, or the external influence of elected officials by interest groups.

The central premise of deliberative democracy is that political decisions should only be considered legitimate if it is preceded by a public and “authentic” deliberative process based on reasoned dialogue and persuasion, rather than the simple aggregation of preferences by voters. There are some common features of deliberative democracy among proponents. The first was that all citizens should be prepared and invited to participate in civil and informed discussion on political decisions. One simple example of deliberation is a citizens’ jury in which a representative sample of people are selected to discuss a certain issue over a certain period of time. Experts, stakeholders, and government officials are cross examined on the issue and the jury makes a policy recommendation. The second common feature is that deliberation should be binding. Unlike traditional town hall meetings or public consultations, deliberation should have a direct influence on political decisions such as being legislated into law or having the decision represented as a certain number of votes in a legislative body.

The origins of deliberative democracy are found in the criticisms of democracy by Plato and Aristotle and the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The central influences for deliberative democracy