Deliberative Democracy Case Studies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Outline

Deliberative democracy justifies decisions made by citizens to ensure that they make law that is fair and acceptable to everyone. Citizens are supposed to give reasons according to the set principles so that they can be treated equally in the process of making the final decision. Moral conflicts are solved to ensure there is fair treatment to all and everyone is an autonomous agent of the society. In situations where power is used in democratic politics, an explanation is given for everyone to understand and not engage in war. In situations where disagreements arise between two parties, deeper understanding is necessary so that conclusion is arrived at and everyone is satisfied. Parties with different needs where solution is difficult to get should vote so that the party with majority votes is considered as the winner because it is the one that majority of the citizens prefer.

Definition of Deliberative Democracy

According to (Thompson 2009 pp 15-16), Deliberative democracy is justifying decisions of citizens and the people who are their representatives. Citizens ensure the law they set on each other is justified and the leaders explain why decisions are made and give response to the decisions made by citizens. Deliberation is not required in all issues every time due to the room created by deliberative democracy for other decisions to be made that allow executives to order secret operations and different groups to bargain. Deliberative democracy asks citizens to give reasons that agree with the principles that allow individuals in need of cooperation not to be rejected. The reasons given are not procedural because many people need war and war attracts interest of the nation or peace in the world. Deliberative democracy is a government where equal citizens who are free justify their decisions through a process where they give accessible and mutually accessible reasons.

How to Use of Deliberative Democracy to Resolve Moral Conflicts According To Our Authors

According to (Thompson,2009 pp17-18), When resolving moral conflicts, deliberative democracy is used to ensure that people are given fair treatment and are not taken as if they are passive subjects that are supposed to be ruled or objects but instead, every person should be taken as an autonomous agent to participate in governing the society. Deliberative democracy agents participate in presenting, giving response and ensuring their representatives take an active part to make sure the law is justified to allow them live together. Justifiable decisions are made through deliberative democracy and respect for one another is expressed. Citizens are not satisfied with using interest groups to assert power through voting or bargaining because decision for going to war should not be made by use of referendum or by logrolling.

There should always be explanations for the reasons why power is used in democratic politics. When the government fails to give the reasons for engaging in war, citizens have the right to question justification of the government for the war and the respect it gives the citizens. Deliberative democracy ensures that the reasons given for going to war are accessed by all citizens who need to know them. The government should impose their will by allowing citizens to give comprehensive reasons but not imposing will on them. Every citizen should be involved in the deliberation to ensure it does not take place in privacy. Deliberative democracy allow individual to think about what would benefit the society as a whole and vote according to the will of majority.

In resolving moral conflicts deliberate justifications begin when the people who are involved get to understand the essential content and accept it. Citizens may decide to rely on experts who give them advice if the conclusions made are properly understood and there is independent basis where citizens believe that the experts are trustworthy. For example, if the experts have given reliable judgment in the past or they have done critical scrutiny of checks and also balances in the past.

(Thompson 2009 pp19-20) argues that, deliberative democracy is used in bringing about binding decision where participants of deliberative process do not argue for the sake of getting the truth which is taken as a deliberative virtue but their aim for discussion is to influence government’s decision and have a process for affecting the making of future decisions. Deliberation may end temporarily where leaders make decision. In resolving moral conflict, democratic deliberation ensures that it is possible for dialogue to continue even after decision is made in order to give citizens a chance to question and criticize decisions that were made before for them to be able to move forward. When the process of making decision is open and the results obtained are provisional to ensure that there is human understanding in the process of making decision thereby avoiding conflicts that might arise.

What I Think About Values and Procedures They Talk About

According to the values and procedures they talk about, citizens should be allowed to publically discuss the law and justify it to each other because, once a debate is held and ordinary citizens are allowed to participate and give their point of view together, a better decision is arrived at that satisfies every one other than when an individual expert is acting alone. Citizens will be satisfied when they see that no one is favored or discriminated in the process of decision making thereby avoiding conflicts that could arise if there was no equality and fairness.

Could you use deliberative democracy to solve this dilemma?

(Guttmann, 2009 pp24-25)Deliberative democracy could be used in the case where confederate flag of state of Alabama still flies over the statehouse. NAACP pressurizes the governor to take the flag down while the concern of DAR is preserving the southern heritage. Solution to the controversy of the confederate flag that is acceptable to both groups can be found by meeting with the interested parties. Both parties should be helped to get justifiable conception so that they can agree together whether the flag will continue to fly over the statehouse or will be taken down. Once the two parties decide together, collective decisions will be made based on the reasons why NAACP wants the confederate flag to be taken down and DAR favors the flag to rise in order to preserve the southern heritage. The argument should not be on who should be listened to or whose views will be favored but deliberation will be applied to help those with need that is not provided to accept decision that is made collectively.

The two parties who are arguing about confederate flags should be helped to have a deeper understanding of the need that they have. The consequences of either raising the flag high or lowering it down should be well understood. When the two parties are well informed about their differing needs, they will come together and consider reasoning together and decide on whose need will be considered depending on the merits and demerits of coming to a conclusion that will satisfy them. For the deliberation between the two parties to be successful, both parties should have enough knowledge, equal resources and be ready to listen to the views of their opponents.

The decision made should be mutually respectable in the process of making decision. The source of moral disagreement need to be responded to so that both parties can come to an agreement and consider each other need so that they can get solutions to their differences. When an agreement is arrived at, a decision will be made about the confederate flag and no one will feel that he is discriminated and the other one favored in the process of making decision. The conflicts that arise about the flag should be considered and the two parties helped to reconcile with one another so that they may not confront each other or be threat to security of one another.

What to overcome to help citizens communicate with each other about this problem?

According to, (Guttmann, 2009 pp22-23), the citizens should be helped to understand that both parties have different needs and at the end of it all, one party will be considered and the other party will have to change its view and accept the decision that will be made. The decision to be made will have to be accepted by both parties and it is necessary that the party whose need will not be considered be ready to adjust accordingly so that the disagreement between them may be solved effectively. The people who will be helping both parties to make decision should be neutral and listen to both of them carefully so that after listening to both sides; a fair conclusion can be made that will satisfy both parties. If the decision making process involves people who are in favor of either of the parties, disagreement might arise and the parties involved would not be contented and disagreement might continue even in the near future.

Incomplete misunderstanding should be overcome through a deliberative forum that is well constituted in order to come to understanding of the parties as individuals and collectively. When both parties are involved in an argument, they learn from one another and understand their collective misapprehension for them to develop new policies and views to successfully withstand their critical scrutiny. We should overcome the belief that we know the right resolution before listening to the parties that are involved in conflict. This is because, the decisions we make affect other people and making our decisions alone can affect the issues they have and even complicating the situation and affect the interests of both parties. Deliberation should always be given a chance even if it takes some time so that we may arrive at a genuine conclusion and have defensive ground where the views of both parties are tested fairly.

Presuming consensus could not be attained, the best sort of agreement public administrator secure in resolving the issue is that

Public administrators should allow the people who want the flag to rise and the ones who want the confederate flag to be lowered to vote or have their preferences recorded in survey of public opinion. Then, those who represent the people can decide to base on vote of the majority. The decision of the majority should win because, that is the only way to have a solution and decide on one issue and not the other in order for one of them to hold since it is not possible to consider the need of both parties in a situation where one party has to win and the other one loose.

(Guttmann, 2009 pp20-21) found that, the preferences of the citizens are noted and put in a cost-benefit analysis filter for optimal outcome to be obtained. This involves correction of preferences that are based on faulty heuristics or misinformation and modification of preferences that produce results which are irrational. Experts who have experience are then given a chance to find policies and laws that maximize the welfare of every citizen in order to serve interest of the general public. Use of preferences is necessary for making decision in a democratic way because preferences need no justification and consider the reasons that are significant.

References

Thompson, D. and Guttmann A. (2009) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press, pp 15-25.

Click Here To Order Now!