Search

Ist die deliberative Demokratie ein konservatives Modell? Beruht es auf Mechanismen, die in systematischer Weise seinen emanzipatorischen Anspruch unterminieren? Der Aufsatz beantwortet diese Frage im Anschluss an KritikerInnen der deliberativen Demokratie in Hinblick auf drei Dimensionen. Die zeitliche Dimension betreffend wird untersucht, inwieweit das deliberative Modell einen den Status quo bewahrenden Charakter hat. In der sachlichen Dimension wird eine Tendenz zur Entpolitisierung diskutiert. Für die soziale Dimension thematisiert der Aufsatz die potenzielle Exklusion bestimmter sozialer Gruppen und ihrer Perspektiven aus dem Deliberationsprozess. In Auseinandersetzung mit einschlägigen Ansätzen der deliberativen Demokratietheorie und mit Befunden der empirischen Deliberationsforschung gelangt der Aufsatz zu einem differenzierten Bild. Demnach lassen sich potenziell konservierende Tendenzen in der deliberativen Demokratie auffinden. Gleichzeitig wird argumentiert, dass diese Tendenzen vermeidbar sind, wenn einerseits das genuin kritische Potenzial deliberativer Praxis gegenüber anderen Elementen des Modells hervorgehoben und andererseits die Notwendigkeit der institutionellen Einbettung deliberativer Prozesse in Verfahren der repräsentativen Demokratie berücksichtigt wird. Is deliberative democracy a conservative model? Is it based on mechanisms that systematically undermine its emancipatory claim? Drawing on the work of critics of deliberative democracy, this essay answers those questions by considering three distinct dimensions of the problem. First, with regard to the temporal dimension, it examines the extent to which the deliberative model tends to uphold the status quo. Then, as far as the material dimension is concerned, it considers whether deliberative democracy encourages depoliticization. Finally, the essay investigates the social dimension: Are certain social groups and their perspectives potentially excluded from the deliberation process. By examing relevant approaches taken both by theorists of deliberative democracy and empirical research on its actual implementations, the authors reach some nuanced conclusions. While it is true that potentially conservative tendencies can be identified in deliberative democracy, those tendencies can be avoided in two ways. First, the genuinely critical potential of deliberative practice must be emphasized in preference to other elements of the model. Second, we must bear in mind that deliberative processes should be embedded institutionally in the procedures of representative democracy.

This article presents a novel analytical account of the relationship between deliberation and representation by reconstructing the specific institutional logics that guide deliberative action in parliaments. In contrast to the dominant generalised paradigm in empirical deliberation research it develops a contextualised-systemic approach. The article argues that the parliamentary context is characterised by a tension between two equally legitimate institutional logics: a discursive one, institutionalised through parliamentary procedures, and a positional one, constituted by relations of representation. The resulting theoretical model links the specific institutional and situational conditions to different forms and functions of deliberation. Depending on the specific balance between both logics deliberation fulfils functions of either integration or contestation. The model is applied to a comparative analysis of different cases of parliaments demonstrating how this account can advance both the comparative analysis of deliberation in representative institutions and the development of deliberative democracy after the systemic turn.