Evaluate James Bohman’s contribution to theories of deliberative democracy.

Deliberative Democracy and James Bohman

This assignment’s aim is to analyze the James Bohman’s contribution to theories of

deliberative democracy. This article has three different parts. Firstly, this article will give
definition of democracy and the models of democracy. And then, try to explain theories of
deliberative democracy. Finally, try to evaluate James Bohman’s contribution to theories of
deliberative democracy.

The term of democracy is familiar to everyone. In nowadays the term of democracy are
viewed in positive terms by all different political claims. However, in view of Beetham and
also Heywood, the term of democracy is not always tended to be viewed in positive terms.
However, all political participants declared that they are democrats now, nobody is against
democracy today. According to David Beetham, most of people has own definition of
democracy. And this causes a trouble because each of answers is very different from other’s
answers.

“Here, for example, is a list of some of the things people have called ‘democracy’ over the
past fifty years or so: rule of the people, rule of the people’s representatives, rule of the
people’s party, the well-being of the people, majority rule, dictatorship of proletariat,
maximum political participation, elite competition for the people’s vote, multi-partyism,
political and social pluralism, equal citizenship rights, civil and political liberties, a free or
open society, a civil society, a free market economy, whatever we do in the UK or USA, the
‘end of history’, all things bright and beautiful.” (Beetham, 2005; 1)

There are enormous varieties of meanings cause to try to give a definition of democracy. The
origin of the term is derived from the Greek: δημοκρατία - (dēmokratía) "rule of the people",
which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power" in the Ancient
Greece. According to Beetham, there are two important key stones for democracy. The first
one is an effective working example of assembly. And second one democratic practices
included the rotation of citizens in turn, selected by lot, to serve on an executive body or
council, and to act as jurors in the courts.(Beetham, 2005; 3) After this starting points, we
can give a basic definition of democracy.
“Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, delivered in 1864 at height of the American Civil
War. Lincoln extolled the virtues of what he called ‘government of the people, by the people,
and for the people. What this makes clear is that democracy links government to the people,
but that this link can be forged in a number of ways: government of, by and for the people”
(Heywood, 2007; 72)

In light of above, Beetham suggests that democracy belongs to collective and public decision
which is depends on some principles. First one is the principle of the equal citizenship.
Second one is the full information and discussion on all issues for collective decision without
any restriction. Third one is that all citizen have right to be elected for key elective office and
all elected representative can be judged for their decisions.

After this definition of the terms of democracy, in view of Heywood, we can mention the four
contrasting models of democracy. They are;

 Classical democracy
 Protective democracy
 Developmental democracy
 People’s democracy.

Classical Democracy:

“The classical model of democracy is based on the polis, or city-state, of Ancient Greece, and
particularly on the system of rule that developed in the largest and most powerful Greek city-
state.”(Heywood, 2007; 76) In view of Heywood, the most important key is direct participant
to government, as result of this; the classical democracy is a form of direct democracy.1 In
addition to, Heywood claims that the model of Athens’ democracy had important influence
on later thinkers such as Rousseau, and Marx.2

Athenian democracy depended on direct rule. All citizen have right to attend the assembly
which decided all major decisions. Only some full-time elective office, If need, were elected
by lot. According to Heywood, the Athenian democracy is remarkable because the level of
political activity of its citizen is higher than the level of political activity of most modern
democratic countries of its citizen. “Nevertheless, the classical model of direct and
continuous popular participation in political life has been kept alive in certain parts of the
1
Heywood, Andrew. Politics. Palgrave Foundations. Third edition, 2007, chapter 4, p76
2
Ibid. p76
world, notably in the township meetings of New England in the USA, and in the communal
assemblies that operate in the smaller Swiss cantons.”(Heywood, 2007; 77)

Protective Democracy:

According to Heywood, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is the re-discovered of

the democratic ideas. However, this form was very different from the classical democracy in
Ancient Greece. “In particular, democracy was seen lees as a mechanism through which the
public could participate in political life, and more as a device through which citizens could
protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence protective democracy. This
view appealed particularly to early liberal thinkers whose concern was, above all, to create
the widest realm of individual liberty.”(Heywood, 2007; 77)

In view of Heywood, this desire can be traced back to Aristotle’s response to Plato: “who
will guard the Guardians?”(Heywood, 2007; 77) and also is relative with bourgeoisie’s
desire. The main concern is to protect the individuals against the government. In Heywood’s
opinion, although the early liberal thinkers wanted voting in regular and competitive
elections, the political equality did not mean equal voting rights. “Protective democracy has
therefore particularly appealed to classical liberals, and, in modern politics, to supporters of
the New Right.”(Heywood, 2007; 78)

Developmental democracy:

According to Heywood, after the early liberal thinkers focused the democratic theory and
theorized to protect individual rights and interest, this cause to develop an alternative concern
about the rights of the human individual and the community. Moreover, this concern causes
to form new models of democratic rule that can mostly be referred to as systems of
developmental democracy.3 The most important and influenced thinker about developmental
democracy is Jean Jacques Rousseau. “In many respects, Rousseau’s ideas mark a departure
from the dominant, liberal conception of democracy, and they came to have an impact on the
Marxist and anarchist traditions as well as, later, in New Left. For Rousseau, democracy was
ultimately a means through which human beings could achieve freedom or autonomy, in the
sense of ‘obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself’. In other words, citizens are ‘free’
only when they participate directly and continuously in shaping the life of their
community.”(Heywood, 2007; 78)

3
Ibid.
In view of Heywood, Rousseau’s ideas are more radical than classical conventional national
of electoral democracy, and provide the basement to raise more radical idea of direct
democracy. Heywood suggested that there is a priori condition which each of citizen act and
give the decision as to general will4, in contrast to his/her individual will. The meanings of
obeying the general will, “citizens are therefore doing nothing more than obeying their own
true natures, the general will being what individuals would will if they were to act selflessly.
In Rousseau’s view, such a system of radical developmental democracy required not merely
political equality but a relatively high level of economic equality.”(Heywood, 2007; 78-79)

Heywood argued that Rousseau’s theories helped the New Left thinkers to shape the modern
idea of participatory democracy in the 1960s and 1970s. The meaning of participatory society
is that every citizen in the society can achieve to shape his/her life by participating in all
decisions. “This goal can be achieved only through the promotion of openness,
accountability and decentralization within all the key institutions of society: within the
family, the workplace and the local community just as much as within ‘political’ institutions
such as parties, interest groups and legislative bodies. At the heart of this model is the notion
of ; grass-roots democracy’: that is, the belief that political power should be exercised at the
lowest possible level.”(Heywood, 2007; 79)

According to Heywood, the developmental democracy is based on the writing of John Stuart
Mill. Mill argued that democracy provide to development of individual capacities to reach to
highest level. Participating in political life provide citizens to improve their understanding,
sensibilities and reach to a higher level of personal development.5 Heywood argued that Mill,
like as most of liberals, rejected the political equality. He suggested that political opinion is
valuable as its own persons. He suggested a system of plural voting. “Mill’s particular
concern was that democracy would undermine debate, criticism and intellectual life in
general by encouraging people to accept the will of the majority is now always right; wisdom
cannot be determined by simple device of a show of hands. Mill’s ideas therefore support the
idea of deliberative democracy or parliamentary democracy.”(Heywood, 2007; 80)
According to Elster, Mill was most important advocate of “government by discussion”(Elster,
1998; 4)

4
General will: The genuine interest of a collective body, equivalent to the common good; the will of all
provided each person acts selflessly. (Heywood, 2007; 78)
5
Ibid.
People’s Democracy:

The term of ‘people’s democracy’ was appeared in aftermath of the Second World War. This
term is based on the orthodox communist regimes that were derived from the Soviet model.
The term of people’s democracy refer mostly to the several models of the Marxist tradition
has generated.6

According to Heywood, Marxists have tended to be dismissive of liberal or parliamentary

democracy seeing it as a form of bourgeois or capitalist democracy. In view of Heywood, the
people’s democracy is a variety of direct democracy in theorically. Both of Lenin and Marx
supported the direct democracy in communist society such as Paris Commune of 1871
(Marx) or Soviets (the workers’ and soldiers’ and sailors’ councils). However, power in
Soviet quickly failed to the Bolshevik Party in reality.

In light of definition of democracy and the models of democracy, the article continues to
analyze the deliberative democracy and several of deliberative democracy.

Deliberative Democracy:

According to Heywood, “deliberative democracy is a form democracy that emphasizes the

need for discourse and debate to help define the public interest.”(Heywood, 2007; 448) In

addition this definition, there are several definitions of the deliberative democracy, such as:

“Deliberative democracy refers to a conception of democratic government that secures a

central place for reasoned discussion in political life.”(Cooke, 2000; 1) “For another

example; deliberative democracy refers to the idea that legitimate lawmaking issues from the

public deliberation of citizens. As a normative account of legitimacy, deliberative democracy

evokes ideals of rational legislation, participatory politics, and civic self-governance. In

short, it presents an ideal of political autonomy based on the practical reasoning of

citizens.”(James Bohman, 1997, x) According to Hunold, deliberative democracy theorists

focus on the process of decision and discuss, on the contrary of the traditional democracy

6
Ibid.
theories. “Discussions of the nature of deliberative politics define deliberation as an

alternative form of decision making that is fundamentally distinct from traditional liberal

democratic processes such as decision making by responsible elites or the aggregation of

individual interests via majority decision or strategic negotiation.”(Zittel, 2003; 7) In view of

Elster, “the deliberative democracy refers to decision making by discussion among free and

equal citizens.”(Elster, 1998; 1) Elster argued that the deliberative democracy was re-

discovered in the middle of 1990s and the end of 1990s. In addition his claim, he suggested

that this re-discovered was broadly influence of Jurgen Habermas. “The idea that democracy

revolves around the transformation rather than simply aggregation of preferences has become

one of the major positions in democratic theory.”(Elster, 1998; 1) Moreover, Elster argued

that the theory of deliberative democracy and its practical implementation can be traced back

to Ancient Greece. In his opinion, deliberative democracy was viewed both good and bad.

One side argued that discussion is one of the key stone to improve decision making. On the

other side, discussion influence on decision making badly, and cause to deceleration of

decision making. In view of Elster, although the Ancient Greece government was based on

direct democracy, that is not exactly deliberative democracy because most of proponent of

deliberative democracy were not in the Ancient Greece. However, the Ancient Greece forms

a basic model for the deliberative democracy. He argued that the re-emergence of democratic

government was established from two thousand years after the Ancient Greek democracy had

came to an end. However, this re-emergence of democratic government is different from

Ancient Greece government, because in this model based on representative democracy rather

than direct. In addition to, this innovation causes “the nature of political deliberation

changed.” (Elster, 1998, 2) “As the beneficiary of this rich heritage, the concept of

deliberative democracy that has emerged in the last two decades represents an exciting

development in political theory.” (Bohman, 1997, x)

In Elster’s opinion, deliberative democracy is related with a process of collective decision

making. “the notion includes collective decision making with participation of all who will be

affected by the decision or their representatives: this is the democratic part. Also, all agree

that it includes decision making by means of arguments offered by and to participants who

are committed to the values of rationality and impartiality: this is the deliberative part. These

characterizations are somewhat rough, but I believe they capture the intersection of the

extensions reasonably well.” (Elster, 1998; 8)

Deliberative democracy and James Bohman:

According to Bohman, conceptions of lawful administration have been a site of strong clash

—both in idea and in reality—since the beginning of modernity. To be aware of what is at

chance in deliberative politics, we must give one matter particular concentration. “Proposed

as a reformist and sometimes even as a radical political ideal, deliberative democracy begins

with the critique of the standard practices of liberal democracy. Although the idea can be

traced to Dewey and Arendt and then further back to Rousseau and even Aristotle, in its

recent incarnation the term stems from Joseph Bessette, who explicitly coined it to oppose

the elitist or ``aristocratic'' interpretation of the American Constitution.”(Bohman, 2006;

400)

According Bohman, deliberative democracy is successor of the tradition of ``radical''

democracy which have always been related with their vision of popular and inclusive

participation with an emphasis on public discussion, reasoning and judgment.7He argued that

deliberative democracy is now also improved by interest for applicability. “In developments

over the last decade, proponents of deliberative democracy have moved further away from

participatory conceptions of citizenship and the common good and towards the very

institutions they originally rejected as impossible locations for public reasoning. This new,
7
http://0-www3.interscience.wiley.com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/fulltext/119131130/PDFSTART
practical emphasis on feasibility is perhaps the most striking feature of the recent boom in

theories of deliberative democracy that I will survey here. Far from being merely a

``realistic'' accommodation to existing arrangements, I show that this concern with feasibility

leads to a richer normative theory and to a fuller conception of the problems and prospects

for deliberation and democracy in the contemporary world.”(Bohman, 2006; 400)

According to Bohman, the early formulations of ideal of the deliberative democracy in the

1980s and 1990s, deliberative democratic thinkers were always contrary to aggregation and

to the strategic behaviour encouraged by voting and bargaining, such as Elster; “ in a process

of collective decision making, the preferences of the members are subject to three operations:

aggregation, transformation, and misrepresentation. Aggregation of preferences, as i use the

term here, is a synonym for voting. It includes vote trading, a form of bargaining. The

transformation of preferences through rational deliberation is the ostensible goal of arguing.

Misrepresentation of preferences can be induced by each of the three decision making

procedures. Voting can be strategic; bargainers often have an incentive to present themselves

as less risk averse or impatient than they actually are; and the impartial stance of those

involved in deliberation may be a disguise for other motives.” (Elster, 1998; 6)

According to Bohman, the deliberative democracy is more effective method, which citizen

can participate to the process of decision making, than competitive pluralism. He argued that

the meaning of ‘forum’ provide this superiority of deliberative democracy over competitive

pluralism. “Moreover, the superiority of deliberative democracy over competitive pluralism

was established precisely by developing the distinctive rationality of ``the forum'' rather than

`the market’. Rather than simple compromise or bargaining equilibrium, the goal of

deliberation was consensus, the agreement of all those affected by a decision.” (Bohman,

2006; 400) According to Bohman, while some concerned about committing deliberative

democracy to such a dichotomous characterization of democratic politics that so strongly split

real and ideal circumstances of legitimacy, the desirability of deliberative democracy for

various was accurately its pledge to go beyond the limits of liberalism and to evoke the

stronger self-governing ideal that government should represent the ``will of the people''

shaped during the public way of thinking of people.8 “Deliberative democracy, largely

defined, is thus any one of a family of views according to which the public deliberation of

free and equal citizens is the core of legitimate political decision making and self-

government.”(Bohman, 2006; 400) According to Bohman, there are three different ways to

survey the ideal of deliberative democracy theories in practical interest for applicability.

“First, theories of deliberative democracy have come to emphasize the process of

deliberation itself, rather than its ideal and counterfactual conditions and procedures. This

has led to an increasing emphasis on the epistemic as well as moral aspects of public

justification. Second, deliberative democrats have become increasingly interested in the

problems of institutionalization, of making institutions such as voting and majority rule,

representation, courts and constitutional law more deliberative rather than rejecting them

for more direct democracy. Third, deliberative democrats are concerned with examining and

comparing different settings and procedures of deliberation, pointing out empirical problems

and obstacles that cannot always be anticipated by conceptual argument alone.” (Bohman,

2006; 401)

According to Bohman, when we defying these problems of justification, institutionalization

and empirical obstacles, the contrary someone thinks these problems has not abandoned its
initial promise, this defying give thinkers to form the ideal of deliberative democracy to
have ``come of age'' as a complete theory of democracy rather than simply an ideal of
legitimacy.9
“It remains, however, an important theoretical task to determine better and worse ways for

deliberative democracy to assess the feasibility of its account of legitimacy and institutions.

8
http://0-www3.interscience.wiley.com.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/fulltext/119131130/PDFSTART
9
Ibid.
The current emphasis on practical and empirical constraints could lead to arbitrary results:

sometimes to premature surrender to existing forms of democracy and at other times to an

overly critical attitude towards the necessary components of any viable democracy. It could

also founder on an overly determinate conception of social facts or univocal interpretation of

democratic norms, both of which would ignore the ways in which deliberative institutions

could increase the problem solving capacities of democracy even in unfavourable

circumstances.” (Bohman, 2006; 401)

“Ideal proceduralists could try to ignore these problems of justification, but only by arguing

that the proper ideal deliberative procedure is ``constitutive'' of the correctness or the

legitimacy of a decision so long as certain conditions are met. If, as Estlund points out, one

identifies correctness with what citizens would agree to under ideal conditions, then it is

difficult to underwrite the epistemic side of the deliberative ideal: that is, it would be difficult

to show why deliberation improves the quality of the decision in the sense that it is more

likely to be true, just, or well-justified. Estlund suggests that if the epistemic claims for

deliberation are to be vindicated, procedure-independent standards are necessary (whatever

they might be). If this is the case, then the epistemic justification of an outcome seems to be

independent of such ideal conditions that are elaborated in democratic deliberation. Instead

of fairness of the ideal conditions, the issue becomes the reliability of a procedure (given

some independent standard). This sort of standard is presupposed by Condorcet's theorem as

it has been used to defend deliberative democracy.” (Bohman, 2006; 403)

According to Bohman, there is one problem which is that this standard of objectivity is not

essentially operational in deliberation itself. Deliberative democracy seems trapped on the

horns of a dilemma: if it founds its ethical qualifications of legitimacy by an ideal process, it

cannot endorse its epistemic claims; “if it establishes its epistemic claims, they can only be

underwritten by standards that are not only procedure-independent, but also independent of
deliberation. Such epistemic norms seem more appropriate for theoretical reason. Thus, the

dilemma is escaped only if deliberation adequately combines both the epistemic and moral

norms of practical reason.” (Bohman, 2006; 403)

Conclusion:

This assignment’s aim is to analyze the James Bohman’s contribution to theories of

deliberative democracy. This article has three different parts. Firstly, this article gave
definition of democracy and the models of democracy. And then, tried to explain theories of
deliberative democracy. Finally, tried to evaluate James Bohman’s contribution to theories of
deliberative democracy.

When we try to define the term of democracy, we recognize that most of people has own
definition of democracy. And this causes a trouble because each of answers is very different
from other’s answers. The term of democracy belongs to collective and public decision which
is depends on some principles. First one is the principle of the equal citizenship. Second one
is the full information and discussion on all issues for collective decision without any
restriction. Third one is that all citizen have right to be elected for key elective office and all
elected representative can be judged for their decisions. After these definitions, the article
explains the models of democracy.

They are;

 Classical democracy
 Protective democracy
 Developmental democracy
 People’s democracy.

Developmental democracy is one important model for this article because this model can be
recognized as basement for the deliberative democracy. According to Elster, Mill was most
important advocate of “government by discussion.

After the analyzing model of the democracy, the article starts to explain deliberative
democracy and James Bohman.
In light of above, I argued that James Bohman is one of the most important thinkers about

deliberative democracy. Generally he tries to defying the problems of deliberative democracy

in light of practical concerns about feasibility. According to Bohman, there is one problem

which is that this standard of objectivity is not essentially operational in deliberation itself.

Deliberative democracy seems trapped on the horns of a dilemma: if it founds its ethical

qualifications of legitimacy by an ideal process.

Reference:

Beetham, D. 2005. Democracy: a beginner’s guide. Oneworld Publication

Bohman, J. 1996 Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge,

Bohman, James and William Rehg, eds. 1997a. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and

Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Bohman, J. 2006. Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy. The Journal of

Political Philosophy: Volume 6, Number 4, 1998, pp. 400±425

Cooke, M. 2000. Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies: vol .48, 947-969.

Elster, Jon. 1998. Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge University Press. Introduction Chapter

Heywood, Andrew. 2007. Politics. Palgrave Foundations. Third edition, chapter 4

Hunold, C. 2001. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, Vol .14, No.2

Zittel, T.2003. Participatory Democracy and Political Participation. The joint Seasons of Workshop of

the European Consortium.