Free Research Paper About The Practice Of Deliberate Democracy In U.S

1.0 Introduction
The work of Fishkin (2009) defines deliberate democracy as a school of thought in political theory that emphasizes on the fact that citizens should apply reasonable discussion and debate to reach an ultimate judgement. People exchange arguments and agree on analytical procedures and appropriate action plans that lead to the public good. Fishkin (2009) argues that deliberation is a necessary ingredient in the deliberate democracy. The paper will provide historical view and theoretical foundation of the practice and application of civic participation. The study will also describe how an individual can express the right of public involvement and highlight challenges as well as opportunities in deliberate democracy.
2.0 History of deliberate democracy
Reference to Rostboll (2008) reveals that Joseph M. Bessette first came up with the idea of deliberate democracy. The phenomena acted as the Majority in the U.S Republican Government. Fishkin (2009) explains that in America, the introduction of the concept aimed at transforming politics on an extensive scale. The proponents of the idea in U.S wanted to inculcate the belief that democratic leadership should entail enlightening of constituents regarding prevailing political issues. According to Rostboll (2008), the advocators stated that rule of law should shift away from fixed notions of a learning process where people come up with defensible ideologies. Centre for Deliberate Democracy, America emphasized the need for consensus building and a steady process of deliberation among citizens. As Rostboll (2008) points out, John Rawls and Jurgen Hermas were one of the early influencers of deliberate democracy. The duo advocated for application of logic in forming a foundation for a just political society. Rawls argues that use of reason promotes a fair political community where equal rights accrue to all political participants. Turning to Fishkin (2009) one finds that embracing deliberate democracy secures future participation of the citizens in a country’s democratic undertakings. The philosophers argued that achieving legitimate and consensual decisions call for fair procedures and clear communication to a nation's inhabitants.
The American proponents argued that the essence of the concept was to promote democratic legitimacy and authentic deliberation leading to collective decisions. Fishkin (2009) however argues that introduction of deliberate democracy in U.S was a challenge to existing models and institutions of democracy establishing the centers advocating for the involvement of public created opportunities for democratization. Embracing the concept according to Fishkin (2009) enable citizens to utilize results originating from informed reasoning. The initiators of the phenomenon in America called for deliberative polls in choosing people to act as representatives of U.S demographics such as age, gender and education.
In a study of Rostboll (2008), Fishkin (2009)found that the advocators in early America called for proactive citizen participation in the democratic process not by merely voting for or against candidates but giving the residents a platform to discuss and build a consensus on fundamental political issues. Voters develop an in-depth comprehension of policy matters as well as rational moral principles. Fishkin (2009)perceptively states that the founder of conservatism endorsed deliberate democracy stating that the government legislative arm should be a deliberative assembly. The American President Barrack Obama gave an opinion that the American constitution should embrace the concept of active public participation. Today the Unites States has successfully, implemented the idea of deliberate democracy in approximately all disciplines by promoting worldwide political reform movement (Fishkin, 2009).
3.0 Theoretical foundation of Deliberate Democracy
3.1 Theory of deliberative and aggregative democracy
According to Fishkin (2009), the paradigm outlines the inputs of deliberation procedure as the public preferences and the output the social choice. The concept has three stages i.e. the pre-deliberation, the post-deliberation phase and the aggregation phase. Fishkin (2009) notes that the third stage represents social choice. The model states that for an efficient outcome, deliberation has to occur more than once. The discussions represent the citizen’s current beliefs and best current estimate to form strong relations. Cohen, one of the model proponents, says that voting in a country that upholds deliberative democracy expresses views regarding correct, reasonable policies supported by the majority. The individual beliefs in a democratic society are subject to change owing to a process of deliberation. Fishkin (2009) terms the model as an account of decision making leading to adjustments in light of the evidence provided. Expression of personal views and opinions cultivates strategic behaviour. The model makes assumptions that individual preferences made are perfect and that each holds logically possible preferences (Rostboll, 2008). The framework emphasizes the fact that individuals should undertake an active role in debates to reach a reasonable judgement. The preferences among various persons in a group may differ as a consequence of being in a persuasion group.
3.2 Cohen’s outline of deliberative theory principles
Joshua Cohen laid conditions that according to him formed the foundation principles of deliberative democracy. The theorists describe several features that include:
A continuous independent engagement with expected progress.
Structuring of democratic institutions to make deliberation the deciding factor.
Respecting and showing commitment to pluralism values.
Upholding deliberative and transparent procedure as the source of legitimacy
Compliance with each other's deliberative capacity in persuasion groups
Cohen terms deliberative democracy as not just a theory of legitimacy but a body of rights to realize ideal deliberation. Citizens in a democratic society conform to the principles and preconditions of deliberation and comply with the decisions reached. Rostboll (2008) argues that the participants have to give reasons for the proposals suggested because the rejection or acceptance depends on contents given. Cohen's ideas suggest that members stand on an equal level ground in the sense that any citizen in a persuasion group can propose, criticize or support measures (Rostboll, 2008).
The model states that deliberative democracy does not have substantive Hierarchy. Moreover, the participants are equal and not constrained or bound by any authority, resources or preconceived group norms. A deliberative democratic system establishes the framework for free discussions among equals. The model further states that mechanism supported by deliberation demands a rationally motivated agreement to reach a majoritarian decision making. Cohen reiterated on the need for democracy and liberty and emphasized the importance of upholding logical pluralism, a concept stating that any system of authority should accept divergence of views and conflicting citizen opinions. Fishkin (2009) asserts that good faith in deliberative democracy ensures coexistence on mutually agreed terms.
4.0 Active citizen participation
A study by Fishkin (2009) shows that proactive participation takes forms such as individual volunteerism in for example an electoral process or organization undertaking. A growing body of evidence reveals that public participation improves the governing system and serves as a community builder. Citizen involvement in various forms helps a community and to the extension a nation to grow to form a stable basis for government roles. A country where the public volunteers and participates in various undertaking achieves trust between citizen and state system resulting in improvement of public behaviour.
The agenda attains favourable results on sensitive issues ultimately developing creative ideas and remedies. Fishkin (2009) says that when citizens voice public, electoral or political views, a country's government system implements plans, programs, and proposed policies expeditiously. Rostboll (2008) rightly points out that such as political system creates involved citizens but not dependent and demanding customers. The agenda reinforces democracy by availing tangible improvements to citizen’s lives. Active engagement enables citizens to understand the entitled rights, basis of citizenship, politics and entire government system (Fishkin, 2009). The public can make informed decisions and sound policy choices through comprehension of proper use of authority.
5.0 Problems solved by participation
Rostboll (2008) feels that active participation increases and reinforces political involvement of people in a country. Fishkin (2009) states that through participation citizens engage public officials and political leaders on important community issues to the common good of inhabitants. The public through active involvement can take actions such as demonstrations to transform the way the country’s institutions behave and exercise of politics. Citizens can advocate for specific policies so that the government can prioritize on the most important issues to help settle toxic matters such as increased poverty, deteriorating healthcare and failing system of education (Fishkin, 2009). Calling the government to attend to fundamental issues results to the willingness of public officials to work on behalf of citizens. The agenda helps create a stable political system eliminating issues such as societal oppression and crimes such as bribery and embezzlement of public. Rostboll(2008)explains that participation creates a healthy civil society with responsible citizens and government officials. The public and the leaders work towards accomplishing a shared civil life vision.
6.0 Exercising right of civic participation
In an article by Rostboll (2008) individuals can exercise the right of civic engagement through measures of public engagement that include voicing of civil, electro and political opinions. A citizen can take part in community problem solving, regular volunteering for an electoral organization or participating in a fundraising or a walk to raise finances for a noble undertaking such as charity. Rostboll (2008)postulates that civic participation can also take forms such as running for a political office, voting regularly during elections, mobilizing other citizens to vote or take an initiative to put displaying buttons, signs or stickers during a democratic process undertaking. I can take an active role in making campaign contributions as well as registering voters during voting exercise (Fishkin, 2009). Citizens can undertake civic participation by voicing political views for example by contacting government officials to enlighten the leaders of an important community issue, liaising with print and broadcast media to report an irregularity such as prejudicial killings by police. Furthermore, the public can undertake protests, make an email petition, boycott a significant public activity such as voting or make written request to a court expressing disinterest in an absolute undertaking by the government (Fishkin, 2009).
7.0 Resources
Fishkin (2009) argues that strengthening one's civic participation calls for utilization of resources such both print and electronic media, for example, to pass out a political opinion or dissatisfaction regarding a certain issue. I would, for instance, report crimes such as extra-judicial killings, embezzlement of public funds and drug peddling by a public official to the media to expose the evils to the public domain. Letting the world know the acts instigated by the civil servants would necessitate necessary action taken against them such as apprehension, therefore, bringing to an end as well as sounding a warning to other individuals attempting to undertake similar actions. Moreover, I would employ tools such as human right groups to carry out protests and demonstration to express dissatisfaction towards certain malpractices such as oppression by a state government. The initiative would catch government attention towards addressing critical issues such as security, health, education and poverty, in particular, regions (Rostboll, 2008).
8.0 Field of action and goals
The civic participation engagements would revolve around the Political field of action. The undertaking would entail pressing the government to undertake important issues to the common good of citizens.
8.1 Goals
The goals conform to the concept of democratic governance such as political equality, non-discrimination, public participation and inclusion, indivisibility as well as accountability and the rule of law (Rostboll, 2008). The goals will align with principles of deliberative democracy, for example, pragmatic orientation, deliberate solution generation, bottom-up participation, devolution, recombinant as well as state centered leadership. Accomplishing the plan and the goals would assist in improving the living standards amongst citizens, uniform distribution of resources and country's wealth as well as assured access to quality health care and education (Rostboll, 2008).
9.0 Challenges of deliberative democracy
9.1 Educating elected leaders
According to Rostboll (2008), difficulties exists where elected leaders lack sufficient know how to enforce the principles of deliberative democracy. The number of leaders advancing the critical agenda is insufficient to handle and cause the change a country’s democracy needs most.
9.2 Engaging media
Fishkin (2009) reports that media has failed to take an active role in building public engagements method and capacity. Rostboll (2008) notes that the fraternity has become more fragmented and less fact based. Instead of taking a critical role, the media society is just reaffirming deficient existing systems. Deliberative democracy field faces a challenge in partnering with the press to spearhead the collective decisions entrenched in deliberative processes.
9.3 Solutions
Rostboll (2008) explains that to address leadership challenge, diverse stakeholders should take part in building professional development. The parties should emphasize on leadership that begins from the top. Organization should train, orient and support elected officials. Furthermore, settling media challenge should entail undertaking notable efforts to recapture media foundation (Fishkin, 2009). Partners in the political arena, civic groups and other independent bodies should take an active role in rejuvenating media role as a provider of information and positive narrative.
9.4 Existing opportunity
Research by Fishkin (2009) suggests that an opportunity exists where deliberative democracy practitioners identify policy areas where governments find it hard to consolidate decision makers and stakeholders to secure active engagement in public deliberation. A chance exists in making elected leaders and managers see the value of deliberative democratic strategy.
References
Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rostboll, C. F. (2008). Deliberative freedom: Deliberative democracy as critical theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.