Populism and democracy: The challenge for deliberative democracy

Abstract

Theorists of democracy have long grappled with the question of how to uphold the promise of popular government while restraining populist excesses. The deliberative conception of democracy proposes to do so by subjecting power to collective decision making through procedures of free and equal public deliberation. Critics of this idea often target its realizability. Though valid in theory, they claim, deliberative democracy is hopelessly utopian. The paper argues that, given a proper understanding of the deliberative approach and its underlying ideal of collective self‐government, this line of criticism is not very potent. However, another line of criticism, less pronounced in the contemporary debate, is more effective, questioning the very cogency of public discussion, even by a competent public, as a means of collective self‐government. Open public discussion is prone to various forms of manipulation and deception, which subvert rather than facilitate self‐government. Deliberative democracy's egalitarianism and populism therefore run counter to its deliberative aspiration, which underpins its ideal of democratic legitimacy.

The future of global environmental assessments: Making a case for fundamental change

“…. .’ (Sharon, 2018: 360). Populism is typically ‘anti-establishment’, non-pluralistic (it presumes ‘the people’ share a common interest) and rests on an us-them binary in order to galvanise its followers.…”

Emancipation Against All Odds? The Conservatism Charge to Deliberative Democracy Reconsidered

“…Other critics emphasize the vulnerability of public discourse to manipulation and deception. From this perspective, the very dependence of deliberative democracy on public discussion provides the ground for interested actors to use their powerful resources to manufacture public opinion, thus undermining the authentic self-governance of citizens (Przeworski 1998;Sharon 2019). However, deliberative democratic innovations (e.g., designed participatory forums) are also targeted and are even seen as vehicles for oligarchic indoctrination by a sophisticated political minority that managerially directs and controls the proceedings in line with its own particularistic views (Tucker 2008).…”

“…They argue that the deliberative model (1) has conservative or anti-democratic implications (Sanders 1997: 348), (2) has oligarchic tendencies (Tucker 2008), and (3) furnishes a mechanism for controlling or manipulating the voters because, under its influence, voters will not make electoral decisions that serve their own best interests (Przeworski 1998). More recent scholarship argues that deliberative democracy is fatally blind to power relations and conflicts of interest in politics (Shapiro 2017) and thus can only maintain existing power relations (Banerjee 2021) rather than contribute to effective self-governance (Sharon 2019).…”

Locke, liberty, and law: Legalism and extra-legal powers in the Second Treatise

“…21. This conception of liberty as self-government is more commonly associated with Rousseau, Kant, and others in the democratic tradition (like deliberative democrats (see Sharon, 2019), as well as republican theorists like Quentin Skinner and Philip Pettit (but see Sharon, 2016: 128-155), while Locke is usually associated with the idea of liberty as non-interference, which informs the liberal idea of limited government. As I hope to have shown in this section, this view of Locke is at best incomplete.…”