One of the many features characterizing contemporary world is the fact that it is – to large extent – decentralized. The plurality of different subjects, individual as well as collective, scattered at various levels constitutes the phenomenon crucial to the persistence of democratic system. It is so due to the network of connections between subjects (‘centres’) which depend on each other’s resources (e.g. mutual relations between parties/politicians and electorate/voters). Although pluralism, described and defended by the (post)modern democratic theory, is the necessary condition for democracy, it itself poses some threats, mostly of subtle nature. Taken at face value, it masks the fact that subjects within the polycentric network can have diverse positions and the relations between them can be asymmetric which leads to the petrifaction of status quo: constant inequalities, even exclusions. If liberal democracy must be based on formal (“narrow” and “thin”) pluralism, every alternative theory of democracy should go beyond this assumption. It must show that it is likely to establish democratic power upon public discourse engaging enough number of subjects in order to cover vast majority (if not whole) of the society. I argue that even though the concept of deliberative democracy captures pretty well the idea of “subjectless” power, it cannot be objectively justified why deliberation has advantage over other democratic mechanisms (e.g. voting, bargaining) in maintaining the balance of powers within society (substantial, “wide” and “thick” pluralism). Conversely, it can be argued that deliberation also petrifies social and political system, especially when few strong players take control of the public sphere (effective access to and impact on the decision-making) or in the situation of dominance of one central actor (e.g. powerful state institutions) subjugating peripheral ones (e.g. weak civil society). The ultimate point I would like to make here is the conclusion that the quality of democracy depends not only on the quantity of participants of the political process but also on the quality of their activity contributing to the quality of the entire process. These two dimensions are equally important and should be taken into consideration in analyzing particular patterns of democracy.
