Deliberative democracy seems to belong firmly to the realm of political theory. By contrast, compromise seems to belong firmly to the realm of political practice. Yet since decision making may involve both compromise and deliberation, the question arises as to how the two are best combined? In this paper, we show how this tension might be resolved so that both compromise and deliberation might contribute to a common political process. We argue, deliberation can complement compromise by narrowing the gap between the competing parties. It can help the parties to arrive at a compromise that is fair, though this raises the awkward question of how a compromise can be fair and still be a compromise. In response, we show how distinguishing between different types of conflict allows us to refute the charge that deliberation will dissolve the need for compromise.
