Searching for the Place of Deliberation in Deliberative Systems

Empirical research on deliberation typically focuses on deliberation within specific institutional settings such as parliaments and deliberative mini-publics. Indeed, studies on political behavior suggest that deliberative interactions are not very likely to occur spontaneously but rather in institutional contexts which allow for representation of a diversity of viewpoints and encourage balanced consideration. At the same time, research focusing on micro-deliberation has been criticized for making deliberation exclusive or even irrelevant. The systemic turn in deliberative democracy emphasizes the diversity of forms of political engagement, and especially those forms enhancing inclusion of the disempowered. Arguably, systemic theories have tendency to perceive various forms of political action, such as mobilization, participation and negotiation, through the deliberative lens and hence give rise to so-called concept-stretching. Moreover, the most functionalist accounts do not seem to provide adequate criteria for the evaluation of the quality of deliberative systems. This paper aims to outline a hierarchical model of deliberative systems where the quality of deliberative interactions at empowered forums is regarded as pivotal for the whole system. It is argued that i) the quality of deliberation at empowered forums depends on their capacity to deal with different societal discourses; ii) the quality of deliberation at empowered forums has spillover effects on the public sphere; more precisely, inclusive and high-quality deliberation at these forums incentivize and socialize citizens to adopt more deliberative modes of participation. While the hierarchical model of deliberative systems retains the clarity of the concept of deliberation, it is based on the idea of connectedness of different parts of the system. The model entails specific causal claims on the effects of empowered deliberation, and these claims should be a subject to empirical testing. In this paper, the model is illustrated through an analysis of a specific democratic innovation, i.e. the Finnish agenda initiative.