The Paradoxes of Deliberative Practices

Critiques of theories of deliberative democracy have often pointed out the practical difficulties of achieving good deliberation. Scholars of deliberative democracy have responded by implementing pilot projects specifically designed to overcome such limits. For example many deliberative practices have introduced random sampling, facilitators and structured discussion to overcome criticism about inclusion and quality of deliberation. However these now routinised solutions offer a new set of challenges that has not yet been evaluated in depth. In this paper, drawing on examples from recent deliberative practices we highlight three hidden paradoxes that have not yet been sufficiently treated in the literature: 1) how challenges in sampling techniques and practices of recruitment problematize the theoretical conception of inclusive microcosms 2) how the quasi-lab settings of innovations affect the validity of these processes as political practices, 3) how the framing and nudging techniques employed to achieve good deliberation challenge the autonomy of participants. If the ideal of deliberative democracy can never be achieved through these forms of practice, should we seek an approximation at the cost of emasculation?