Towards a New Deliberative Quality: From Unitary and Idealised to Pluralistic and Re-Politicised Visions of Deliberative Democracy

Many researchers and practitioners have understood (and understand) deliberation as a fixed and unitary construct that quasi-automatically supports and strengthens democracy. Yet, empirical research shows that the classic deliberative core can collide with democratic goods. Moreover, deliberative scholars have long focused on “ideal” institutions, such as deliberative mini-publics or institutional settings in politics that promote classic deliberative ideals. But “ideal” institutions in politics reduce deliberation to a rare event; and a focus on deliberative mini-publics means focusing on events that rarely lead to consequential outcomes in the polity and may even undermine democratic legitimacy. In our new book Mapping and Measuring Deliberation, John Parkinson and I understand deliberation as contingent, dependent on different contexts and goals. Moreover, our new approach also understands deliberation as performative and distributed. On this basis, we re-politicise deliberation. Not only is it necessary to broaden the analytical lens and study deliberative action in all kinds of sites of a democratic system, we must also adapt our deliberative ideals to the variegated contexts and goals of deliberation. Finally, we must also grapple with the ´Goldilocks´ question that there may be too much deliberation, requiring us to think of balancing moments between deliberative and democratic ideals.