Discourse, Deliberation and Difference in an Authoritarian Public Sphere

Constructing a world beyond ethno-cultural and/or religious barriers require an environment that fosters meaningful discourse and deliberation in the public sphere between different groups. The underlying idea is that discourse and deliberation produce an association between groups of difference through ‘public argument and reasoning among equal citizens’ (Cohen 1997, 2). The ultimate goal is to produce a discourse ethics and deliberative process in which ‘the unforced force of the better argument prevails’ (Habermas 1990, 159). This conceptual setup has been salient in the context of the public sphere in democratic societies. The intentions are to acknowledge and listen to the views of all members in a pluralized public sphere, with the primary aim of creating a society in which common values can be established beyond ethno-cultural and/or religious barriers. However, the role that discourse, deliberation and difference play in authoritarian regimes has not been sufficiently explored. This is not altogether surprising considering the assumption that the hierarchical and restrictive nature of authoritarianism is incongruent with these conceptual precepts. This paper suggests that this is not necessarily the case; and in fact, discourse, deliberation and difference has a theoretical space, and practical function, in authoritarian regimes. The paper will proceed as follows: In the first section, I will discuss a framework for understanding and analyzing discourse ethics and deliberative processes in the public sphere. The second section will focus on the politics of difference, and an examination of difference within the boundaries of a social perspective. The third section will examine how discourse, deliberation and difference function both theoretically and empirically in authoritarian contexts, with special reference to contemporary China.