Equality by lot

In a previous post I discussed the “deliberative transformation”, a favorite trope within the theory of “deliberative democracy”. I pointed out that whereas the deliberative democrats see this hypothetical phenomenon as an ideal (maybe the central normative goal of their theory, more important than any policy outcomes), such a phenomenon, if it were really a widespread phenomenon as the deliberative democrats imagine, would be a major obstacle to an allotment-based democratic system (which, it is worth mentioning, is the only theoretically well-motivated schema of a democratic system).

This post considers the ideological structure that is associated with the idea of the deliberative transformation.

It may be claimed that the rather obvious, but of course unadmitted, starting point of the deliberative democracy theory, is that the adherents of the theory are concerned by the fact that the mass of citizens often refuse to support certain ideas that are accepted by the adherents as truth. Classically the reaction to the fact that citizens cannot be depended upon to see things as they are seen by an elite group was to assert that government should be left to those who are enlightened enough to see things as they should be seen. However, in the modern democratic age such crude elitism is unacceptable. Thus, the deliberative democrats seek a cure for the popular disorder. According to this view, deliberation is nothing more than the treatment that the deliberative democrats prescribe to the recalcitrant masses. It is the process which will lead the masses out of the Platonic cave and into the dazzling light of rational thought. If applied correctly, this treatment will inevitably, indeed, by definition of correctness, make the masses accept the objective truths, those that will lead them to support the policy choices preferred by the deliberative democrats.

Deliberative democrats would, however, deny all that. They would solemnly proclaim that they do not seek to promote any specific ideas or policy choices, neither their own nor anyone else’s. Rather they aim to enlighten the entire citizenry, including themselves, through the transformative magic of deliberation. They would assert that they would accept as worthy and democratic any decision that a truly deliberative body would produce, and that a body being truly deliberative depends solely on its procedures rather than on achieving pre-determined outcomes. However, even on this account, the implications of the idea that many citizens can be expected to experience deliberative transformations is contradictory to the basic premise of democracy, which is that citizens are reliable, indeed, the most reliable, judges of their own values and interests.

If citizens’ understanding of the world can only be considered politically valid after they have gone through the transformative experience of deliberation then the typical citizen’s understanding of the world in existing society is invalid. In its pre-deliberation state the citizen is likely to misperceive reality around them. They thus cannot be trusted to represent their own values and interests. Again, this is not a simple matter of being consciously uninformed. According to deliberative democrats, the pre-deliberation state is not a situation in which the citizen reserves judgment or makes a consciously tentative judgment which they are quite willing to change as they seek and obtain new information or as they further contemplate the information they have. It is rather a state where the citizen strongly holds ideas that in their post-deliberation, politically-valid state they come to reject.

In terms of citizens’ values and interests, the transformation can be conceived in two ways. It may be that the citizens keep their interests and values intact through the transformation, but having been mistaken in their judgement before the transformation are now able to perceive their implications correctly and able to apply them correctly in decision making. Alternatively, the transformation causes the citizens to experience a significant change in their values and interests. In either case, the pre-deliberation citizen is unable to effectively represent their post-deliberation values and interests – and according to the deliberative democrats it is those post-deliberation values and interests that count as being the citizens’ true values and interests.

Thus, the adoption of the idea that citizens are transformed by deliberation runs directly against the democratic idea of self-representation, as does any idea that involves the notion that most people in society systematically misperceive reality, or misperceive their own values and interests. Such an idea leads directly to the need for an enlightened elite managing society – either as a permanent ruling class, or at least as an interim vanguard that leads the masses to the light, where finally they will meet the vanguard’s standards and win its approval for graduating to self-rule.

Filed under: Academia, Deliberation, Sortition |