Participation; a Constitutional Requirement

Democracy there can be described as a competitive process in which political

parties and candidates offer their platforms and attempt to satisfy the largest number of

people’s preferences. Iris Marion Young is of the view that, individuals in the citizenly

have different preferences about what they want government institutions to do. These

individuals know that other individuals also have, which may or may not match their

own, their own preferences. Citizens with similar preferences often organize interest

groups in order to try to influence the actions of parties and policy-makers once they are

elected and thus the element of participation.

Marion states that, individuals, interest groups, and public officials each may

behave strategically, adjusting the orientation of their pressure tactics or coalition-

building according to their perceptions of the activities of competing preferences (Young,

2000: 19). This assertion is a description of the aggressive model of democracy which is

a part of the conception of democratic processes of policy formation. However, one

might ask how this model accord sufficient attention to the emphasis on effective

participation and enlightened understanding (two criteria which deliberative democrats

believe are vital for achieving a more just polity) and in the process not undermines the

ideal of democracy.

Moreover according to the aggregative model of democracy citizens making

their preferences known through voting process, which is conceived of as the primary

political act, is seen as a way to participate in the decision-making process. However, is

viewed as a narrow conception of participation by deliberative democrats and they

therefore reject it. Deliberative democrats argue that, one must participate in authentic

deliberation and not simply express one’s preferences to be considered to have fully

participated in the decision-making process. Such deliberation requires that parties

reach a consensus among free and equal participates and therefore abandon the

strategic behavior characteristic of the aggregative model of democracy. It is now

evident, again from Young’s that where there is no guarantee of political equity

participation in a constitutional democracy, and this therefore requires a process of

struggle where one of the goals is communicative engagement of citizens with one

another.

Let’s look at Professor Ulrick Beck view on citizen’s participation responsibility in

his Risk Society. In a world risk society, a distinction between ecological and financial

dangers, which can be conceptualized as side effects, and the threat from terrorist

networks as intentional catastrophes; the principle of deliberately exploiting the

vulnerability of modern civil society replaces the principle of chance and accident has to

be made. For example, the anticipation of catastrophic side-effects means that big

companies are increasingly faced with anticipatory resistance to their decisions: No

power plant is built without protest from nearby residents, no oil field explored without

critical scrutiny by transnational NGOs, no new pharmaceutical drug hailed without

qualifications about the known and unknown risks associated with it. In other words,

global risks enforce an involuntary democratization. Through public debate of

consequences, a range of voices is heard and there is participation in decisions which

otherwise evade public involvement.

 From the professor’s view we can make the conclusion that a risk is the

involuntary, unintended compulsory medium of communication in a world of

irreconcilable differences, in which everyone revolves around themselves. Hence a

publicly perceived risk compels communication between those individuals who ignore

each other are compelled to work together. It assigns obligations and costs to those

who refuse them, it overturn their priorities and create contexts for action between

camps, parties and quarrelling nations, which ignore and oppose one another - and who

often even have current law on their side. In other words: these common associated

risks cut through the self absorption of cultures, languages, religions and systems as

well as the national and international agenda of politics and make people participate in

one social risk management. In the process each state, country, culture language and

any other form of grouping have the democratic right, no matter the form constitution

that govern them, and politically entitled to participate in all activities and decisions of

protect themselves from any risks.

 Participation; the Dynamics within the Political

Process

Iris Marion Young is of the opinion that societies can vary in both the extent and

the intensity of their commitment to democratic practice but ultimately democracy .is not

an all or nothing affair, but a matter of degree (Young, 2000: 5). Different conceptions of

democracy for example participatory democracy, social democracy and many more

have been invoked by democratic theorists. But the bottom line is political equality is not

secured by simply ensuring each person is entitled to an equal vote and that the will of

the majority rules and furthermore this equality will underlies the commitment to

democracy,. In his analysis, Robert Dahl (1998) provides the following comprehensive

list of opportunities that must be satisfied if a decision-making process is to be called

democratic; Effective participation, equality in voting, gaining enlightened

understanding, exercising final control over the agenda.

Dahl admits that in the real world it is unlikely that every member of society will

truly have equal opportunities to participate or influence the agenda. But this does not

render these criteria useless. These criteria provide standards against which to

measure the performance of actual associations that claim to be democratic. The list

can serve as a guide for shaping and reshaping concrete arrangements, constitutions,

and political institutions (Dahl, 1998: 42).

Our main concern in this criterion is the effective participation an issue that

narrows significantly the gulf between theoreticians of justice and democracy. The
effects the social distribution of power has on effective participation in the deliberative

process is an element that has made Deliberative democrats concerned and just as the

justice theorists are they themselves are engaged in an ‘equality of what?’ debate.

Deliberative democrats like justice theorists, are concerned with the distribution of

material resources. It viewed that the resources individuals command have an impact

on their position in the deliberative process and thus deliberative democrats must

consider the effects the social distribution of power and resources have on effective

participation in the deliberative process. However, deliberative democrats reject the

narrow conception of participation. To fully participate in the decision-making process,

argue deliberative democrats, one must participate in authentic deliberation and not

simply express ones preferences. The more expansive conception of democratic

participation that deliberative democrats endorse thus ties in well with the third criterion

of democracy Dahl identifies gaining enlightened understanding. A process of

aggregating existing preferences precludes knowledgeable understanding as there is no

attempt to understand, let alone accommodate, the concerns of one’s fellow citizens.

But deliberative democrats believe that their vision of democracy fosters enlightened

understanding among citizens because it embodies the principle of reciprocity

(Gutmann and Thompson, 1996) or the dispositions of reasonableness (Young, 2000).

We can therefore assert without doubt that deliberative democracy bring about a more

extensive principle, the principle of participation.

‘Democratic collective choice- institutionalizing the tie between deliberative

justification and the exercise of public power- must ensure equal rights of participation,

including rights of voting, association, and political expression, with a strong

presumption against restrictions on the content or viewpoint of expression; rights to hold

office; a strong presumption in favor of equally weighted votes; and a more general

requirement of equal opportunities for effective influence. This last requirement

condemns inequalities in opportunities for office-holding and political influence that

result from the design of arrangements of collective decision-making’, this is according

to Joshua Cohen (Cohen, 1996: 106-7).

 Participation; ‘An Unreasonable Woman’
Diane Wilson a person considered as a shrimper and a fighter; for 15 years, she

has been fighting Formosa Plastics' giant polyvinyl chloride facility on the Texas Gulf

Coast between Galveston and Corpus Christi, trying to bring down the giant Taiwan-

based petrochemical plant, a company whose pollution threatens Lavaca Bay where her

family has fished and shrimped for generations. Some of the methods she has used

are; with press releases, civil disobedience, she's been in jail thirteen times, hunger

strikes and lawsuits, Wilson churned the political waters of the Texas Gulf Coast. This

true story analogy is the basis of analyze the nature of participation in decision making

processes. The main principle of Deliberative democrat is an emphasis on the

importance of listening to the concerns of others and the willingness to change one’s

mind. For example to illustrates the basis of participation in any democratic process lets

consider the claims of the Jewish religious fundamentalists who wanted to have their

children exempted from the reading curriculum in Muslim County. Some of the guiding

questions are; should such an exemption have been given? Why or why not? Should

the Jewish parents accept the argument given for rejecting their claims for an

exemption? This is just an

In relation to Wilson’s case just like any constitutional democrats, she has priority

over the democratic process and a purely procedural conception of legitimacy violates

this requirement. Wilson must provide an account of how other important values e.g.

efficiency and national security are to be balanced against concerns for open public

debate, in order to avoid the charges that deliberative democracy. Furthermore, given
the size of democratic societies, deliberative democrats must address the concern that

it is unrealistic to think that we can have both deliberation and mass participation.

Just like Dryzek defends what he calls discursive democracy and Young

communicative democracy, some deliberative democrats endorse purely procedural

principles whilst others endorse substantive as well as procedural principles. Concerns

about the apparent assimilation to liberal constitutionalism have led some critical

theorists to re-cast the idea of deliberative democracy in a more critical light (Young,

1996).

From Wilson’s case we realize that that a deliberative democrat must address

the charge that there is utopianism in ideal of deliberative democracy, it is thus not

realistic to think that we can have both deliberation and mass participation. Walzer, for

example, says that deliberation is not an activity for the demonstrations no matter the

number of times they are held they can’t plausibly .reason together (Walzer, 1999: 68).

It is also argued that, given the size of the population of modern democracies, talk of

citizens engaging in genuine deliberation is just impossible, but Wilson defied all these

odds to mobilize people in her quest to win her rights.

The one thing emanates from all this is that by either restricting the number of

people involved in the deliberation and/or restricting the number of occasions when

popular deliberation should occur is the only way to effectively mean to address the

concern deliberative democracy. By claiming that public reason only applies to

fundamental political questions, such as constitutional essentials and matters of basic

justice John Rawls (1999), for example, employs both strategies, an therefore he is able

to narrows the range of issues that must be deliberated. Furthermore, by distinguishing

between what he calls the public political forum and the background culture, Rawls

restricts the number of people involved in public reasoning. An example where

individuals like judges and government officials and candidates for political office who

must engage in public reasoning when, for instance, they decide legal cases or party

platforms.

We can therefore in conclusion, provide a critical assessment in relation to

attaining an ideal deliberative democracy. This process is difficult for a number of

reasons; for starters, as opposed to deliberative democracy, theorists from various

traditions have associated themselves with the ideal and thus any criticism of

deliberative democracy must be distinguish between the different versions of that ideal.

Secondly, there isn’t any mass of critical literature on the democratic theory because the

deliberative turn was recently developed. On the centrally however, a number of

concerns we be raise, these concerns challenge both the appeal and viability of the

deliberative model. These challenges are not meant dismiss in totality the deliberative

democracy but instead highlight some of the challenges proponents of this ideal that

must be considered. Firstly, a destructive effect may a consequence of appealing to

deliberation and secondly, that the ideal of deliberative democracy is associated with

utopianism.

In analyzing the above challenges we begin with the concern of the destructive

effect that may be caused as a result of deliberation. Consider the example of a number

of friends who are face with the question of where to go for dinner; while it might sound

appealing to use the process of deliberation in order to resolve their disagreement, this

process could undermine the very aim it was designed to resolve. That is, to figure out
where to go for dinner. The friends, who wish to be courteous interlocutors and thus

give each participant a chance to air their concerns, could spend the whole night

deliberating the advantages and disadvantages of the various restaurants. This process

would take time and may even cause them to miss their dinner if they don’t come to

consensus.

Form ’An Unreasonable Woman’, Wilson uses the deliberative process much

often. An important observation we make is that there comes a point when more

deliberation would not resolve disagreements, and as a matter of fact, it might make

things worse because it is mare than evident that deliberation as a transformative

process of can be very time consuming.

Reference

1. Professor Beck, Ulrich. British Journal of Sociology Centennial Professor. Living In

The World Risk Society 15th February 2006.

2. Farrelly, Colin. An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory; Deliberative

Democracy. Sage Publications, 2004.

3. Dahl, Robert A. Political Equality and Political Rights. Articles: 1940-1998

4. Dryzek, John S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics,

Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

5. COHEN, JOSHUA. Freedom, Equality, Pornography. University of Michigan Press,

1996.
6. Young, Iris Marion. Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000,

314 pp.

7. Galston, William. Diversity Toleration and Deliberative Democracy: Religious

Minorities and Public Schooling in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and

Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

8. Gutmann, Amy. Civic Education and Social Diversity. Ethics, Vol. 105(3), 1995: 557-

9. Macedo, Stephen. Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural

Democracy. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2000.

10. Eamonn Callan. Creating Citizens: Political Education and Liberal Democracy

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.