Necesidad de una reforma constitucional en materia de derechos municipales.

The previous parts reviewed deliberative democracy’s main ideas and principles and the different approaches within it. Before discussing more particularly how diaspora communities fit within a deliberative democratic framework, I will first clarify my position in relation to the different principles and approaches within the theory of deliberative democracy.

My approach to deliberative democracy is more traditional: I tend towards the classical ‘deliberative’ approach rather than the ‘discursive’ one. I therefore favour substantive and epistemic accounts of deliberative democracy over procedural ones. Deliberative democracy faces legitimacy problems if the decisions it produces violate substantive principles of freedom and equality. Deliberative democratic theory loses much of its appeal if it does not aim to produce epistemically superior results. It can succeed in doing so only if the process of deliberation consists of an exchange of reasoned and rational arguments.

The very nature of deliberative democracy is based on the assumption that reason- giving has the capacity to change minds.371 _{One of the main aims of deliberation is to}

induce citizens to reconsider their convictions by exposing them to other people’s arguments and claims. We all have a moral obligation to reconsider our positions honestly when others challenge our views and beliefs. As Rousseau said, what characterises an individual who is a part of a civil state is that he needs to ‘consult [h]is reason before listening to his inclinations’.372 _{Chowcat also states that ‘our orientation}

towards others must be one of openness to dialogue’.373 _{This is, I think, the central point}

370 _{This approach is described in Levy and Orr, above n 8, 24.} 371 _{Gutmann and Thompson, above n 8, 20.}

372 _{Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract (eBooks@Adelaide, 2014th ed, 1762) chapter 8.} 373 _{Chowcat, above n 312, 751.}

88 of deliberative democracy. Deliberative democratic theory is more convincing when it advocates deliberation among rational agents who recognise each other’s equal status and are committed to a reciprocal standard of reason-giving. A permissive approach, which requires merely the free exchange of opinions and narratives without a commitment to seriously reconsidering one’s position and changing one’s mind if needed, is not a truly deliberative approach.374

It would be hard to achieve the aims of deliberative democratic theory if we expanded the scope of deliberation and treated a wide range of speech activities, such as story telling and narrative exchanges, as valid instances of democratic deliberation.375 _A

deliberative democratic process should end in a vote in order to be collectively binding.376 _{Clearly, an engaged and lively ‘civil society’ has important positive impacts}

on public policy.377 _{However, as desirable and beneficial as these activities may be, they}

are not part of a decision making mechanism. As such, they belong to a much broader concept of political engagements that include a diverse toolbox of political activism and social interactions.378

It should be stressed that advocating reason-based deliberation does not exclude minorities, women or the poor. True, if we establish that reason-based arguments should be the main way through which to conduct deliberation, then it naturally follows that this will undermine the ability of some individuals to participate. However I agree with Gutmann and Thompson’s argument that assuming disadvantaged groups to be less reasonable is misleading and prejudiced.379 _{There are many women and minorities’}

representatives who can talk convincingly and present compelling rational arguments in support of their causes. In fact, progress in these causes has been achieved due to such representatives making good arguments that succeeded at changing people’s views.

374 _{See Ibid 750.}

375 _{For arguments of why story-telling and narratives are important for political communication see}

Young, above n 10, 73–74.

376 _{Song, ‘The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State’,}

above n 12, 45; Hansen and Rostbøll, above n 8, 508; Nino, above n 2, 118.

377 _{Dryzek, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, above n 236, 100.} 378 _{See Dennis Thompson, ‘Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science’ (2008) 11(1)}

Annual Review of Political Science 497.

89 If we want to reduce majoritarian biases and give equal respect to minority groups and to less popular opinions, the power of the good argument will serve us better. A more permissive approach or purely procedural approach will be insufficient to achieve such outcomes. Such approaches may simply empower the majority, or the wealthy who can influence public opinion through expensive media campaigns.

The mere fact that one group has a majority in a given population at a given time is a kind of unfair bargaining power. The most effective and long-term solution to such a problem can only come in the form of free exchange of opinions and reasons, through which the minority can win minds and hearts among the majority. The appreciation of good argumentation over majority voting is widespread among deliberative democrats. Mansbridge et al. opine that: ‘[t]he more an issue involves basic rights and fundamental justice, the less ought it to be decided by votes conceived simply as the exercise of power in a field of competing wills’.380 _{Similarly, O’Flynn notes that: ‘[p]ublic deliberation}

privileges reasoning over bargaining or the strength of the better argument over the sheer force of numbers’.381 _{Hansen and Rostbøll state that: ‘[t]he point of deliberative}

democracy is to reform society to conditions that approximate the situation in which political decisions are the results of good arguments rather than bargaining power’.382