|
||||||||||||||||
 |
 Teledemocracy vs. Deliberative Democracy: A Comparative Look at Two Models of Public Talk By Scott London This article examines the differences between two models of public discourse - teledemocracy and deliberative democracy. The concept of teledemocracy has been getting a lot of play in recent years thanks in part to a vast array of new communications technologies. Its advocates believe that innovative forms of electronic discourse, such as talk radio, interactive TV, and computer networking, can remedy many of the shortcomings of representative democracy in a contemporary mass society such as the United States. In their view, new technologies can not only safeguard freedom of expression but also open up new avenues for voicing public opinion and communicating with political leaders. By contrast, proponents of deliberative democracy stress the need for reasoned discussion about issues involving the common good, not as an end in itself but as a prerequisite to effective public policy. While these two models both put a premium on public discourse, they differ not only in their democratic orientation but also in their basic approach to public talk. This essay outlines these differences, surveying the literature on the subject and summarizing the fundamental pros and cons of each model.
This paper examines the differences between two models of public talk. The first, which I call "teledemocracy" (literally "democracy at a distance"), has been getting a lot of play in recent years thanks in part to a remarkable array of new communications technologies. Its advocates contend that innovative forms of electronic discourse can remedy many of the shortcomings of representative democracy in a contemporary mass society such as ours. The second model - deliberative democracy - is founded on the principles of reasoned dialogue and deliberation. These two models,
teledemocracy and deliberative democracy, both put a premium on public
discourse. But, as I hope to show here, the guiding assumptions in each
case are very different. The rationale for teledemocracy is consistent
with an approach to political theory variously termed "rational choice,"
"negative liberalism," or "the logic of collective action" by scholars.
It is founded on a marketplace conception of the political world in
which interests conflict and compete. By contrast, deliberative democracy
is rooted in the ideal of self-governance in which political truths
emerge not from the clash of preestablished interests and preferences
but from reasoned discussion about issues involving the common good.
In the academic literature, this model falls under the rubric of "collective
rationality," "unitary democracy," or simply "deliberative democracy." The Value of Public Talk The freedom to speak, to engage in political conversation, to discuss public issues, and to deliberate about the common good is the hallmark of a democracy. The energy of the democratic idea, as Lewis H. Lapham put it, "flows from the capacity of its citizens to speak and think without cant, from their willingness to defend their interest, argue their case, say what they mean."[1] Political thinkers dating back to ancient Athens have stressed the importance of public discourse and debate. In the fourth century bc, the orator and statesman Pericles recognized discussion among the citizens of the polis as an "indispensable preliminary" to political action.[2] In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle articulated an extensive philosophical rationale for the importance of this process, noting that "the art of legislation" was impossible without reasoned dialogue and deliberation.[3] Modern philosophers, too, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, have reflected on the importance of public discourse. Rousseau deemed it essential to the formation of a "general will."[4] And in his seminal work On Liberty, Mill outlined a philosophical rationale for something he called "government by discussion."[5] The importance of public discourse was also written into the United States Constitution. The founding fathers believed that the only way the people could be sovereign while at the same time subject to the law was to organize government around a system of deliberative discussion.[6] As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis observed,
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. ... They believed that ... the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of American government.[7]The advent of new technologies such as the telephone, radio, and television, has radically changed the nature of public discourse in the twentieth century. Today political communication has mutated into something the framers of the Constitution could scarcely have foreseen. The voluntary associations, public spaces, local newspapers, and neighborhood assemblies of their day have given way to computer bulletin boards, satellite television, and radio call-in programs. This transformation
has been paralleled by a similar shift of emphasis about the underlying
rationale for political discourse. Advocates of the new "teledemocracy"
maintain that since it is impossible for millions of people to have
the sort of participatory democracy available to members of small communities,
such as the Greek polis and early New England towns, new electronic
mechanisms need to be invented to connect citizens with each other and
their leaders. The sort of political discourse they advocate aims not
to foster public deliberation, as it was described by the framers of
the Constitution or the classical philosophers, so much as to safeguard
freedom of expression, provide alternative avenues for the expression
of public opinion, and allow citizens to participate in the processes
of government. Teledemocracy Although the notion of teledemocracy can be traced back to the early nineteenth century, it has attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. This can be partly explained by the advent of technologies such as satellites, fiber optic cable, interactive television, and computer networks which has added a new dimension to political discourse. Some of the possibilities of these new media were demonstrated during the 1992 presidential campaigns when candidates reached out to the electorate using interactive satellite hook-ups, radio and television call-in programs, and live computer conferencing. It seems, however, that the growing interest in teledemocracy has been driven less by technological advances than by a pervasive discontent with the current state of American politics. For instance, Duane Elgin, a proponent of televised town meetings, says that since "virtually all of today's problems are, at their core, communications problems,"[8] new and improved lines of communication are needed between citizens and their leaders. He maintains that the new technologies offer ways for citizens to enter into a dialogue with public officials in such a way that they "will feel engaged and responsible for society and its future."[9] Some proponents of the teledemocracy believe that citizens must reclaim their voice if government is to be accountable to the people. This sentiment was admirably summed up by Donella Meadows in an article in The Los Angeles Times. "Just by venting our opinions" in radio and television call-in programs, she noted, "you and I can scuttle a congressional pay raise, elevate a wise-cracking Texan to a presidential candidacy or bring down a potential attorney general because she hired an illegal alien."[10] Advocates of teledemocracy point to numerous other advantages as well. The following is a list of the principal arguments in favor of electronically mediated political talk:
Deliberative Democracy Following a usage that goes back to Aristotle, philosophic tradition generally takes deliberation to mean the process of the formation of the will, the particular moment that precedes choice, in which an individual or group ponders different solutions before settling for one of them. "We deliberate not about ends," Aristotle said, "but about the means to attain ends."[15] Deliberation is necessary for what is uncertain, when there may be reasons for deciding on one course of action but equally compelling reasons for deciding on another. As German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer observed, "the knowledge that gives direction to action is essentially called for by concrete situations in which we are to choose the thing to be done; and no learned or mastered technique can spare us the task of deliberation and decision."[16] Deliberation has long been considered an essential component of genuine democracy. Government based on the consent of the governed must find ways to mobilize that consent and to "refine and enlarge the public views," as James Madison put it.[17] This requires an ongoing discussion among citizens aimed at setting the agenda for public issues, proposing alternative solutions to the problems on the agenda, supporting those solutions with reasons, and concluding by settling on some alternative. This is, at bottom, a public process which requires the participation and reasoned judgment of the people. Democratic discourse is at the center of what has become known in recent years as public realm theory. Political theorists such as Hannah Arendt and Jurgen Habermas have devoted considerable attention to the importance of public discourse in latter-day democracies. They maintain that an institutional arena of public discourse and civic participation is essential to counterbalance the dual pressures of state and market. They conceive of the public sphere as both a process by which people can deliberate about their common affairs, and as an arena, or space, in which this can happen naturally. Their work is aimed at establishing a normative framework for a robust public sphere as well as preserving it from the erosive influences of modern society. Arendt believed that the in latter-day democracies the "rise of the social" has created a public realm increasingly dominated by non-political - and therefore non-public - elements. Habermas's primary concern is with the changing rationale for politics. He contends that the "structural transformation" of contemporary societies means that the discursive and interactive politics of the past are being increasingly replaced by technical and administrative politics devoid of genuine public judgment.[18] The concept of the public sphere as discussed by Habermas and others includes several requirements for authenticity. These include open access, voluntary participation outside institutional roles, the generation of public judgment through assemblies of citizens who engage in political deliberation, the freedom to express opinions, and the freedom to discuss matters of the state and to criticize the way state power is organized.[19] In A Theory of Justice, John Rawls delineates a number of other conditions as well: adequate information; a norm of political equality in which "the force of the argument" takes precedence over power and authority; an absence of strategic manipulation of information, perspective, processes, or outcomes in general; and a broad public orientation toward reaching right answers rather than serving narrow self-interest.[20] The guiding assumptions underlying the ideal of deliberative democracy can be summarized as follows:
Objections to
the idea of deliberative democracy take several forms. I have encountered
nine distinct points of contention in the literature on the subject:
1) The deliberative model fails to provide a secure foundation for fundamental
liberties.[21] 2) Deliberation is politically ineffective - just "talk."
3) "Cool and sedate reflection,"[22] as the framers would have it, is
not always the best way to reach decisions since it neglects the value
of "intuition" and "gut-feelings."[23] 4) Group decisions are often
based on conformity rather than genuine unanimity. 5) Groups often move
in a closed direction, enforcing some monolithic set of collective values
and shutting the door on alternative viewpoints or minority issues;
(a case in point is the defense of segregation in the American South
which was often justified on rational grounds after extensive deliberation).
6) Some theorists, such as Irving Janis, have found that groups of people
who deliberate together "tend to maintain esprit de corps by unconsciously
developing a number of shared illusions and related norms that interfere
with critical thinking and reality testing."[24] 7) Since genuine consensus
is practically impossible to achieve among individuals who deliberate,
some mechanism for aggregating group ideas may be needed; this ultimately
defeats the purpose of deliberation. 8) The ideal of deliberative democracy
requires broad public participation, yet many people do not wish nor
feel compelled to participate in public discussions. 9) Deliberative
democracy is unrealistic in contemporary mass societies.[25] Conclusion The debate about the future of democracy in the new age of instant and global telecommunications has been chiefly focused on whether technology is compatible with the essential democratic arts. The verdict is not in yet on that question. Nevertheless, it seems clear that two fundamentally different understandings of democracy are at issue in the models of public discourse I have outlined here (see table 1). Teledemocracy, for all its emphasis on new communications possibilities, is an outgrowth of an essentially liberal conception of democracy. In this view, the aim of democracy is to aggregate individual preferences into a collective choice in as fair and efficient a way as possible. The importance of public discourse in this system is to sustain a vibrant "marketplace of ideas." Legal philosopher Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., captured this view when he wrote that "the best test of truth is the power of truth to get itself accepted in the competition of the market."[26] Jonathan Rauch elaborates on this notion in his book Kindly Inquisitors. Democracy is "a self-organizing swirl of disagreements," he says. It is successful as a political system because it is both a problem-finder and a problem-solver. "It puts millions of people to work on millions of problems," and "as we check and criticize and find common ground, as we propose ideas and they fall apart and we try again, our knowledge advances."[27] Proponents of deliberative democracy are skeptical of this view. Political truths emerge from public deliberation, they contend, not the competition of ideas. The underlying premise in each case is the same - political preferences will conflict - but the purpose of democratic deliberation is to resolve or even transcend the conflict, not aggregate a myriad of preestablished interests. It stresses the capacity of citizens to be swayed by rational arguments and to lay aside particular interests in deference to overall fairness and the collective welfare of the community. The two models differ not only in their democratic orientation but also in their basic approach to political talk. Teledemocracy stresses the importance of informal political conversation - peer group discussions, talk-radio, neighborhood salons, and so on - in helping citizens to forge links between their private experiences and the highly abstract world of public events. Deliberative democracy is characterized by the pursuit of some specific truth or course of action. William Gamson, in his book Talking Politics, characterized this distinction as the difference between "sociable" and "serious" public discourse.[28] The one is more immediate or spontaneous, uninformed, unreflective; the other is more deliberative, taking longer to develop and resting on a fuller consideration of information and arguments. In sum, talk about the common good is one thing, sincere efforts to advance it are another.
TABLE 1
Models of Public Talk:
Teledemocracy vs. Deliberative Democracy
TELEDEMOCRACY DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
Public opinion and citizen Aggregated opinions do not con-
feedback are essential to stitute public judgment
good governance
Dynamic public discourse Political truths emerge from
fosters a healthy market- public deliberation, not the
place of ideas competition of ideas
Effective political talk The most effective political
is vertical - between talk is lateral - between
citizens and policymakers citizens
With new technologies, Self-governance requires collec-
citizens can govern tive decision-making
themselves
The speed of the new Speed is inimical to public
technologies can enhance deliberation
democracy
Free speech is the cor- Democracy is founded on the
nerstone of democracy principle of dialogue, not
monologue
Public participation must Quality, not quantity, is the
be increased measure of democratic partici-
pation
Citizens need equal access Information, usually seen as the
information to precondition of debate, is
better understood as its
by-product
Notes 1. Lewis H. Lapham,
The Wish for Kings: Democracy at Bay (New York: Grove Press,
1993), p. 41.
|
|||||||||||||||
 |