A Direct Democratic Alternative to The Crisis of Liberal Democratic Representation? On The Practicability of John Rawls' Deliberative Model of Democracy

Semih Altıntaş

Article Details

A Direct Democratic Alternative to The Crisis of Liberal Democratic Representation? On The Practicability of John Rawls' Deliberative Model of Democracy

Authors:

Semih Altıntaş

Publisher:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Main Topics:

Politika ve Yönetim (Diğer)

Journal:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 2, pp.615-646

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324602

pISSN:

2667-405X

Keywords:

Abstract:

 The concept of deliberative democracy, detailed and clearly explained by John Rawls, primarily addresses the problem of how to uphold unity and stability of the society defined by the diversity of individual and collective identities such as ideas, ideologies, lifestyles, and beliefs. This division in society, which basically reflects the state of liberal democracy, is also the thing that creates the need to democratize and deepen liberal democracy. The response to this need from the perspective of the deliberative democratic model is that a divided society can only be held together through institutions established on the basis of equality and justice. Thus, the deliberative democracy emerges as both the ethos and the method for structuring society and institutions on the basis of equality and justice. In its shortest version of the explanation, what is proposed is that members of society should negotiate on their own behalf about a fair order and reach various decisions about its components. In this sense, the model of deliberative democracy seems to rely upon the direct democracy exercise, both in theory and practice, in order to establish and sustain the foundational structures of fair society and politics through ensuring the inclusion of all individuals directly affected by political decisions, which are the citizens in this case, to the deliberation process. Nonetheless, this model faces inherent theoretical challenges related to its conceptual framework, as well as practical obstacles to its implementation possibility, which are intertwined with the problems of direct democracy practice.

 The concept of deliberative democracy, detailed and clearly explained by John Rawls, primarily addresses the problem of how to uphold unity and stability of the society defined by the diversity of individual and collective identities such as ideas, ideologies, lifestyles, and beliefs. This division in society, which basically reflects the state of liberal democracy, is also the thing that creates the need to democratize and deepen liberal democracy. The response to this need from the perspective of the deliberative democratic model is that a divided society can only be held together through institutions established on the basis of equality and justice. Thus, the deliberative democracy emerges as both the ethos and the method for structuring society and institutions on the basis of equality and justice. In its shortest version of the explanation, what is proposed is that members of society should negotiate on their own behalf about a fair order and reach various decisions about its components. In this sense, the model of deliberative democracy seems to rely upon the direct democracy exercise, both in theory and practice, in order to establish and sustain the foundational structures of fair society and politics through ensuring the inclusion of all individuals directly affected by political decisions, which are the citizens in this case, to the deliberation process. Nonetheless, this model faces inherent theoretical challenges related to its conceptual framework, as well as practical obstacles to its implementation possibility, which are intertwined with the problems of direct democracy practice.

 The concept of deliberative democracy, detailed and clearly explained by John Rawls, primarily addresses the problem of how to uphold unity and stability of the society defined by the diversity of individual and collective identities such as ideas, ideologies, lifestyles, and beliefs. This division in society, which basically reflects the state of liberal democracy, is also the thing that creates the need to democratize and deepen liberal democracy. The response to this need from the perspective of the deliberative democratic model is that a divided society can only be held together through institutions established on the basis of equality and justice. Thus, the deliberative democracy emerges as both the ethos and the method for structuring society and institutions on the basis of equality and justice. In its shortest version of the explanation, what is proposed is that members of society should negotiate on their own behalf about a fair order and reach various decisions about its components. In this sense, the model of deliberative democracy seems to rely upon the direct democracy exercise, both in theory and practice, in order to establish and sustain the foundational structures of fair society and politics through ensuring the inclusion of all individuals directly affected by political decisions, which are the citizens in this case, to the deliberation process. Nonetheless, this model faces inherent theoretical challenges related to its conceptual framework, as well as practical obstacles to its implementation possibility, which are intertwined with the problems of direct democracy practice.

 Sınırları net ve detaylı biçimde John Rawls tarafından çizilen müzakereci demokrasi modeli en kısa haliyle fikir, ideoloji, yaşam tarzı ve inanç gibi kimliğin bireysel ve kimi zaman da grupsal olan birtakım öğeleri temelinde ayrışmış bir toplumda bütünlüğün ve istikrarın nasıl korunabileceği sorusuna odaklanır. Temelde liberal demokrasinin ahvalini yansıtan bu bölünmüşlük aynı zamanda liberal demokrasinin demokratikleştirilmesi ve derinleştirilmesi ihtiyacını yaratan şeydir. Bu ihtiyaca müzakereci demokratik model dahilinde verilen cevap bölünmüş bir toplumun ancak eşitlik ve adalet temelinde oluşturulmuş kurumlar aracılığıyla bir arada tutulabileceği şeklindedir. İşte müzakereci demokratik model de toplumun ve kurumların eşitlik ve adalet temelinde yapılandırılmasının hem ethosu hem de yöntemi olarak ortaya çıkar. En kısa haliyle önerilen şey ise şudur; toplumun üyeleri adil bir düzen hakkında kendi adlarına müzakere etmeli ve düzenin bileşenlerine ilişkin irili ufaklı birçok karara varmalıdır. Bu bakımdan müzakereci demokrasi gerek teorik gerekse pratik düzlemde doğrudan bir siyasi karardan etkilenebilecek tüm bireylerin, -ki burada kastedilen vatandaşlar olsa gerektir, hiç değilse toplumun ve elbette siyasetin kurumsal ayağının oluşturulması ve sürdürülmesinde bir doğrudan demokrasi uygulamasına bel bağlamış görünmektedir. Ancak böylesi bir modelin hem kendi yapılandırılmasından kaynaklanan iç-teorik problemleri hem de uygulanma safhasına ilişkin doğrudan demokrasi ile de bağlantılı birtakım pratik sorunları bulunmaktadır.

Article Details

A Direct Democratic Alternative to The Crisis of Liberal Democratic Representation? On The Practicability of John Rawls' Deliberative Model of Democracy

Authors:

Semih Altıntaş

Publisher:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Main Topics:

Politika ve Yönetim (Diğer)

Journal:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 2, pp.615-646

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324602

pISSN:

2667-405X

Keywords: Deliberative democracy

direct democracy

John Rawls

liberal democracy

crisis of representationMüzakereci demokrasi

doğrudan demokrasi

John Rawls

liberal demokrasi

temsil krizi

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Semih Altıntaş

Publisher: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Main Topics: Politika ve Yönetim (Diğer)

Journal: Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 2, pp.615-646

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 12/2024

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001324602

pISSN: 2667-405X

Issues

Authors:

Semih Altıntaş

Publisher:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University

Main Topics:

Politika ve Yönetim (Diğer)

Journal:

Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.26 Issue 2, pp.615-646

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

12/2024

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001324602

pISSN:

2667-405X