Political deliberation differs from philosophical conversation because decision deadlines constrain it
Evidence
The reference to the agonal trait of politics only yields an objection to the conception of deliberative politics if we confuse the intention of the participants – who, with their utterances, want to make an epistemic (i.e. a justified and rationally criticizable) contribution to the debate – with the naïve expectation that agreement could be reached here and now in political discussions; for the pressure to make decisions means that political discussions, unlike the ‘infinite conversation’ of philosophers, are always subject to time limits. It is precisely the awareness of the pressure to decide that lends the attitude in which arguments based on practical reason are presented and defended its impatient character and sharpness of tone. At the same time, all parties involved are aware that at best reasonable, but for the time being only competing, public opinions can – and should – be generated in the mass communication of the public sphere steered by the media. The citizens should be able to make informed decisions, each for himor herself, in the voting booth in the light of these public opinions. It is only in parliaments and other state institutions that legally binding decisions can be made face to face following democratic deliberation. — Jürgen Habermas, A New Structural Transformation of the…, 97
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies what deliberative democracy does and does not require: epistemic contribution but not consensus-now.
- XREF: Connects to the deliberative-vs-agonistic debate (Mouffe, Chantal) over democracy theory. — connects to: Deliberation occurs only after the decisive project is already chosen.; Multiple coexisting temporalities, not just homogeneous time, shape political responses.; Political action under urgency is a form of bluffing about outcomes — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre: The Riddle of…, 490 (+2 more)
Related
- Deliberation occurs only after the decisive project is already chosen. (similarity 0.84)
Broader Connections
- Political action under urgency is a form of bluffing about outcomes
#expands(0.80) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 490 - Decisions against one’s will arise from situational confluence, not rational deliberation
#complicates(0.75) — Christine Daigle, Jacob Golomb (eds.), Beauvoir and Sartre, 489 - Multiple coexisting temporalities, not just homogeneous time, shape political responses.
#corroborates(0.72)