Other views on deliberative democracy

Galston developed a form of deliberative democracy on the basis of liberal pluralism, that is, tolerance first, then argument, and on this basis, the legitimacy of the public system was formed. Galston clearly pointed out: "As far as the theoretical dilemma is concerned, the confusion of liberal pluralism may lie in his restrictions on public institutions, which may, to some extent, allow some barbaric acts that are obviously based on ignorant concepts in the eyes of liberals, which may weaken the ability of public institutions to some extent; On the other hand, it may also cause' multiple sources of legal power', to some extent, divide the power of public institutions, thus triggering a dangerous uncertainty. However, the political significance of value pluralism is always manifested in the endless debate between the different strength of personality and the organized tendency of * * *. "

Singh also advocates solving ethnic conflicts through a positive and tolerant attitude and establishing an "open discussion institution" based on basic rights. He pointed out: "In the * * * body in which these rights are effective, dialogue is the essence of the democratic process, and it is a kind of politics of the same sex, not hostile politics. It encourages and respects individuality instead of strengthening dissidents who are already in a solid position ..."

Valdez spoke highly of pluralistic deliberative democracy. He pointed out: "It is very necessary to create a fair and lasting pluralistic deliberative democracy, so as to promote mutual understanding and cooperation between different cultural groups, and consultation can coordinate the relationship between multicultural citizens and the state and realize the political, economic and cultural self-determination of ethnic minorities."

Tully also pinned his hopes for freedom and democracy on negotiation. He concluded: "The condition of freedom and democracy is that the rules recognized by members and based on which they cooperate can be negotiated, implemented and supplemented according to the same procedures and values of opening to amendment." This is consistent with the constitutional consultation plan that it has always advocated.

Habermas and Taylor regard the relationship between subjects as a kind of "dialogue", and the embodiment of this dialogue in the design of democratic system is "deliberative democracy". Habermas set the premise for democracy to work. He believes that "the process of democracy can only eliminate the danger of division after it meets the requirements of recognized social justice standards." In fact, this puts the recognition of democracy on culture. Because only culture is the "accepted standard requirement of social justice". Here, Habermas did not mention rights more, but emphasized the importance of identity, thus leaving room for democratic consultation.

Habermas specified the process of deliberative democracy seriously and in detail. Habermas pointed out that when judging the issue of justice, "we strive to find a fair solution, and such a solution must be well-thought-out agreed by all participants (and related parties). Only under the condition of mutual recognition and reciprocity, through non-emphasized dialogue, can we get such approval. " He believes that "the process of deliberation and decision-making must be carried out in such a way that the function of discourse and discussion is like a filtering device, and only those topics and opinions that help to form decisions can pass the' screening'."

Habermas theory

According to Habermas, the process of deliberative democracy is also the process of the formation of * * * knowledge, that is, the process of democracy, which is regarded as jurisprudence by Michelmann. Habermas believes that due to the differences in basic principles, this process will produce various possibilities, among which assimilation, overlapping and negotiation are the most typical three ways.

The first possibility is the so-called assimilation of knowledge, that is, "As long as any concept of justice is inseparably influenced by a special concept of goodness, even when judging justice, it is impossible for us to go beyond the perspective determined by our own self-understanding and world outlook. In this case, people with different backgrounds can only reach an agreement by assimilation, or they give up their own standards and are assimilated by us (Rorty), or we give up our own standards and convert to them (Mai gentile). " It should be said that assimilation emphasizes the transformation and substitution of culture, which is suitable for the transition from traditional culture to modern civilization.

another possibility is overlapping cognition. With Rawls as the representative, Habermas pointed out: "If we consider the diversity of' modern' world outlook, they can tolerate each other because of their inherent universalism potential, then we can expect to reach an overlapping understanding (Rawls) on political justice." Overlapping knowledge is more suitable for the diversity of subcultures. It is not an extreme situation. It is a consistent proposition of liberalism to find the intersection of multiple cultures, thus forming a knowledge of * * *, and establishing democratic politics on this basic knowledge, which is more typical in British and American cultures.

In addition to these two possibilities, Habermas prefers the knowledge of consultation. That is, "relative to their own self-explanation and worldview, each party refers to a moral perspective of * * * acceptance. Under the condition of balanced discourse (and mutual learning), this moral perspective requires various perspectives to constantly dispel their central position."

deliberative democracy is still a democracy based on liberalism. In a multicultural society, the way to achieve multicultural existence is still inseparable from the institutional framework of constitutional democracy. However, modern constitutional democracy lacks responsiveness to the complex reality of cultural diversity, and if it is not reformed, the demands of multiculturalism are hard to meet. Therefore, modern constitutional democracy must update its institutional form to meet the requirements of multiculturalism. All political thinkers, including Rawls, Habermas, Kinlika, Galston and others, have expressed such a wish.

deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of consultation and dialogue in solving democratic problems in the multicultural background, but different people have different opinions on the process of consultation. Tully explained a kind of intercultural dialogue, which is composed of a series of contents such as the principle of freedom and consultation of knowledge, equal treatment and mutual recognition, where participants can create a political system based on their different cultural and political traditions. Seyla Benhabib, on the other hand, puts forward a model of "complex multicultural dialogue", which regards the individual as the core of the process of cultural exchange and competition within civil society. Bhikhu Parekh envisioned a dialogue between the majority and the minority. He set a starting point for this dialogue, one is the "operative public values" in society, and the other is the output process of intercultural evaluation.

in the deliberative democracy mode, Habermas's solution to constitutional patriotism with deliberative democracy as the core is very eye-catching. Habermas put forward the theory of constitutional patriotism to solve multiculturalism on the basis of liberal constitutional framework. Habermas decided: "We must root the democratic process in a kind of" constitutional patriotism "." In this way, Habermas pinned the solution of multiculturalism on the so-called "constitutional patriotism". In his view, every nation-state's interpretation of constitutional principles is based on its own historical experience context, so it can be impartial in ethics.

Constitutional patriotism constitutes a prerequisite for the reconstruction of Habermas' legal order, that is, all legal political and legal systems need to be based on the Constitution. Habermas pointed out: the primary feature of liberal political culture is the belief that "a sense of citizenship that transcends all differences can be created and maintained in a pluralistic society, and this feature is that all people are based on the universal constitutional principle that promises equal rights."

Habermas pointed out: "If any group wants to build itself into a legal entity composed of free and equal members, it must make an original decision. In order to legally regulate their lives through written law, they entered a kind of practice and formulated a constitution for themselves. The significance of constitutional practice lies in exploring and determining the rights that participants must mutually recognize as fair and effective (under the premise mentioned above). Therefore, this kind of practice depends on two prerequisites: taking written law as a binding regulation rule; Take the discourse principle as the guiding principle of rational prudent consultation and decision-making. "

Based on constitutional patriotism, Habermas analyzed the double assimilation of immigrants and political identity from a philosophical perspective. Namely:

"(1) Agree with the constitutional principles within the horizon of interpretation. The horizon of interpretation is determined by citizens' ethical-political self-understanding and local political culture. This means recognizing the institutionalization of citizens' autonomy in the acceptance society and openly using the ways and methods of rational practice;

(2) Further assimilation is to prepare for cultural adaptation. This adaptation is not only familiar with the appearance, but also deeply understands the local lifestyle, cultural practice and cultural customs; This assimilation runs through the integration of ethics and culture, so compared with the political socialization required in (1), this assimilation has a more profound impact on the collective identity of immigrant traditional culture. "

Habermas tried to solve the multicultural conflict with constitutional patriotism based on his negotiation theory. In his view, on the one hand, the ethical connotation of constitutional patriotism can't be detrimental to the neutrality of the legal system to the ethical identity at the sub-political level; on the other hand, it must also strengthen the diversity and identity characteristics of the lifestyles that coexist with each other in a multicultural society. Here, Habermas tries to maintain the neutrality of ethics at the sub-political level, so that the totality of citizens is no longer maintained by some substantive value, but only guaranteed by relevant legal legislative procedures and administrative procedures.

in Habermas' view, citizens need a reasonable belief to maintain political integration, that is, "the freedom of communication in the political sphere, the democratic process of conflict resolution and the guidance of the rule of law countries have laid a good foundation for restraining illegal power and ensuring that administrative power reflects the interests of all." In this way, such a good interaction has been achieved between culture and system, that is, "the legal principle of universalism is manifested in a procedural knowledge, and this knowledge must be generalized to various specific political and cultural historical contexts from the perspective of constitutional patriotism."