Friday, December 01, 2006
Comment on Scholar84's Observation Report
Although Scholar84 raises a valid point that citizen deliberation can potentially result in solving public problems in a more democratic fashion than is allowed through conventional (representative or delegative) democracy, a further distinction between the two functions of citizen assemblies needs to be made. On one view, such citizen bodies can be understood to properly engage in the process of deliberation with the ultimate aim of finding a solution to the problem at hand by using constructive critical evaluation of the issues. Under this first conception of assemblies’ function, the overall approach therefore reflects an honest search for the best solution that most excellently reflects the good of society in large. On another view, however, citizen bodies, functioning within the accepted context of pluralism, conceptualize the common good through an aggregation of citizen interests, which thereby involves a different kind of deliberation that aims to reconcile diverging interests by eliminating those that involve poorly framed arguments and constructing a compromise between acceptable reasons.
As a result of making this distinction, it can in turn be analyzed which one of these two different functions of citizen assemblies can best pursue a more democratic solution to dealing with public issues. Although under the first conception of deliberative citizen bodies public problems are discussed for the sole purpose of arriving at the best answer, this ultimate outcome is to a degree compromised by applying the second conception of citizen assemblies, as an aggregation on interests is necessarily less capable of achieving an objectively good outcome since it can only reflect a summation of subjective interests that together form a pluralist common good. The truth in the matter, however, is that Canadian society embraces the notion of pluralism via its celebrated policy of multiculturalism, which therefore leads us to accept as de facto the second function of citizen assemblies that reflects a grant reconciliation project.
In accordance with the view of citizen bodies where the process deliberation ends being an instrument of aggregating various interests, I am therefore lead to agree with Scholar84 that the emphasize on ‘reason’ does not in turn eliminate the concern for ‘interests’ from deliberative discussion. I realize that by accepting as de facto the view of citizen assemblies as mediums of reconciliation, I thereby deny the usual distinction that is raised by the proponents of deliberative democracy who differentiate their approach from a more adversarial form of democracy that involves bargaining and interest-aggregation by politicians. Within the context of subjective pluralism, however, I contend that realizing a normative conception of deliberative citizen bodies, which aim to objectively solve public dilemmas, is an unattainable possibility. As a result, the arguments from self- and group-interest are necessarily prone to develop in citizen assemblies, as the application of reason within the current deliberative structure can only provide for an aggregation of seemingly equally valuable arguments that in the end diminishes assemblies’ objectivity in their approach to public dilemmas. The question then necessarily remains whether a modern pluralist society is at all capable of objectivity within the realm of politics, which I think was answered by Canadian multiculturalism that embraces citizens’ subjectivity while at the same time keeping it in check by granting all individuals legal rights recognized in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which provides the objective check on the aggregation of subjectively-held interests.
