Between Substance and Procedure:
Two Traditions in Deliberative Democratic Theory
Senior Lecturer at the School of Integrated Communications, Faculty of Communications, Media, and Design, National Research University Higher School of Economics, firstname.lastname@example.org_id: 819141 | ORCID: 0000-0002-4285-750X | RESEARCHER_ID: K-5893-2015
The article was prepared with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “Expert Institute of Social Research” (Grant No. 19-011-31546)
There is growing criticism of deliberative democracy from agonistic positions, which makes it relevant to revitalize Rawls and Habermas’ debate on the concept of the political. Habermas’ position has become dominant in deliberative democracy: the majority of both empirical and theoretical studies rely on the proceduralist, rather than on substantionalist tradition. In contrast with Rawls, Habermas simply states that political process is not limited by the political system and does not articulate the idea of the political. This paper promotes the concept that substantialist tradition is more promising for political theory due to the idea of the political. To justify this idea we briefly discuss both projects, sum up the Rawls-Habermas debate, and then scrutinize the concept of politics in both approaches. The paper shows that political liberalism focuses on the conditions of deliberation, rather than on philosophical construction of the deliberation rules as Habermas does. Rawls differentiates the metaphysical and the political as autonomous modes of thinking, acknowledging that the latter contains its own epistemic and normative claims. At the same time Rawls’ concept of the political needs to be partly reconsidered. Political liberalism should acknowledge the dyadic nature of politics. One the one side, legitimate doctrines politically subordinate illegitimate doctrines. On the other side, political tensions are permanently produced by the co-existence of various legitimate doctrines. This correction strengthens Rawls’ arguments in his debate with Habermas and enriches deliberative democracy by the topics of violence, power and freedom, which are central to political theory.
Berlin I. 1999. Does Political Theory Still Exist? – Berlin I. Concepts and Categories: Philosophical Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press. P. 143-172.
Chambers S. 2003 Deliberative Democratic Theory. – Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 6. P. 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
Chambers S. 2009. Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? – Political Theory. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 323-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709332336
Democracy and Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political. 1996. Ed. by Benhabib S. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 384 p.
Dryzek J.S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 195 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.001.0001
Dryzek J.S. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 256 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562947.001.0001
Finlayson J.G. 2016. Where the Right Gets in: On Rawls’s Criticism of Habermas’s Conception of Legitimacy. – Kantian Review. Vol. 21. No. 2. P. 161-183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415416000017
Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. 2011. Ed. by Finlayson J.G., Freyenhagen F. New York; London: Routledge. 328 p.
Habermas J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 631 p.
Habermas J. 2011. “The Political”: The Rational Meaning of a Questionable Inheritance of Political Theology. – The Power of Religion in the Public Sphere. Ed. by E. Mendieta, J. VanAntwerpen. New York: Columbia University Press. P. 15-33.
McCarthy T. 1980. Kritik der Verständigungsverhältnisse: Zur Theorie von Jürgen Habermas (suhrkamp taschenbuch wissenschaft). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. 643 s.
Mouffe C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: New York, Verso Books.192 p.
Pedersen J. 2012. Justification and Application: The Revival of Rawls-Habermas Debate. – Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393111414723
Rawls J. 2005. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press (Expanded edition). 576 p.
Tarnopolsky Ch. 2007. Platonic Reflections on the Aesthetic Dimensions of Deliberative Democracy. – Political Theory. Vol. 35. No. 3. P. 288-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591707299951
Yack B. 2006. Rhetoric and Public Reasoning. An Aristotelian Understanding of Political Deliberation. – Political Theory. Vol. 34. No. 4. P. 417-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591706288232
Young I.M. 2001. Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. – Political Theory. Vol. 29. No. 5. P. 670-690. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3072534 (accessed 30.05.2019).
Aristotle. 1997. Nikomakhova etika [Nicomachean Ethics]. Moscow: EKSMO-Press. 73 p. (In Russ.)
Habermas J. 2001. Moral’noye soznaniye i kommunikativnoye deistviye [Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. 380 p. (In Russ.)
Habermas J. Vovlecheniye Drugogo: ocherki politicheskoy teorii [Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. 417 p. (In Russ.)
Held D. 2014. Modeli demokratii [Models of Democracy]. Moscow: Delo. 544 p. (In Russ.)
Kapustin B.G. 2010. Kritika politicheskoi filosofii: Izbrannye esse [Criticism of Political Philosophy: Selected Essays]. Moscow: Territory of the Future. 424 p. (In Russ.)
Schmitt C. 2016. Ponyatie politicheskogo [Der Begriff des Politischen]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. 567 p. (In Russ.)
The concept of deliberative policy in modern political process. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No5
Political theory. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3
Round Table of the «Polis» Journal, Kara-Murza A.A., Chugrov S.V., Zubov A.B., Rashkovsky Ye.B., , Zhukova O.A.,
Russian liberalism and christian values. – Polis. Political Studies. 2011. No3
Political Ethics. – Polis. Political Studies. 1993. No1
US political discourse under the presidency of G. Bush Jr.: evolution of metaphors. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No1