An article published in Political Theory
Journal in January 2017 discussed the moral versus procedural aspects of deliberative
democracy. The article analysed different theories and positions of renowned
theorists, including the two preeminent post-WWII philosophers,
John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas
regarding the role of reason in political accord. The author, Dereker Barker, suggests
that deliberative theory sees politics as an integrative model, and seeks to
locate the process of public will-formation on formal processes that adhere to certain
rule, rather than a sense of collective identity. Collective identity, whether
considered in its most individualist or communitarian form forms a baseline for
public reasoning in a general and broad sense, and not a representation of
individualist sense of morality. Haberman refuses – as quotes in Three Normative
Models – that political questions be reduced to the type of ethical questions
we ask ourselves regarding who we are and who we would like to be. He rejects
collective identity as the basis of a deliberative model, whose legitimacy lies
in impersonal formal processes.
Barker argues that deliberative democracy requires
a shared civic culture of mutual understanding of differences. It does not require
an intense sense of social solidarity, but needs citizens to share habits, inclinations
and capacities to engage in communication across their differences. He also
explains that according to Rawl, public reason enables citizens to see liberal
democratic institutions in public terms, independent of their particular moral
and religious worldviews. Public reason necessarily requires to reason from
others’ perspective, whilst considering at the same time that public reasoning
might be jeopardised when it conflicts with their personal interests and
beliefs.
In this context, it is necessary to consider the difference
between pluralist liberalism and civic republicanism. The latter seeks to
establish social harmony, while the latter demonstrates a lukewarm acceptance
and tolerance to differences. Reason
that tolerates differences or reason that is based on common beliefs is a
question that must be addressed in nations that are witnessing rapid changes in
their cultural landscape.
Should a growing community of Chinese immigrants be
forcefully influenced by the western code of conduct so that deliberations
would be based on common understanding, or should their views be respected and
untouched but not taken into account on the premises of ‘majority rules’. What is
more important, preserving culture or exerting influence?
The collective identity of any society is destined
to metamorphose, owing to changes in its composition and to the developing religious,
ideological and intellectual bases. However, if this change is witnessed uniformly
across a homogenous society, political deliberations would be successful and public
reasoning would be void of individualistic considerations. The picture is not
quite the same when it concerns a society that is composed of a segregated society
that favours political marginalisation to an identity loss.
As an immigrant/expat myself, I still do not know
whether reason or heart should decide on this.
Derek Barker (2017) Deliberative Justice and Collective Identity: A Virtues-Centred Perspective, Political Theory, 2017, Vol. 45 (1) 116-136
Comments
Post a Comment