Deliberative democracy and direct democracy are two democratic ideologies. Direct democracy origins emerge from the Athenian political era in Athens Greece approximately 500 AD. Deliberative democracy emerged in the 1980’s when Joseph M. Bessettea coined it as a new style of democracy. Both have similarities and both have enough differences to give enough scope for compare and contrast of both democracy types. This essay will deliver as much information as is needed to show the difference and similarities of both democracies.  Both democratic models have strengths and weaknesses. The essay looks at direct democracy in smaller communities in the Athenian political system of 500AD onwards. Deliberative democracy is also discussed within the 20^th and 21^st century perspective. Analysing both democracy models to reach the answer to the question; which one is the most convincing theory? Direct democracy and deliberative democracy both have different elements that make them individual democracy theories. Before we get into the details of where these democracies enter our modern world, it is necessary to try and define what both democracies are.

 

Direct democracy is a democratic model from Athenian era 500AD onwards. The political system of the time allowed every eligible citizen to discuss and vote on the issues within their cities. Athenian direct democracy was open to all, no matter what their wealth was. However its processes had limitations, slaves could not take part in Athenian direct democracy.  Modern day political systems do not include the style of direct democracy as the Athenians did, because once the cities became too large citizens found it more difficult to discuss issues with millions of people (Dahl, 1989). Governments now replace direct involvement of citizens in 20^th and 21^st century modern political systems (Budge, Held 2003).

 

Deliberative democracy is a modern type of democratic process.  It allows citizen and institution to deliberate modern day issues in a vast complex world. The process brings together micro and macro institutions along with citizen polling and jury.  With cooperation and interests the deliberative model allows a platform to enhance quality decision making. The process exposes the general feel of towns, cities and communities, (Fishkin, 1995). Creating a more honest and relevant decision for better living conditions and happier citizens.

 

Democracy is ever evolving, what may be democratically relevant today may not be democratically relevant tomorrow. The evidence of that is in the Athenian democratic system from 500 AD which promoted direct democracy amongst citizens (Dahl, 1989, Thorley, 2004). It is best to establish early on in this essay that Athenian direct democracy is best suited to smaller civilizations. It is simply because in larger civilizations it becomes more difficult to apply the direct democracy model. However it does not rule out direct democracy as a way for future civilizations to engage with, if they find a way to communicate in larger groups efficiently. Whereas deliberative democracy is suited to larger civilizations because it has the capability to reduce the amount of citizens participating and still represent the whole community. The difference between direct democracy and deliberative democracy is that deliberative democracy is a branch of institutional government; whereas direct democracy is the people themselves governing directly. The link both these democracies have is they require some sort of citizen involvement to function. Establishing people are at the core of democratic thinking is noticeable because one of democracy’s aims is to promote happiness of citizens within society. A happy citizen is a better functional citizen and that functionality shifts from self-interest to community interest (Dahl, 1989). It is interesting at this point that both direct democracy and deliberative democracy can make citizens happy.

 

Direct democracy by the Greeks allowed all denominations of society to interact with the politics and decision making of their time. The question is, how does can direct democracy be relevant to a modern world? Budge, (1993) suggests, direct democracy can be relevantly linked with the modern world because people are more skilled; more educated and can be better trusted with decision-making than ever before. Deliberative democracy is a good example of indication that trusts and responsibility can be given to everyday citizens, Fishkin (2009). Decision-making within the Athenian democratic model of direct participation was successful in smaller groups. As larger populations began to emerge and coupled with eras such as the industrial revolution, democracy in its original model of directness became non-existent. The movement from direct participation of citizens to non-participation of citizens is linked to the expansion of humankind, Dahl, (1989).

 

However the disconnection over a few centuries was overcome by the introduction of voting in the early 20^th century for both men and women.  It creates a link from the Athenian democratic model to the present democratic model.  It also helps provide a way for citizens to interact with decision making on a large scale. Budge (1993); suggest that populations are better at judging governments, not policies. If Budge is correct then that would mean there is a possibility that people in the modern world are only able to vote for governments and not make policy. Which means deliberative democracy is the best that the modern world can provide the population of non-political elite. The strong case for deliberative democracy is helped by modern thinkers such as James Fishkin (1991, 1995) who bring a fresher approach to democracy with deliberative democracy.  Promoting what Fishkin calls a microcosm effect of public opinion, the microcosm allows a deliberative poll to collect information from representatives of the masses.  Sampling of people’s opinion is taken from all parts of a country or community where information from that sample gives the general feel of the country or community as a whole. The results are used by institutions to roll out ways of working that are more thematically with the public within their communities on a local level. This fits into more of a direct intervention into institutional involvement in decision-making. The microcosm only allows small groups to take part which if you look at what Budge says, as populations expands; direct democracy becomes more difficult to carry out. Which is why Fishkin’s approach enhances the appeal of citizen involvement using microcosms, citizen polls and citizen jury’s in the deliberative democracy model as the closest thing to direct democracy citizens will get in a vastly populated institutional world (Fishkin, 1995).

 

It is worth mentioning at this point that the Greek democratic model of direct democracy as we know has influenced the modern democratic process we have created. However it is an incomplete interpretation, because as Dahl (1989) explains, there are only some known fragments from the Greek democratic process that we can draw from to make a whole picture of Athenian democracy. We have no idea what the full picture is, and that might mean the interpreted Greek democratic process our modern world is based on, may be incorrect. However what the process does deliver is a rounded decision making mechanism that allows everyone involved to join together human qualities of excellence, (Dahl 1989). Where decisions are only made based on what everyone involves believes is the best way forward based on knowledge and understanding. Modern democracy includes all who is part of that country, unlike the Athenian direct democracy model which was not perfect. As we in the modern world understand it, the Athenian slaves were not part of any decision making process. It was acceptable in Greece in that time for slaves to be not classed as part of society. Surprisingly even the main thinkers of the time Plato and Aristotle thought it normal to have slaves excluded from the decision process and never questioned it (Budge, 1993, Dahl, 1989, Maskivker, 2010, Thorley, 2004). Our modern times show that the way we interpret the old style of direct democracy is different because we include everyone by choice in direct democracy and other democracies. We do however still have limitations of foreign nationals who cannot vote or take part in the frontline decision making of the 21^st century (Dahl, 1989).

 

Such limitations of who can interact with the decision making process in the modern world affects the deliberative model of democracy. Fishkin (1991, 1995) promotes a microcosm effect of public opinion. Public opinion cannot be measured accurately if people are excluded or simply cannot take part in the polling process.  An example would be there are foreign people working and living in a country without the right to vote or participate on political issues because the countries laws say they cannot do so. It’s a loss of opinion towards the deliberative process and affects the deliberative process towards an idea democracy, because the deliberative process lacks a full interpretation of how everyone feels. Deliberative polls would then show the partially opinionated result. Unfortunately institutions that roll out the solutions there would be missing the full opinion and ideas of the people within that community. Explaining why issues that have already been deliberated and decisions made have to be revisited (Fishkin, 1991, 1995).

 

This is something that would not be an issue with direct democracy in the modern era of the 21^st century. The ironic thing is deliberative democracy could be used to set up a political system that would have direct democracy at its core. The deliberation of direct democracy would be a method the gauge the general feel of citizens what they thought about running their own country as the people not the politician (Budge, 1993). The issue with direct democracy being a system that only suits the smaller style towns cities and countries is not true. Direct democracy can work in the modern world, it can work because citizens are more skilled and educated than in Athenian times 500 AD onwards. People are already showing an interest in political issues, whether it’s through deliberative democracy, voting in elections, or watching political programs. There is also knowledge about the issues in each country of the world through the media and surfing the internet. Budge, (1993) suggests that citizens fueled with skills and knowledge; differ from their ancestors by having more ability and rationale. It would mean that citizens could actually replace the present systems of political elites who rule with a more people based system. Critics may judge the idea as preposterous, and it may be. However for direct democracy it would be a full circle achievement from 500 AD to the 21^st century. People would rule themselves; not be not the rich or intellectual people controlling all the power through rule of the masses, (Maskivker, 2010).

 

 As we get deeper into the thought about what is the most convincing theory between deliberative and direct democracy. It is worthwhile attaching liberty and its values to the conversation. With Isaiah Berlin suggesting the democratic processes in the ancient world of Athens promoted a positive liberty (Maskivker, 2010).The important point here is that he ancient world of Athens had no view of what we now know today as the present democratic mechanisms, because it did not exist. Berlin describes the present way in which democracy functions as negative liberty. Negative freedom and liberty is where citizen participation is for the good of institutions almost as a necessary part of society. Positive freedom and liberty is mostly the citizen’s choice for participating in civic duties because it is the best way for a happier life. Greek direct democracy faded away though out the centuries with the shift from direct democracy to a limited democracy to the current 21^st century democratic system we use today. Working out what is the more convincing of the two theories, direct and deliberative democracy, both are convincing for their timeline. More so what is even more convincing is the possibility that because direct Athenian style democracy faded out without having the knowledge of the future democratic systems that would emerge. It is reasonable to say that the Athenians would according to James Fishkin’s deliberative democratic theory be rationally ignorant; because they did know all the information that could have made the Athenian democracy last longer than it did.

 

When Isaiah Berlin suggests that the Athenians did not know what the future democracies would hold, the same can be said of our present timeline, we have no idea what democratic systems lie ahead. The Athenian direct model may have lasted longer if deliberative democracy had emerged at the same time. If direct democracy re-emerged in the present time as a form of government, deliberative democracy processes can be used to gauge the citizen opinion of such an idea. Arguably negative liberty our present democratic system, actually promotes a possible answer towards the ultimate positive liberty which is direct democracy for the masses, self-rule for citizens.

Infrastructure and institutions would still exist because they are necessary parts of our civilization. The only difference is we all would govern them. The use of modern communication would give the direct democratic approach a way of connecting to the masses when voting on issues. Already citizens have opinion and decision making processes on television shows where they vote in their millions. Digital connection of citizens makes it possible to connect to everyone in a direct democratic system (Budge, 1993).

 

After all the discussion direct democracy appears the most convincing theory. However deliberative democracy is very important to direct democracy because it allows citizens to deliberate about whether or not direct democracy is the best way forward. The practicalities of citizens interacting everyday with issues in Athens within a smaller communities using direct democracy was reasonably rational and effective at the time. A dilemma later on was bigger numbers of people in cities reduced expectation that direct democracy can be a success long term. The emergence of deliberative democracy in the 1980’s gave an indication that there was a need and demand for citizens to be involved in political issues. Political issues became televised into homes, the media became more streamlined and people began to have more information than they have ever had before. Recently access to the internet opens up opportunity for people to interact with political issues in their own time. Citizen involvement in institutional affairs under the microscope of deliberative democracy has allowed the keen interest in political issues also.  Citizens learning from the media, and then developing what they have learned into institutional democratic involvement. The knowledge learned through the experience of institutional involvement acts as a good apprenticeship for citizens to switch from the present political system to direct democratic system. This is the reason direct democracy is the more democratic theory than deliberative democracy. Direct democracy promotes a positive liberty which in turn promotes happiness (Budge, 1993, 2000, Dahl, 1989 Maskivker, 2010). It brings the essay full circle because at the beginning we mentioned that the difference between direct democracy and deliberative democracy is that deliberative democracy is a branch of institutional government; whereas direct democracy is the people themselves governing directly.

 

Now that direct democracy is the most convincing theory it should not lessen the importance of deliberative democracy. After all deliberative democracy as brought to the surface after 1000 years a really good interaction between government institutions and people. Deliberative democracy has got conversations going, exposed self-interest, enhanced decision-making to be more thematic with community’s towns and cities. In an ever evolving democratic world, deliberative democracy is very useful. However the very next second after that decision has been made the world and environment has changed. It takes time to deliberate on a micro scale to make the smallest of changes. It means that deliberative democracy really is a ‘snap shot’ solution to an ever evolving complex world (Held, 2006). This is why over and over again polls have to be put out by institutions to gather insight to the issues requiring solution within communities and society, James Fishkin (1991, 1995). Deliberative democracy needs so many corrections on a daily basis which is why it did not come across as the most convincing theory.

 

Direct democracy on the other hand appeared to be a model that was impossible for the modern world to interact with. However once some investigation was carried out into direct democracy and the comparisons with the Athenian democratic direct model was made. Direct democracy in the present time line appeared to have some hope of reigniting its self into life. The reasons were it promoted positive liberty and the communications of the present day allow all citizens access to a digital interaction with everyday issues. In turn citizens could make decisions on everyday issues through digital technologies. This is why even when direct democracy and self-rule may be dismissed by intellectuals and political elite as impossible. It is actually very possible and why direct democracy is the most convincing theory.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

Budge, I. ‘Direct Democracy: Setting Appropriate terms of debate,’ in D. Held (ed.) (1993) Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West. pp. 136-155.

Budge, I. (2000), ‘Deliberative Democracy Versus Direct Democracy- Plus Political Parties!’, in M. Saward (ed.), Democratic Innovation:  Deliberation, Representation and Association,  Routledge:  London, pp. 195-209.

Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and its Critics, Yale: Yale University Press. pp. 13-23.

Femia, J. (1996), ‘Complexity and Deliberative Democracy’, Inquiry, 39, 361-97.

Harrison, R. (1993) Democracy. London: Routledge. pp. 14-33.

Held, D. ‘Ch 9 Deliberative Democracy and the Defence of the Public Realm’, in Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy, pp.231-255.

Elstub, S. (2008) Towards a Deliberative and Associational Democracy. Edinburgh:  Edinburgh University Press.

Fishkin, J. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. New Directions for Democractic Reform. London. Yale University Press.

Fishkin, J. (1995) The Voice Of The People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven. Yale University Press.

Maskivker, J. ‘Participation and Rights in Athenian Democracy: A Habermasian Approach,’ The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 15:7, 2010, 855-870 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10848770.2010.528902

Offe,C. & Preuss, U.K. (1992)  Democratic Institutions and Moral Resources

Thorley, J. Athenian Democracy. Chapter 6 An Overview.

Warren, M. (2002) ‘Deliberative Democracy’, in A. Carter and G. Stokes (eds), Democratic Theory Today, Polity: Cambridge, pp.173-202.

 

 

 

References

Budge, I. ‘Direct Democracy: Setting Appropriate terms of debate,’ in D. Held (ed.) (1993) Prospects for Democracy: North, South, East, West. pp. 136-155.

Budge, I. (2000), ‘Deliberative Democracy Versus Direct Democracy- Plus Political Parties!’, in M. Saward (ed.), Democratic Innovation:  Deliberation, Representation and Association,  Routledge:  London, pp. 195-209.

Dahl, R.A. (1989), Democracy and its Critics, Yale: Yale University Press. pp. 13-23.

Fishkin, J. (1991) Democracy and Deliberation. New Directions for Democractic Reform. London. Yale University Press.

Fishkin, J. (1995) The Voice Of The People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven. Yale University Press.

Held, D. ‘Ch 9 Deliberative Democracy and the Defence of the Public Realm’, in Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy, pp.231-255.

Held, D. (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.

Maskivker, J. ‘Participation and Rights in Athenian Democracy: A Habermasian Approach,’ The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, 15:7, 2010, 855-870 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10848770.2010.528902

Thorley, J. (2004), 2^nd ed: Athenian Democracy. Chapter 6, An Overview.

 

Internet References

Fishkin, J. (2010) Center for Deliberative Democracy. Director Stanford University

Available at: http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/

Accessed on 1^st January 2014