De plaats van parlementaire instituties in een deliberatief systeem

Abstract

Since its existence there is a tension between the parliamentary system and ideals of democratic self-governance. The popular political theory of deliberative democracy hopes to resolve this tension, by making the exchange and discovery of public reasons between citizens, the core of legitimate decision making. This thesis analyzes if such a deliberative democracy is best realized within a parliamentary constellation, as has been made feasible by the recent ‘systemic turn’ in deliberative democracy, which proposes to decentralize and distribute the deliberative proces among different institutions. This thesis argues that decentralized deliberation cannot guarantee the quality of that deliberation, or that deliberation takes places at all. And if it takes place, the proces is too opaque to legitimize an outcome. Instead the deliberative process needs to be visibly placed in a specific institute, to make the connection between deliberation and its outcome clear, as only the process of exchanging reasons can legitimize an outcome in a deliberative democracy. Parliamentary institutions are not perfect candidates to facilitate sufficient deliberation within, as electoral competition limits their freedom to discover new public reasons. A deliberative national citizens’ forum offers a viable and legitimate alternative to institutionalize the deliberative process. It does so by gathering 150 civilians through a randomized ánd selective process, resulting in a demographic representation of the people; a so called ‘mini-public’. The forum qualifies as an inclusive proces where civilians exchange reasons, in order to approximate a public consensus and corresponding policy outcomes.