Page 120 - Mike Ratner CC - WISR Complete Dissertation - v6

Gutmann and Thompson’s (2004) theory of deliberative democracy defined reason-giving

as the most important characteristic of deliberative democracy. The tenets of reason-giving, as

advanced, call for cooperation, morality, and mutual respect among participants engaged in

discussion. Gutmann and Thompson also identified characteristics of accessibility, binding

decisions, and process dynamics as central to the work of deliberative democracy. Describing

deliberative democracy as second order theory, Gutmann and Thompson make the argument that

the practice promotes outcomes better than aggregative democracy due to its ability to foster the

consideration of alternatives by citizens and their representatives based on expressed preferences.

Gutmann and Thompson contended that deliberative democracy is different from other theories

because “it can more readily accommodate moral conflict” (2004, p. 126). They based this claim

largely on the fact that deliberative democracy, in addition to being a second order theory, is used

to promote a public philosophy toward dialogue and engagement that supports mutual respect and

acceptance of disagreement as a natural occurrence in deliberative democracy. Gutmann and

Thompson’s (2004) theory calls for “consensus as a condition for political discussion of enduring

moral disagreement and fair terms of political cooperation” (p. 94).

This theory departs from a pure proceduralist perspective, which values only the

“procedures by which laws are made and the conditions under which the procedures can be made

to work fairly” (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004, p. 95).

In establishing a set of principles applicable to deliberative democracy, Gutmann and

Thompson espoused reciprocity and justice for governing a process that can be continuous, when

viewed as a governing condition, or within smaller deliberative encounters. Deliberative

democratic theory is an ongoing practice of reason giving with intermittent, collectively

constructed decisions based on mutually justifiable reason (Gutmann & Thompson, 2004).

101