Deliberation Day Ackerman Summary

1203 Words3 Pages

Deliberation can save democracy. At least that’s what deliberative democrats James Fishkin and Bruce Ackerman argue in their article Deliberation Day. They believe that “If we are to preserve and deepen our democratic life… we must create institutions that sustain citizen engagement in a shared public dialogue” (Fishkin 130). In their paper, Fishkin and Ackerman argue specifically for the creation of a national deliberation holiday, but more generally for an increase in the amount of constructive talks between average citizens on their political beliefs. They argue that for a country to truly be a democracy it is not enough for people to make choices about policy or representatives, instead citizens must take real ownership of their views through self-reflection and active deliberation with their peers. Fishkin and Ackerman think that democracy can only be reflective of the beliefs of the people when they have carefully thought-out their opinions in processes where they have been open to opposing viewpoints. More simply, they think that in non-deliberative societies people don’t have real beliefs to be …show more content…

They’re arguing for a deliberative democracy, which they think is better. That’s more than fine, deliberative democrats arguing for deliberative democracy is only natural, but arguing that deliberation is necessary for real democracy is an attempt for deliberation fetishists to take advantage of their democracy fetishizing counterparts. They want deliberation to play a larger role in the shaping of politics, and they hope to bring that about by tying it to the success of a more popular cause. A democratic government follows the wishes of its people, and, though they may have good intentions, making delineations between what are and aren’t valid choices or decision-making processes inherently limits how democratic a system can

Open Document