I’m taking a course called “Deliberation, Civic Engagement and Public Policy”. The two main textbooks are specifically about “deliberative democracy”.

Deliberative democracy is contrasted with liberal democracy: elected representatives passing laws constrained by a (judicially-interpreted) constitution. Citizens are responsible for voting and monitoring their representatives. Liberal democracy is criticized using the public choice model: representatives are lobbied by various special interest groups, and the interests with the most influence get the policy they want.

But having read the introductions to the textbooks I’m not clear what deliberative democracy is like:

• negotiation, where citizens go in with established goals and determine a solution that maximizes everyone’s utility;
• debate, where citizens make arguments and weigh reasons for solutions;
• or is it both?

If it’s negotiation, then we must assume that citizens have coherent positions but they don’t necessarily need to explain them. If it’s debate, then arguments are what matters and deliberators can arrive at a solution based on the process without having coherent positions.

What are the qualities of good deliberators? Is flashy rhetoric a threat? Do they need to be open to other people’s points of view, or just open to negotiating a compromise?

And when we talk about representatives “deliberating” in parliament today, which activity are they doing? Or are they just posturing for the press?