A DEATH BLOW TO PURE PROCEDURALISM IN DELIBERATIVE SYSTEMS

the problem of prerequisites

Résumé

Deliberative democracy contains a theory of legitimacy. One of its versions is pure proceduralism, according to which the principles establishing terms of political cooperation in deliberative systems should inform mainly the process of deliberation and no additional substantive elements, except to the extent that they are necessary for a fair process. This paper shows that pure proceduralism faces the ‘problem of prerequisites’. It consists in the fact that, even if pure proceduralism may be a criterion of legitimacy, the legitimacy of pure proceduralism as a source of subsequent legitimacy is not grounded in deliberative procedures. The problem comprises two arguments: the argument from the prerequisite of procedural membership (the establishment of membership rights to procedures must be immune to deliberation); and the argument from the prerequisite of procedural ruling (the rule establishing the quantitative threshold from which a decision is reached must be immune to deliberation).

##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##

##plugins.generic.usageStats.noStats##

Biographie de l'auteur

André Santos Campos, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Andre Santos Campos (PhD University of Lisbon 2009) é investigador principal da Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas da Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Sua pesquisa concentra-se em temas na intersecção da Filosofia Política, Ética, Filosofia do Direito e História Intelectual, como justiça intergeracional, soberania, direitos humanos, representação e direito natural. É autor de 'Jus sive Potentia' (CFUL 2010), 'Spinoza's Revolutions in Natural Law' (Palgrave 2012) e 'Glosas Abertas de Filosofia do Direito' (Quid Juris 2013); ele é o editor de 'Spinoza. Basic Concepts '(Imprint Academic 2016),' Spinoza and Law '(Routledge 2016) e o co-editor de' Challenges to Democratic Participation '(Lexington 2014),'

Références

ABIZADEH, A. (2008) ‘Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control your own Borders’, Political Theory, 36(1), 37-65.

BENHABIB, S. (1994) ‘Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy’, Constellations, 1, 25-53.

CEVA, E. (2012) ‘Beyond Legitimacy. Can Proceduralism Say Anything Relevant About Justice?’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15(2), 183-200.

CHRISTIANO, T. (1990) ‘Freedom, Consensus, and Equality in Collective Decision Making’, Ethics, 101, 151-81.

CHRISTIANO, T. (1996) The Rule of the Many. Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder: Westview Press.

COHEN, J. (1989) ‘Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy’, The Good Polity, edited by Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, 17-34. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.

DWORKIN, R. (1986) Law’s Empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

ESTLUND, D. (2008) Democratic Authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

FINE, S. (2011) ‘Democracy, citizenship and the bits in between’, CRISP 14, 623-640.

GAGARIN, M. (2008) Writing Greek Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

GAUS, G. (1997) ‘Reason, Justification, and Consensus: Why Democracy Can’t Have It All’, Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg, 205-242. Cambridge: MIT Press.

GOODIN, R. (2007) ‘Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 35, 40-68.

GOULD, C. C. (1996) ‘Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences’, Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib, 171-186. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

GUTMANN, A. and Thompson, D. (1996) Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

GUTMANN, A. and Thompson, D. (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

JEFFERSON, T. (1944) The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Adrienne Koch and William Peden. New York: Modern Library.

LÓPEZ-GUERRA, C. (2005) ‘Should Expatriates Vote?’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2), 216-234.

PARKINSON, J. (2005) Deliberating in the Real World. Oxford University Press.

PETER, F. (2008) Democratic Legitimacy. New York: Routledge.

PETER, F. (2013) ‘The Procedural Epistemic Value of Deliberation’, Synthese 190(7), 1253-1266.

POSTEMA, G. (1995) ‘Public Practical Reason: An Archeology’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12, 43-86.

RAWLS, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

ROGERS, K. (2008) Participatory Democracy, Science and Technology. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

SAUNDERS, B. (2010) ‘Democracy, Political Equality, and Majority Rule’, Ethics, 121, 148-177.

SHAPIRO, I. (1999) Democratic Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.

SONG, S. (2012) ‘The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state’, International Theory 4, 39-68.

SUNSTEIN, C. (1999) ‘Agreement Without Theory’, Deliberative Politics, edited by Stephen Macedo, 123-150. New York: Oxford University Press.

YOUNG, I. M. (1993) ‘Justice and Communicative Democracy’, Radical Philosophy: Tradition, Counter-Tradition, Politics, ed. Roger S. Gottlieb. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

YOUNG, I. M. (2000) Democracy and Inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Publiée
2018-09-17
Comment citer
Campos, A. S. (2018). A DEATH BLOW TO PURE PROCEDURALISM IN DELIBERATIVE SYSTEMS. Eleuthería - Revista Do Mestrado Profissional Em Filosofia Da UFMS, 3(4), 53 - 72. Consulté à l’adresse https://periodicos.ufms.br/index.php/reveleu/article/view/6672
Numéro
Vol. 3 No 4 (2018)
Rubrique
Artigos

Todos os trabalhos que forem aceitos para publicação, após o devido processo avaliativo, serão publicados sob uma licença Creative Commons, na modalidade Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Esta licença permite que qualquer pessoa copie e distribua a obra total e derivadas criadas a partir dela, desde que seja dado crédito (atribuição) ao autor / à autora / aos autores / às autoras.