principal of deliberation played significant role in the constitution making process. justify the statement
please please tell me ❤️
Answers
Answer:
The main objective of the paper is to present a model of the good practices of deliberative cooperation in a parliamentary setting. This goal is achieved through applying the three functions of the deliberative system—epistemic, ethical and democratic (Mansbridge et al. 2012)—to an analysis of cooperation between different stakeholders during the work of a Polish Parliamentary Subcommittee. They are used as an evaluative tool for analysing the cooperation of MPs, members of the public and representatives of the government (promoters of the bill). The paper analyses a concrete example of the work of the Permanent Subcommittee on the government bill amending the Act on Public Benefit Activity and Voluntary Work in the Polish Parliament. This concrete example is presented as a model of good practices when it comes to deliberative cooperation between representatives of the authorities and citizens aiming at the development of shared practical judgement. The paper consists of three parts. In the first, a systemic approach to deliberative democracy is briefly introduced, and the history of the work on the bill is outlined. The main part consists of an analysis of the three speeches of three main stakeholders in the legislative process, from the perspective of their view of legislative deliberations, and in terms of the three functions of deliberative system. In the conclusions, four main issues are analysed with reference to the presented legislative deliberations: 1. Legislative committees as mixed deliberative spheres; 2. Internal/external deliberation; 3. The distinction between stakeholders/ordinary citizens; and 4. Deliberative stance/deliberative mindset.
Introduction
Introducing the Research Perspective: A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy
From the outset, deliberation in legislative bodies constituted one of the core themes of the theory of deliberative democracy [7: 53–54]. Although this current of investigations is represented by quite a few researchers, certain books influenced and contributed to the development of the whole deliberative paradigm, such as: Joseph M. Bessette’s The Mild Voice of Reason: Deliberative Democracy and American National Government (1994) [4]; John Uhr’s, Deliberative Democracy in Australia: The Changing Place of Parliament [43]; and Jürg Steiner’s, André Bächtiger’s et al. Deliberative Politics in Action. Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse (2004) [39].Footnote 1
However, new challenges arose in the study of parliamentary institutions with the emergence of the theory of deliberative democracy in the third, systemic phase of its development.Footnote 2
The first phase, which is characterized by an epistemic-procedural approach to deliberative democracy, was a period involving the formulation of counterfactual models of ideal deliberative procedures and formal definitions of deliberative democracy. This period can be identified with the years 1980 to 1996, which was dominated by the thought of the two most eminent representatives of the deliberative paradigm: Habermas [18, 19] and Rawls [37].Footnote 3 In addition to their writings, the most important works of this period include Cass Sunstein’s articles, such as Naked preferences and the constitution (1984) [40] and Interest groups in American public law (1985) [41], Jon Elster’s The market and the forum (1986) [11], Bernard Manin’s On legitimacy and political deliberation (1987) [26], Joshua Cohen’s Deliberation and democratic legitimacy (1989) [8] and Jane J. Mansbridge’s The rise and fall of self-interest in the explanation of political life (1990) [27].
The second phase, which conventionally corresponds to the period from 1996 to 2012, is characterised by an institution-practical and empirical approach to deliberative democracy. It was a period of various attempts to introduce the basic principles of the deliberative ideal into the institutional practice of the everyday functioning of the democratic system, on the one hand by creating and introducing new participatory-deliberative models for the public involvement of citizens, and on the other by empirical research on the functioning of already existing democratic institutions and indicating the possibility of their reconstruction through a wider introduction of deliberative elements. In this period, three fundamental changes in the research orientation of deliberative democrats took place, which John S. Dryzek described as: the institutional turn, the practical turn and the empirical turn [11: 6–9].
Explanation:
please mark as branliest answer