The deliberative model of democracy was initially developed at a normativephilosophical level. Many claims were made about favorable antecedents and thebeneficial consequences of a high level of deliberation. In recent years, someof these claims have been subjected to empirical tests. In this book, I look atthe interplay between normative and empirical aspects of deliberation. Empiricaldata, of course, cannot solve normative questions, but they can throw new lighton such questions. I come from the empirical side, so I do not claim to write asa professional philosopher; I will instead take the perspective of an engagedcitizen in the sense of the French citoyen engagé. Iwill begin my normative stance not with ultimate philosophical premises but willproceed with pragmatic reflections on what empirical findings may mean for therole of deliberation in a viable democracy. Let me make clear at the outset thatit is not my view that a viable democracy should consist only of deliberation.Thus, the concept of deliberative democracy in the title ofthis book does not mean that this form of democracy consists only ofdeliberation: it only means that deliberation has an important role. Besidesdeliberation, a viable democracy must have space, in particular, for competitiveelections, strategic bargaining, aggregative votes, and street protests. Thetrick is to find the right mix among all these elements, and this will depend onthe context. I will argue that in this mix the role of deliberation is often notstrong enough and must be strengthened.