Normative controversies in the literature

There is consensus among deliberative theorists that ordinary citizens shouldhave the opportunity to take part in political deliberation, but there iscontroversy over how many citizens should actually do so. On the one hand, thereis the normative position that ideally all citizens should be involved inpolitical deliberation. In their everyday life, they should discuss politicalmatters in their families, with friends and neighbors, in the workplace, and intheir clubs and associations. These discussions should have a deliberativecharacter in the sense that participants should be open to the force of thebetter argument. As a consequence, opinion-formation at the grass-roots levelwould take place in a reflective way. These reflected opinions are thencommunicated to political leaders through a variety of channels like personalencounters, public meetings, the media, and the Internet. This participatoryposition is advocated by Jürgen Habermas, who argues that all thoseaffected by a political decision should be included in deliberation(Inklusion aller Betroffenen). Since important decisions,for example about the environment or health care, affect everyone, theHabermasian position implies that everyone should participate in thedeliberation of such issues. Habermas hopes that deliberation among ordinarycitizens will have an influence on elections, legislation, and administrativepower, since “the flow of communication between public opinion formation,institutionalized elections, and legislative decisions is meant to guaranteethat influence and communicative power are transformed through legislation intoadministrative power.” In this way, citizens should be a strongcountervailing force against the two traditional influences in politics,“money and administrative power.”