up of passive, and largely inactive citizens serves to remove the potential for realising commonalities. On the other hand, one made up of active and aware citizens, in which there are dialogue spaces, deliberative meetings and collaborative works aimed at formulating binding legislation, as advocated by Slim and McAfee, maximises the possibility for unity and collective spirit. 124 Out of this transparency and openness, arises a society based on mutual respect and understanding, where individuals’ commonalities are uncovered, while their respective differences are understood. The models discussed have, inevitably, been criticised for their lack of workability and realism. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that, if such models were successfully implemented and practiced in accordance with their original theory, that the participatory deficit of liberal democracy would be overcome (for the reasons put forward). However, the assertion that these models are not workable in practice bears a degree of validity, and so must also be addressed. One of the central ideas of deliberative theory – that the process of discussion and debate among citizens as a means of creating mutual and self- understanding in order to promote a collective spirit – is viewed as particularly problematic. Shapiro, notably, addresses these shortcomings. 125 Shedding light on Gutmann and Thompson’s argument that a long process of discussion, debate, argumentation and testing promotes a collective spirit, he claims the opposite. 126 As far as he is concerned, such a process not only falls short of promoting harmony and commonality but actually serves to bring any possible grounds for division and conflict to the forefront. 127 This, in turn,
124 McAfee, pp. 96-110. 125 Shapiro, pp. 28-36. 126 Gutmann and Thompson, pp. 1-21. 127 Shapiro, p. 30.
69
Made with FlippingBook HTML5