Deliberative democracy's strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness

Democracy

Over the decades, the most appropriate forms of government have been hotly debated. Part of the reason for this, is because of the different benefits and drawbacks that it is providing. In the case of democracy, there have been continuing discussions as to if the deliberative structure can address the needs of citizens. To fully understand this requires looking at: if this form of government goes beyond the minimal definition, the various strengths / weaknesses and if this is better alternative. Together, these different elements will highlight: the overall advantages and drawbacks of this form of government.

Does a deliberative democracy improve upon the minimal definition?

Deliberative democracy can improve upon the minimal standards from the basic definition, while at the same time moving away from them. Simply put, this is when you are: using reasoning and logic to set the tone for the political discussion. In general, these kinds of democracies will often involve the citizens coming together in: a public forum and discussing how a host of issues will be dealt with. This would include making all decisions on the various forms of government ranging from: enacting different laws to conducting judicial proceedings. The way that this form of government is improving upon this basic definition, is to ensure that the most reasonable approach is taken (when it comes to various policies and procedures).

At the same time, it is moving away from this definition by: assuming that this approach will address all of the issues affecting society. In this aspect, the various classes and ethnic groups will have different needs. This can be problematic, as this approach is seeking to find an agreeable solution. During this process, one group may have to bend more or could be at a disadvantage in reaching these kinds of compromises. Over the course of time, this form of government will favor the majority vs. The needs of minorities. (Gutman, n.d, pp. 18 -- 24) (Fishkin, n.d, 25 -- 28)

Is this a better alternative?

Yes and no. This is a better alternative form of government in that: the various policies and regulations will take into account logic as a part of the process. This will ensure that any kind of programs that are implemented is based upon: their effectiveness in addressing the various issues facing the community. Over the course of time, this will increase transparency and it will create programs that address the needs of citizens. (Gutman, n.d, pp. 18 -- 24) (Fishkin, n.d, 25 -- 28)

While at the same time, this form of government can mean that many of these policies will benefit the majority. This is because the majority will be able to influence the decisions that are being made by the citizens of the community. As, they can claim that their form of government is based upon: the opinions of the majority, not the dissent from the minority. Over the course of time, this can cause many minorities to receive less favorable treatment in comparison with other groups. In this aspect, this form of government is not a better alternative. This is because they are: indirectly discriminating against minorities and it encourages this environment to exist (based upon the policies that have been enacted). (Gutman, n.d, pp. 18 -- 24) (Fishkin, n.d, 25 -- 28)

Clearly, deliberative democracies can ensure greater transparency and more balanced policies. While at the same time, it is ignoring the needs of minorities. This is significant, because it is: showing the overall strengths and weaknesses of this form of government. As, it can address the needs of: large segments of the populations, while ignoring the necessities of others.