Deliberative dialogue is a practice used by different organizations. Examples of organizations that use this technique are the ‘National Issues Forum Institute’ and the ‘Franklin Pierce College’. Deliberative dialogue can be defined as the skill used to provide the means by which society members with dissimilar views and experiences, pursue to arrive at a collective comprehension of a problem and establish shared grounds for taking action. These talks are officiated by professionally qualified faculty, student moderators or officials that apply an issue conversation guide to plan the issue; that the problem at hand is presented generally then three or four models to solving the problem are discussed. Discussion contributors work the issue out, through reflecting over each approach; analyzing what appeals or seem to concern them considering the involved expenses, consequences and trade-offs associated with following the given approach (London 5-50).
The ground rules engaged in the hosting of a deliberative discussion are that; each member is encouraged to offer views and participate in general, the talks should not be dominated by a few of the members and that the members offer to hear to each other. Another ground rule guiding deliberative talks is that the discussion focuses on the choices available, gives consideration to all the major approaches; participants should discuss with one another not only to the facilitators, and lastly an atmosphere that allows for the reflection and assessment of trade-offs of the available choices is created (London 5-50).
Below is a summary of a deliberative discussion carried out by different parties at Geneseo. The deliberative talk was about ‘involving diversity within classroom environments, and what an instructor should act like. The discussion guide was drafted by Geneseo’s spur actors and offered its deductions within the 2004 spring term. The deliberative discussion was attended and participated in, by 80 faculty members, various staff members and a large number of students.
Below is a detailed table showing the distinctions of a deliberative dialogue from a debate which is a related mode of communication (London 5-50).
Democratic centralism was the name used mostly to refer to the Leninist political parties doctrines of in-house organization. The term is at times used to refer to all Leninist policies within a political party context. The democratic communicative aspect of this organizational method of discussion was that members of the political party were given the freedom and mandate to debate on matters regarding policy and direction. However, after considerable discussions regarding the issues were accomplished, the decision of the party could be arrived at using a conclusive majority vote by the members. After the unanimous decision was arrived at by all the members through consensus, all members were anticipated to support the given decision. This aspect of having to give support to the common decision of the party was what gave origin to the name centralism with regard to the democracy involved (Nelson 15-27).
According to the Leninist institutions constitution, some archetypal characteristics were defined as the guiding principles regarding the execution of democratic centralism and these include; that elections are to be carried out across all party organs from lower levels to the upper-most levels. Other principles provided that the accountability of party structures would be provided from the different levels of operations, which include the top and bottom ones. There was supposed to be conscious and strict discipline among the different members of the party, where it was obligatory that the minority who were not comfortable with decisions made by the party majority were to support the decisions; until a case of alteration to the given decision or policy was instilled unanimously. The principles also provided that decisions made by the upper levels of the structure and the decision-making channels were to be supported by the lower levels without compromise. The principles also provided that cooperation and unity were expected between all party organs in a collective mode at all times. Party members were also expected to be accountable and answerable regarding the execution of assignments, administered to them by the party or created by themselves for the benefit of the party in general. The origins of democratic centralism date back to the year 1902 among the German Democrat movements; and were based on the remarks uttered by democrat Jean Baptista (Nelson 15-27).
In my opinion; Deliberative discussion with regard to the pursuit of democracy and public involvement in decision making provides a great model as it allows for the participation of all individuals. However the method as a decision-making model has some evident weaknesses that are likely to pave way for the exercising of selfish interests, or control of decisions arrived at by a minority of the members. One weakness is that in a prototype deliberative discussion model, there is no standard polling practice adopted to ensure that the decision taken reflects the interests of the majority. This weakness therefore can be utilized by the influential members in having their views supported and adopted. The deliberation rules affirmed by deliberative philosophers; impede rather than facilitate the practice of healthy practical thinking. Deliberative democracy is theoretically biased to favor liberalism and republican ideologies at the expense of parliamentary democratic structures and models. Deliberative democracy promotes an adversarial association between society and the state, thus impeding solidarity between the populace.
Additionally, the fact that democratic centralism allows for discussion of policies, choices, and perspectives among members is a strength also contained in deliberative democracy. However the fact the choices and options to be adopted are decided upon based on the voice of the majority, makes this approach to democratic discussion a goal-oriented and objective-directed method. The fact that the decision arrived at unanimously is not contestable also introduces traits of stability in the practice of democracy (Nelson 15-27).
The concepts of these democratic discussion models differ from those of citizen polling in that, the information or decision arrived at in these models is often inspired and biased by the discussions. On the other hand information in citizen poling is unbiased and not influenced by any agents as the citizens make their own opinion regarding the issue. The information from citizen polling is often used for reviews of policy and choices for more evaluation while in the other two, the decisions arrived at are decisive (Stewart 24-145) (London 5-50) (Nelson 15-27).
Democracy from its definition is a government by the people or representation of the people where equality and freedom are advocated for. The reason why democracy arises often in discussions of community is that; the interests of the representatives don’t always reflect those of the people in different areas. This, therefore, gives rise to questions on whether the representation regarding freedom, rights, morals, and equality is questionable (Stewart 24-145).
Democracy is the rule of the people by themselves or their representatives. The connection between these concepts and democracy is that they are modes of decision-making from the ideas and contentions of the populace; whose word amounts to democratic practice. A strong democracy has the qualities of; authority and civic accountability of all exercised directly or through representation; majority rule and rights of individuals uphold; fortification of basic human needs, rights and freedoms practiced; leaders voted in free and fair voting processes; citizens participate in the policy administration; and the values of compromise, tolerance and cooperation are nurtured (Stewart 24-145).
Work cited
London, Scott. “Creating Citizens through Public Deliberation”. Kettering Foundation Press. 2004: 5-50
Nelson, Daniel. “Democratic centralism in Romania”. East European Monographs. (1980): 15-27
Stewart, Jon. “America” (The Book): A Citizen’s Guide to Democracy Inaction. Grand Central Publishing. (2004):24-145