Deliberative Democracy and the Three Inputs of Governance: Expertise, Self-Interest, and Emotions

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.94.05

Keywords:

deliberation, expertise, self-interest, emotions, deliberative democracy, deliberative system

Abstract

The idea of evidence-based policy-making is in crisis. On the one hand, it is being disrupted by agonistic partisan polarization and post-truth politics. On the other hand, despite some nostalgia for technocracy, converging trends in political science and theory downplay the authoritative role of expertise, while emotions and self-interest receive positive reappraisals. This is most clearly visible in the evolution of deliberative democratic theory. In order to synthesize these developments, we present an integrated framework of the three inputs of governance: expertise, self-interest and emotions. We discuss and systematize nondeliberative and deliberative ways of considering these three inputs. The latter include: meaningful and contextualized representation of expertise; deliberative negotiation on parties’ self-interests; as well as emotional testimonies, storytelling, bridging rhetoric etc. The framework highlights the composite nature of political discourse (as an interplay between the three inputs), serving as a comprehensive tool for policy analysis and a guide for institutional design.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Michał Zabdyr-Jamróz, Jagiellonian University

    PhD in political science, assistant professor at the Institute of Public Health of the Jagiellonian University Medical College. Collaborator of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies (Brussels) and the Partnership for Health System Sustainability and Resilience. Guest lecturer at the University of Copenhagen. Specializes in: health policy analysis; health systems governance; deliberative democracy; solidarity in health; and health in all policies.

  • Elena Popa, Jagiellonian University

    PhD in philosophy, assistant professor at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Department of Philosophy, Jagiellonian University and PI of the project ‘Values, Trust and Decision Making in Public Health’. Specializes in philosophy of science (science and values, trust in science, science and democracy, pluralism) and philosophy of medicine.

References

Afsahi A., “The Role of Self-Interest in Deliberation: A Theory of Deliberative Capital,” Political Studies, vol. 70, no. 3 (2022), pp. 701-718, https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720981491. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321720981491
View in Google Scholar

Bandes S.A., “Emotion and Deliberation: The Autonomous Citizen in the Social World,” in J.E. Fleming (ed.), Passions and Emotions, New York 2013, pp. 189-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9780814760147.003.0006
View in Google Scholar

Bessette J.M., “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government,” in R.A. Goldwin, W.A. Schambra (eds), How Democratic Is the Constitution?, Washington, D.C. 1980, pp. 102-116.
View in Google Scholar

Billingham P., “Sharing Reasons and Emotions in a Non-Ideal Discursive System,” Politics, Philosophy & Economics, vol. 22, no. 3 (2023), pp. 294-314, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231167594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X231167594
View in Google Scholar

Boswell J., “What Makes Evidence-Based Policy Making Such a Useful Myth? The Case of NICE Guidance on Bariatric Surgery in the United Kingdom,” Governance, vol. 31, no. 2 (2018), pp. 199-214, https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12285. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12285
View in Google Scholar

Brennan J., Against Democracy, Princeton 2016, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77mcz. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400882939
View in Google Scholar

Buse K., Mays N., Walt G., Making Health Policy, Maidenhead 2012.
View in Google Scholar

Collingridge D., Reeve C., Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policymaking, London 1986.
View in Google Scholar

Damasio A., Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, New York 2005.
View in Google Scholar

Deonna J., Teroni F., “Why Are Emotions Epistemically Indispensable?,” Inquiry, vol. 68, no. 1 (2022), pp. 91-113, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2126147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2022.2126147
View in Google Scholar

Dobrow M.J., Goel V., Lemieux-Charles L., Black N.A., “The Impact of Context on Evidence Utilization: A Framework for Expert Groups Developing Health Policy Recommendations,” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 63, no. 7 (2006), pp. 1811-1824, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.020
View in Google Scholar

Douglas H.E., Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal, Pittsburgh 2009, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78
View in Google Scholar

Druckman J.N., Nelson K.R., “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 47, no. 4 (2003), pp. 729-745, https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00051
View in Google Scholar

Druckman J.N., Peterson E., Slothuus R., “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation,” American Political Science Review, vol. 107, no. 1 (2013), pp. 57-79, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
View in Google Scholar

Dryzek J.S., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, New York 2002, https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/019925043X.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Dryzek J.S., “Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systemic Appreciation,” Political Theory, vol. 38, no. 3 (2010), pp. 319-339, https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709359596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709359596
View in Google Scholar

Elster J., Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171694
View in Google Scholar

Feinberg M., Willer R., “From Gulf to Bridge: When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence?,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 12 (2015), pp. 1665-1681, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842
View in Google Scholar

Feynman R.P., “Cargo Cult Science. Some Remarks on Science, Pseudoscience, and Learning How to Not Fool Yourself,” Caltech’s Commencement Address, 1974, at https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm, 26 February 2025.
View in Google Scholar

Fischer F., Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry, New York 2009, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Forester J., Stitzel D., “The Beyond Neutrality: Possibilities of Activist Mediation in Public Sector Conflicts,” Negotiation Journal, vol. 5, no. 3 (1989), pp. 251-264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.1989.tb00521.x
View in Google Scholar

Fuerstein M., “Democratic Consensus as an Essential Byproduct,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 3 (2014), pp. 282-301, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12040
View in Google Scholar

Goodin R.E., “Democratic Deliberation Within,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 29, no. 1 (2000), pp. 81-109, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x
View in Google Scholar

Gorski D., “The Cochrane Mask Fiasco: How the Evidence-Based Medicine Paradigm Can Produce Misleading Results,” Science-Based Medicine, 13 March 2023, at https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-cochrane-mask-fiasco-how-the-evidence-based-medicine-paradigm-can-produce-misleading-results/, 20 May 2023.
View in Google Scholar

Greenhalgh T., Russell J., “Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Critique,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 52, no. 2 (2009), pp. 304-318, https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.0.0085
View in Google Scholar

Greenwood T., “The Myth of Scientific Incompetence of Regulatory Agencies,” Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 9, no. 1 (1984), pp. 83-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398400900110
View in Google Scholar

Guhin J., “A Rational Nation Ruled by Science Would Be a Terrible Idea,” New Scientist, 6 July 2016, at https://www.newscientist.com/article/2096315-a-rational-nation-ruled-by-science-would-be-a-terrible-idea/, 30 March 2017.
View in Google Scholar

Gutmann A., Thompson D.F., The Spirit of Compromise: Why Governing Demands It and Campaigning Undermines It, Princeton 2012.
View in Google Scholar

Habermas J., “Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to Discourse Ethics?,” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 83 (1988), pp. 38-53.
View in Google Scholar

Habermas J., “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 14, no. 1 (2006), pp. 1-25, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0378.2006.00241.x
View in Google Scholar

Haidt J., “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment,” Psychological Review, vol. 108, no. 4 (2001), pp. 814-834, https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814
View in Google Scholar

Hajer M.A., Wagenaar H., “Introduction,” in M.A. Hajer, H. Wagenaar (eds), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge 2003, pp. 1-30, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490934.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490934.002
View in Google Scholar

Hajer M.A., Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization, Oxford 2009, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Hajer M.A., Laws D., Versteeg W., “Authority Through Deliberative Governance: The British Food Standards Agency in Action,” in M.A. Hajer (ed.), Authoritative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization, Oxford 2009, pp. 125-169, https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.003.0006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.003.0006
View in Google Scholar

Hajer M.A., Wagenaar H. (eds), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge 2003, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490934
View in Google Scholar

Hertzberg B.R., Chains of Persuasion: A Framework for Religion in Democracy, New York 2019, https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190883041.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190883041.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Holst C., Molander A., “Epistemic Democracy and the Accountability of Experts,” in C. Holst (ed.), Expertise and Democracy, Oslo 2014, pp. 13-36.
View in Google Scholar

Kahan D.M., “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection,” Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8, no. 4 (2013), pp. 407-424, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500005271
View in Google Scholar

Kahan D.M., Jenkins-Smith H., Braman D., “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus,”
View in Google Scholar

Journal of Risk Research, vol. 14, no. 2 (2011), pp. 147-174, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
View in Google Scholar

Krause S.R., Civil Passions: Moral Sentiment and Democratic Deliberation, Princeton 2008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400837281
View in Google Scholar

Landwehr C., Holzinger K., “Institutional Determinants of Deliberative Interaction,” European Political Science Review, vol. 2, no. 3 (2010), pp. 373-400, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773910000226
View in Google Scholar

Latour B., Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Cambridge 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039964
View in Google Scholar

Lavis J., Davies H., Oxman A., Denis J.-L., Golden-Biddle K., Ferlie E., “Towards Systematic Reviews that Inform Health Care Management and Policy-Making,” Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, vol. 10, no. 1 (2005), pp. 35-48, https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308549
View in Google Scholar

Lepoutre M., Democratic Speech in Divided Times, New York 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198869757.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Mackie G., “Does Democratic Deliberation Change Minds?,” Politics, Philosophy and Economics, vol. 5, no. 3 (2006), pp. 279-303, https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594x06068301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X06068301
View in Google Scholar

Maguire S., “Discourse and Adoption of Innovations: A Study of HIV/AIDS Treatments,” Health Care Management Review, vol. 27, no. 3 (2002), pp. 74-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-200207000-00008
View in Google Scholar

Mansbridge J.J., “A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation,” in P. Heller, V. Rao (eds), Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies, Washington, D.C. 2015, pp. 27-49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0501-1_ch2
View in Google Scholar

Mansbridge J.J., “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System,” in S. Macedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, Oxford 1999, pp. 211-239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195131918.003.0016
View in Google Scholar

Mansbridge J.J., Bohman J., Chambers S., Christiano Th., Fung A., Parkinson J., Thompson D.F., Warren M.E., “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy,” in J. Parkinson, J. Mansbridge (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, New York 2012, pp. 1-26, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002
View in Google Scholar

Mansbridge J., Bohman J., Chambers S., Estlund D., Føllesdal A., Fung A., Lafont C., Manin B., Luis M.J., “The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 1 (2010), pp. 64-100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2009.00344.x
View in Google Scholar

Marmot M.G., “Evidence Based Policy or Policy Based Evidence?,” British Medical Journal, vol. 328 (2004), pp. 906-907, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7445.906. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7445.906
View in Google Scholar

Mazur-Bubak M., “A Few Problems with Mouffe’s Agonistic Political Theory,” Polish Political Science Yearbook, vol. 48, no. 2 (2019), pp. 307-318, https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2019207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15804/ppsy2019207
View in Google Scholar

McCaughey D., Bruning N.S., “Rationality versus Reality: The Challenges of Evidence-Based Decision Making for Health Policy Makers,” Implementation Science, vol. 5, no. 39 (2010), pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-39
View in Google Scholar

Menkel-Meadow C., “Scaling Up Deliberative Democracy as Dispute Resolution in Healthcare Reform: A Work in Progress,” Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 74, no. 3 (2011), pp. 1-30.
View in Google Scholar

Mouffe C., The Return of the Political, London–New York 1993.
View in Google Scholar

Oreskes N., Conway E.M., Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change, New York 2011.
View in Google Scholar

Owen D., Smith G., “Survey Article: Deliberation, Democracy, and the Systemic Turn,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 2 (2015), pp. 213-234, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12054
View in Google Scholar

Piaget J., Play, Dreams and Imitation in Childhood, New York 1951, https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315009698.
View in Google Scholar

Pielke R.A. Jr, The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, New York 2007, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110
View in Google Scholar

“Rationalization,” APA Dictionary of Psychology, 19 April 2018, at https://dictionary.apa.org/rationalization, 26 September 2023.
View in Google Scholar

Rushefsky M.E., Making Cancer Policy, Albany 1986.
View in Google Scholar

Salter L., Levy E., Leiss W., Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards, Dordrecht–Boston–London 1988.
View in Google Scholar

Sanders L.M., “Against Deliberation,” Political Theory, vol. 25, no. 3 (1997), pp. 347-376, https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591797025003002
View in Google Scholar

Sarewitz D., “Science and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity,” in R. Frodeman, V.R. Baker (eds), Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community, Prentice-Hall 2000, pp. 79-98.
View in Google Scholar

Schopenhauer A., The Art of Always Being Right, London 2005.
View in Google Scholar

Steenbergen M.R., Bächtiger A., Spörndli M., Steiner J., “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index,” Comparative European Politics, vol. 1 (2003), pp. 21-48, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
View in Google Scholar

Tetlock Ph.E., Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, Princeton 2005.
View in Google Scholar

Wagner A., “Shale Gas: Energy Innovation in a (Non-)Knowledge Society: A Press Discourse Analysis,” Science and Public Policy, vol. 42, no. 2 (2015), pp. 273-286, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu050
View in Google Scholar

Warren M., Mansbridge J., “Deliberative Negotiation,” in J.J. Mansbridge, C.J. Martin (eds), Negotiating Agreement in Politics, Washington, D.C. 2013, pp. 86-120.
View in Google Scholar

Weiss C.H., “Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion,” Science Communication, vol. 1, no. 3 (1980), pp. 381-404, https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100303
View in Google Scholar

Young I.M., “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy,” in S. Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Princeton 1996, pp. 120-135, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691234168-007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691234168-007
View in Google Scholar

Young I.M., Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford 2002, https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297556.001.0001
View in Google Scholar

Zabdyr-Jamróz M., “‘All They Want Is Money!’ The Deliberative Theory Approach to the Inclusion of Nurses’ Self-Interests in the 2016 Strike in the Children’s Memorial Health Institute in Warsaw,” Social Theory & Health, vol. 19 (2021), pp. 68-91, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-019-00123-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41285-019-00123-y
View in Google Scholar

Zabdyr-Jamróz M., Wszechstronniczość. O deliberacji w polityce zdrowotnej z uwzględnieniem emocji, interesów własnych i wiedzy eksperckiej, Kraków 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/K7514.33/e/23.23.18373
View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

22-12-2024

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 7(94) (2024)

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

“Deliberative Democracy and the Three Inputs of Governance: Expertise, Self-Interest, and Emotions”. 2024. Politeja 21 (7(94): 101-26. https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.21.2024.94.05.