Deliberative democracy is theoretically plausible and institutionally impracticable
- The first point of disagreement is about Jurgen Habermas's imagined 'Ideal Speech Situation' (ISS)
- The question of the common good
- Even in theory, consensus is unlikely to be reached
- Institutional issue : the fragmentation of the state
- Negative consequence of practicable deliberative democracy : the change in the relation between the people and the institutions
According to some scholars, the modern meaning of 'democracy' is, 'a way of organizing the state, that has come to be narrowly identified with territorially based competitive elections of political leadership for legislative and executive offices' . The problem with this interpretation is that it has distanced itself from the central ideas of democratic politics. These central ideas include the ideas of encouraging active political involvement of citizens, reaching consensus through dialogue and being able to implement a decision that has been reached through consensus. In recent years, a new theory of democracy has evolved that tries to return to democratic traditions. This new theory of, deliberative democracy is highly contested at the theoretical level as well as at the practicable level. Thus if deliberative democracy is, as some scholars claim, 'theoretically plausible but institutionally impracticable' one must first understand what the concept of deliberative democracy is.