Deliberative Systems Theory and Citizens’ Use of Online Media: Testing a Critical Theory of Democracy on a High Achiever
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321719890809 |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Special Issue Articles |
research-article2020
Special Issue Article
Political Studies
2021, Vol. 69(1) 129 –146
Deliberative Systems Theory
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
and Citizens’ Use of Online
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890809
DOI: 10.1177/0032321719890809
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Media: Testing a Critical
Theory of Democracy on
a High Achiever
Cathrine Holst1 and Hallvard Moe2
Abstract
Deliberative systems theory is a promising candidate for a normative theory of democracy that
combines ideal requirements with feasibility. Yet, recent theoretical elaborations and studies of
citizens’ online media use inspired by the theory suffer from an incomplete account of the public
sphere’s epistemic function, too rough interpretations of participatory levels, shortcomings in
the understanding of online media, and a context-insensitive notion of policy reform. Addressing
these weaknesses, the article argues for a refined version of deliberative systems theory. Particular
attention is given to feasibility considerations. Reviewing studies of online democracy in Norway,
the article shows that the theoretical critique has practical significance. It is also argued that the
amended version of the deliberative systems approach produces a diagnosis of Norwegian online
democracy more in line with reasonable expectations to a high achiever. This is taken as a prima
facie indicator of feasibility.
Keywords
public sphere, deliberative democracy, online media, non-ideal theory, experts
Accepted: 23 October 2019
Introduction
Deliberative systems theory has recently attracted substantial scholarly attention. The
theory, developed to assess real world democracies ‘at the large scale’ (Mansbridge et al.,
2012), introduces a new phase in the evolution of theories of deliberative democracy, and
is initially promising. Based on some of the central moral intuitions that underlie
1Department of Sociology and Human Geography and ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of
Oslo, Oslo, Norway
2Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Corresponding author:
Cathrine Holst, Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, PO Box 1096 Blindern,
0317 Oslo, Norway.
Email: cathrine.holst@sosgeo.uio.no
130
Political Studies 69(1)
democratic commitments, deliberative systems theory seems to formulate normative
demands on a democratic rule of government suitable for societies characterized by a
‘reasonable pluralism’ of values (Christensen and Holst, 2017; Rawls, 1993). At the same
time, this theory seemingly fares well in striking a balance between ideal requirements
and feasibility. Normative political theories are frequently accused of setting up unfeasi-
ble ideals; unrealizable for any actually existing political community, even under the most
favourable conditions (List and Valentini, 2018). However, deliberative systems theory is
neither obviously idealized, nor so ‘concessive’ (Estlund, 2008), that it fails to provide a
corrective to the actual institutions and practices of democratic politics. The theory seems
thus to be a good candidate for a critical theory of democracy that could guide us in pin-
pointing democratic problems based on sound and non-utopian assessment standards.
The systems turn needs, however, to be scrutinized more closely. Based on recent debates
on ‘feasibility’ in normative political theory (Gilabert and Lawford-Smith, 2012), and with
a focus on the normative role of the public sphere and how to assess citizens’ online media
use from a democratic perspective, this article contributes to a refinement of deliberative
systems theory. Online media use is a democratic practice with increasing salience, and it is
a fair expectation to any normative democratic theory that it also helps us to conceptualize
and assess political behaviour in digital domains. The article reviews recent contributions
on the role of the public sphere and online democracy from a deliberative systems perspec-
tive, and identifies four limitations: (1) an incomplete account of the public sphere’s epis-
temic function, (2) too rough interpretations of participatory levels, (3) shortcomings in the
understanding of online media, and (4) a context-insensitive approach to policy reform.
Addressing these weaknesses, the article argues for a revised version of deliberative sys-
tems theory, and highlights how this revised version is not only more in line with our intui-
tions of good democratic practice, but also makes the theory more feasible.
However, to be fully convincing, revisions of a theory intended for the evaluation of
real-world cases should also matter in practice: It should make a difference for assess-
ments of concrete political behaviour and organization whether deliberative systems
theory are applied with or without our amendments. In addition, such concrete assess-
ments can make us aware of over- or under-idealized assessment standards. This article
concentrates on testing for over-idealization, relying on online media use in Norway as a
test case.
The analysis of the Norwegian case shows not only that the revisions have practical
significance, but also that they contribute to make deliberative systems theory and the
implications of this theory more compatible with existing democracy research and assess-
ments of democratic quality. We take such compatibility to be a prima facie indicator of
appropriate feasibility. Specifically, applying our revised criteria, we find the online
sphere in Norway to have a range of democratic credentials, in accordance with what we
would expect in a country ranked as number one on international democracy indexes.
Still, central challenges remain, such as significant social stratifications in media use and
how to ensure online media’s informational function, reminding us that even ‘best prac-
tice’ may depart substantively from our ideals, even in their feasible version. This calls for
democratic reforms that work with existing path-dependencies, and we exemplify what
this can imply in the Norwegian setting.
The next part of the article briefly presents the debate on feasibility in normative political
theory, and introduces the theory of deliberative systems as a promising candidate of a
theory that is at the same time critical and feasible. Still, this theory has some blind spots in
its approach to the role of the public sphere, and to online democratic practice in particular.
Holst and Moe
131
The third part of the article elaborates on the four identified shortcomings, and spells out the
corresponding elements of a revised systems approach. Against this background, in the
fourth section we review studies of the use of online media in Norway, focusing especially
on the role of social media (for a definition, see Moe, 2016). We show that our theoretical
revisions make a difference compared to a un-amended version, and that our revised version
is likely to have made deliberative systems theory more relevant and applicable. A final
section concludes and highlights some limitations of our endeavour.
Between Idealism and Realism: The Deliberative Systems
Approach
Normative political theory has a mixed reputation among social scientists. Many would
agree that this branch of theorizing offers stringent conceptualizations of ideal require-
ments. Yet, empirically oriented scholars often complain that normative theories disregard
feasibility constraints and lack a proper understanding of the prerequisites for institution
building, consolidation, and political reform (e.g. Rothstein, 1998). Accordingly, when
social scientists assess institutional developments and policies, they often sidestep discus-
sions in normative political theory, and instead consult alternative approaches to evalua-
tion and policy recommendation, such as ‘evidence-based policy-making’ (see Cairney,
2016 for an overview), ‘best practice’ approaches, or incremental theories of ‘appropriate’
reform (see Olsen, 2017 for a recent example). The resulting analyses and proposals may
have many merits, but a general problem is that normative standards often remain implicit
or unaccounted for.
We take it that attempts to develop and improve on normative political theory as ‘non-
ideal theory’ are more promising. Non-ideal theory provides explicit accounts of norma-
tive standards, but is at the same time adapted to be relevant and applicable under real
world conditions (Swift and White, 2008).1 Specifically, our point of departure is the
theory of deliberative systems, suitable for our purposes with its focus on democratic
institutions and practices. Arguably, providing an at the same time ‘normative and empiri-
cal account of the democratic process as a whole’ has been the point for deliberative
democratic theory all along (Mansbridge et al., 2012: 24). However, in their influential
manifesto for a systemic approach to deliberative democracy, Mansbridge et al. (2012:
25f) describe three phases in the development of deliberative democracy theory. A first,
more ‘ideal theory’ phase was concerned with elaborating and justifying the general prin-
ciples of deliberation. The second phase introduced empirical studies (see Carpini et al.,
2004 for an overview). Political scientists searched for traces of deliberation in political
institutions, and tested deliberative potentials in...
To continue reading
Request your trial