Ivana Jankovic

In this paper, we examine whether it is possible to improve democracy by encouraging ordinary citizens to participate in political decision-making and if participation in deliberative institutions can make citizens more competent decision-makers. By using qualitative data, we analyze the discussion from the Belgrade citizens? assembly focused on the topic of expanding the pedestrian zone in the city center. The CA was organized in Serbia for the first time, as part of a research project aimed at promoting and advancing innovative democratic practices in the Western Balkans. The goal was to encourage the involvement of citizens in discussions of public interest. Our hypothesis was that, through the process of participation and deliberation in CA, ordinary citizens can make reasonable and informed choices, increase their knowledge of the issue discussed, and become more motivated to participate in political decision-making on the local level. Our qualitative content analysis suggests that deliberation had a positive impact on participants? knowledge of the chosen topic of the assembly. It also shows that citizens used exhaustive explanations rather than brief statements, could differentiate the good arguments from the bad, and more often appealed to general rather than private interests. Participants in the assembly reported a significant increase in interest in political decision-making that affects their lives, as well as a sense of being informed about politics. Finally, we wanted to draw attention to the challenges and open questions that remain, namely those that concern the impact of a deliberative body on political decision-making in the real world.

Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another,without prior consultation and for the sake of her epistemic good. We will examine two main types of epistemic paternalism: eudaimonic and strict. In the case of eudaimonic epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is used only as a means to achieve non-epistemic benefits. In the case of strict epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is valued as a good in itself. The main objection against each type of epistemic paternalism is that this practice leads to a violation of personal autonomy. We will defend a more moderate form of strict epistemic paternalism which is motivated by both epistemic and non-epistemic benefits. At the same time, this moderate form leads to the development of specific epistemic virtues, which results in an increase rather than a violation of personal autonomy. We will show that the question of the justification of epistemic paternalism is especially relevant in crises, such as the current pandemic caused by the covid-19 virus.

Stanoviste deliberativne demokratije jeste da se legitimnost demokratskih odluka zasniva na prethodnoj deliberaciji onih koji ucestvuju u procesu odlucivanja. Ovo znaci da se demokratske odluke ne mogu donositi samo na osnovu proste agregacije preferencija koje se izrazavaju prilikom glasanja. Kao rezultat promisljanja podstaknutih deliberativnom komunikacijom i uzimanjem u obzir stanovista drugih ljudi, gradjani mogu da promene svoje prvobitne stavove i preferencije. Cilj ovoga rada jeste da izlozi stanoviste deliberativne demokratije, kakvo zastupaju Ejmi Gatman i Denis Tompson, kao i da iznese kritike koje nastaju kao rezultat razmisljanja o prakticnoj primeni takve zamisli.

Stanoviste deliberativne demokratije jeste da se legitimnost demokratskih odluka zasniva na prethodnoj deliberaciji onih koji ucestvuju u procesu odlucivanja. Ovo znaci da se demokratske odluke ne mogu donositi samo na osnovu proste agregacije preferencija koje se izrazavaju prilikom glasanja. Kao rezultat promisljanja podstaknutih deliberativnom komunikacijom i uzimanjem u obzir stanovista drugih ljudi, gradjani mogu da promene svoje prvobitne stavove i preferencije. Cilj ovoga rada jeste da izlozi stanoviste deliberativne demokratije, kakvo zastupaju Ejmi Gatman i Denis Tompson, kao i da iznese kritike koje nastaju kao rezultat razmisljanja o prakticnoj primeni takve zamisli.

In her book Democracy and Truth: The Conflict between Political and Epistemic Virtues, Snjezana Prijic Samarzija advocates that a purely procedural justification which defines the authority and legitimacy of democracy only in relation to the fairness of the procedure itself is not enough for a full justification of democracy. Some epistemic values should also be included. This epistemic quality of democracy depends on the quality of the decisions that the democratic procedures produce. In that sense, the author is advocating a hybrid theory that secures harmony between political and epistemic values, favoring deliberative procedure for this purpose, and thus promotes equal respect for both democratic values. In doing so, she is advocating the specific type of division of epistemic labor that I will attempt to critically re-examine here, as well as to bring into question the privileged role of the experts in democratic decision-making.