I argue that when conceiving or assessing normative ideas about how we should organize society into the kind of ecosystem we desire, it is unwise to completely ignore empirical conditions. I also demonstrate that when evaluating empirical difficulties attending a social system, it is also unwise to do so in total oblivion to the normative idea or objective informing the establishment of such a system. Each of these assessments I call an under informed single-level analysis. By contrast I advocate a (...) multi-level analysis (by which we evaluate both the normative and empirical dimensions of an idea or a social system) or, at the least, an informed single-level analysis (by which we evaluate either a normative idea or an empirical system with an implicit awareness of the content of the other level). I demonstrate that these models of analysis would never yield the same conclusions as an under informed single-level analysis. For my case studies I focus on the various models of analyses used in the debate about liberal majoritarian and consensus/communal democracies. (shrink)

In a democracy, when a group of deliberators have a set of differing (and contrary) views and beliefs about a particular policy or action, p, a recommended course of action is for them to pursue, and ultimately reach, a consensus on p. The pursuit of consensus allows deliberators to ‘reach over the aisle’ in accommodating dissenting views through rational dialogue until a consensual agreement is reached by all the deliberators. What fuels this pursuit of consensus is the ‘will to consensus’—a (...) ‘frame of mind’ or a ‘disposition’ to resolve disagreements into a consensus. In this paper, I will raise some conceptual problems with positing a ‘will to consensus’ that is prior to, and supervenes on, the rational discussion of deliberators. Instead of a ‘will to consensus’, democratic theorists should be content with the minimal claim of a ‘will to dialogue’. (shrink)

Deliberation is central to the pursuit of justice in African societies. In practices variously called palaver, public meetings or village assembly, attempts are made to do justice through deliberation. When parties disagree during a deliberation, they may choose to go their separate ways, or they may agree to reconvene on another date. Notwithstanding the positive senses in which otherness may be conceived, in this paper I consider the challenge negative constructions of otherness pose for the pursuit of justice through deliberation. (...) Is justice realizable through deliberation, if one or more parties to the deliberation regard other parties as absolute others, that is, as embodiment of everything abhorrent or aberrant? Through consideration of two models of deliberation – irenic and agonistic deliberation – I argue that the nature of a deliberation determines whether it must contend with the challenge of otherness. More generally, I argue that deliberation as a means to justice ultimately is contin... (shrink)