Shared deliberation?
The idea of common political deliberations soon comes up against a number of questions.
How do we find a form of consensus?
Expertise that validates a decision taken upstream.
How can we work together without losing our original idea?
How do you make a fair decision in the common sense?
In France, deliberations are governed by the following rules: The Municipal Council regulates the affairs of the municipality through its deliberations (art L2121-29 of the CGCT*). – It exercises its powers by adopting decisions by majority vote. … – The Mayor must report on his decisions at each mandatory meeting of the Municipal Council (art L2122-23 of the CGCT). For a better understanding of the concept of deliberation, let’s exaggerate its philosophical development over time.
The introduction of deliberation in more contemporary history (18th century)
“General will or deliberation. Outline of a general theory of political deliberation” (translated), Bernard Manin, in Le Débat, no 33, 1985.
The deliberation is particularly clear in Rousseau’s use of the term. The philosophical tradition, following a usage dating back to Aristotelianism, generally uses the term deliberation to refer to the process by which the will is formed. This is the moment before making a choice, when the individual considers different solutions before deciding on one of them. But Rousseau uses the term deliberation in another sense, one that is well established in everyday language – that of decision. The difference between these two meanings is clear: in philosophical vocabulary, deliberation refers to the process preceding a decision; in Rousseau’s, it means the decision itself.
For example, he writes: “It follows from the foregoing that the general will is always upright and always tends towards the public good: but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally upright. People always want what is good for them, but they do not always see it. People are never corrupted, but they are often deceived, and only then do they appear to want what is wrong.” (translated) – Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II, Ch. III, 1762.
The “deliberations of the people” therefore refers to the choices they make, not to the process that leads to the choices; it would make no sense to say of a process that it is or is not correct. In the Discourse on Political Economy (1755), the term is used in the same way: Rousseau shows how the existence of “partial associations” is detrimental to the general will; “such deliberation,” he writes, “may be advantageous to the small community and very pernicious to the large”, or again, a little further on, “It does not follow from this that public deliberations are always equitable.” (translated).
Here again, it is clear that deliberation refers to the decision, not the process that leads to it. The term deliberation in this particular sense occurs precisely in the passages in which Rousseau condemns what is usually the medium of public discussion: groups or parties that confront each other in an exchange of arguments.
“If, when the people were sufficiently informed to deliberate, the Citizens had no communication between them, the great number of small differences would always result in the general will, and deliberation would always be good” (translated) Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book II, Ch. III, 1762.
The formula is remarkable, because it shows both the reduction of deliberation to decision (only the decision can be good or bad in this context, not the process of will formation) and the rigorous exclusion of communication between citizens. The rest of the chapter develops the famous critique of “partial associations” and parties. The influence of particular interests, i.e. the interests of groups or parties, corrupts the general will “… when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and small societies to influence the larger one, the common interest is altered and finds opponents, unanimity no longer reigns in the voices, the general will is no longer the will of all, contradictions arise, debates, and the best opinion does not pass without disputes”. The existence of parties is not the only issue at stake here; the simple communication between citizens is considered dangerous. So what is the risk that Rousseau wants to avert in this way? The answer can be found in the passage from the Discourse on Political Economy quoted above. Rousseau wants to show that the public will is always upright, unless the people are “seduced by particular interests, which with credit and eloquence a few clever people will be able to substitute for their own. Then public deliberation will be something else and the general will something else. So don’t hold up the democracy of Athens against me, because Athens was not indeed a democracy, but a very tyrannical aristocracy, governed by scholars and orators”. What must be excluded from democracy are the effects of rhetoric, the persuasion that some might exercise over others.
