Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse (Theories of Institutional Design)

207 Pages·2005·1.55 MB·English

by  Jurg Steinger

This page intentionally left blank
DELIBERATIVE POLITICS IN ACTION
“Deliberativepolitics”referstotheroleofconversationandargumentsinpolitics.Until
recentlydiscussionofdeliberativepoliticstookplacealmostexclusivelyamongpolitical
philosophers, but many questions raised in this philosophical discussion cry out for
empiricalinvestigation.Thisbookprovidesthefirstextendedempiricalstudyofdeliber-
ativepolitics,addressinginparticularquestionsofthepreconditionsandconsequences
ofhigh-leveldeliberation.UsingparliamentarydebatesinGermany,Switzerland,the
UnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStatesasanempiricalbase,theauthorsmeasurethe
levelofdeliberationbyconstructinga“DiscourseQualityIndex.”Asdeliberativepolitics
movestotheforefrontofpoliticaltheory,thisbookmakesanimportantcontributionto
deliberativedemocracy.
ju¨rg steiner is Professor Emeritus of Politial Science at the University of North
CarolinaatChapelHillandattheUniversityofBern.Intheacademicyear2003–4he
wasalsoSwissChairattheEuropeanUniversityInstitute,Florence.
andre´ ba¨chtiger is Swiss Chair Fellow at the European University Institute,
Florence.
markus spo¨rndli isaresearcherattheUniversityofBern,Switzerland.
marco r. steenbergenisAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversity
ofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill.
theories of institutional design
SeriesEditor
RobertE.Goodin
ResearchSchoolofSocialSciences
AustralianNationalUniversity
AdvisoryEditors
BrianBarry,RussellHardin,CarolePateman,BarryWeingast
StephenElkin,ClausOffe,SusanRose-Ackerman
Socialscientistshaverediscoveredinstitutions.Theyhavebeenincreasinglyconcerned
with the myriad ways in which social and political institutions shape the patterns of
individualinteractionswhichproducesocialphenomena.Theyareequallyconcerned
withthewaysinwhichthoseinstitutionsemergefromsuchinteractions.
Thisseriesisdevotedtotheexplorationofthemorenormativeaspectsoftheseissues.
Whatmakesonesetofinstitutionsbetterthananother?How,ifatall,mightwemove
fromthelessdesirablesetofinstitutionstoamoredesirableset?Alongsidethequestions
ofwhatinstitutionswewoulddesign,ifweweredesigningthemafresh,arepragmatic
questionsofhowwecanbestgetfromheretothere:fromourpresentinstitutionsto
newrevitalizedones.
Theoriesofinstitutionaldesignisinsistentlymultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinary,
bothintheinstitutionsonwhichitfocuses,andinthemethodologiesusedtostudy
them.Thereareinterestingsociologicalquestionstobeaskedaboutlegalinstitutions,
interestinglegalquestionstobeaskedabouteconomicinstitutions,andinterestingsocial,
economic,andlegalquestionstobeaskedaboutpoliticalinstitutions.Byjuxtaposing
theseapproachesinprint,thisseriesaimstoenrichnormativediscoursesurrounding
importantissuesofdesigningandredesigning,shapingandreshapingthesocial,political,
andeconomicinstitutionsofcontemporarysociety.
Otherbooksinthisseries
RobertE.Goodin(editor),TheTheoryofInstitutionalDesign
BrentFisseandJohnBraithwaite,Corporations,Crime,andAccountability
ItaiSened,ThePoliticalInstitutionofPrivateProperty
BoRothstein,JustInstitutionsMatter
JonElster,ClausOffe,andUlrichPreuss,InstitutionalDesigninPost-Communist
Societies:RebuildingtheShipatSea
MarkBovens,TheQuestforResponsibility
GeoffreyBrennanandAlanHamlin,DemocraticDevicesandDesires
AdrienneHeritier,Policy-MakingandDiversityinEurope:EscapefromDeadlock
EricPatashnik,PuttingTrustintheUSBudget:FederalTrustFundsandthePoliticsof
Commitment
BenjaminReilly,DemocracyinDividedSocieties:ElectoralEngineeringforConflict
Management
HuibPellikuanandRobertvanderVeen,EnvironmentalDilemmasandPolicyDesign
JohnS.DryzekandLeslieHolmes,Post-CommunistDemocratization:Political
DiscoursesacrossThirteenCountries
JonathanG.S.Koppell,ThePoliticsofQuasi-Government:HybridOrganizationsand
theDynamicsofBureaucraticControl
DELIBERATIVE
POLITICS IN ACTION
Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse
JU¨ RG STEINER, ANDRE´ BA¨CHTIGER, MARKUS
SPO¨ RNDLI, AND MARCO R. STEENBERGEN
  
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521828710
© Jürg Steiner, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, Marco R. Steenbergen 2004
This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place
without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format
- ---- eBook (EBL)
- --- eBook (EBL)
- ---- hardback
- --- hardback
- ---- paperback
- --- paperback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of
s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Acknowledgments page vi
Introduction:Theresearchquestions 1
1 Institutionsandbehavior:theexampleofconsociational
theory 8
2 Thephilosophicalliteratureondeliberativepolitics 16
3 Measuringdeliberation:aDiscourseQualityIndex 43
4 Understandingtherealworldofdeliberation:hypotheses
aboutantecedentsandconsequences 74
5 Antecedentsofdeliberation:institutionsandissues 98
6 Discourseanditsconsequences 138
Conclusionandresearchoutlook 165
Appendix:DiscourseQualityIndex(DQI):instructionsforcoders 170
References 180
Index 194
v
Acknowledgments
WeacknowledgethegenerousfinancialsupportoftheSwissNationalSci-
ence Foundation. Special thanks go to Wolf Linder and David Lowery
who have attentively followed the project from the very beginning to the
very end. In various phases of our research, we received helpful sugges-
tions from Rudy Andeweg, Klaus Armingeon, Matthijs Bogaards, Pamela
Conover, Rainer Doebert, Robert Goodin, Ju¨rgen Habermas, Adrienne
Heritier,LiesbetHooghe,KatjaKleinberg,HanspeterKriesi,ArendLijphart,
GaryMarks,DonaldSearing,andPhilippeSchmitter.Wearegratefulforthe
stimulatingdiscussionsinseminarsondeliberationattheUniversityofBern,
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the European University
InstituteinFlorence,andtheOsloSummerSchoolinComparativeSocial
ScienceStudies.
vi
Introduction
The research questions
This book is about deliberation in parliamentary institutions. It presents
data on the institutional antecedents as well as the consequences of leg-
islative deliberation in four countries: Germany, Switzerland, the United
Kingdom, and the United States. Our goal is to connect the literature on
deliberation,whichhasdevelopedalmostexclusivelywithinthefieldofpo-
liticalphilosophy,toatheoreticalandempiricalunderstandingofpolitical
institutions. Our main argument will be that talk matters: the nature of
speechactsinsidelegislaturesisafunctionofinstitutionalrulesandmech-
anisms,andbearsaninfluenceonpoliticaloutcomesthattranscendsthose
rulesandmechanisms.OurmainvehicleofanalysisisaDiscourseQuality
Index(DQI),whichmeasuresthequalityofdeliberation.
Togiveafeelingfortheempiricaldatatobepresentedinthemainbody
of the book, we open with two illustrations, one of a high quality of de-
liberation and one of a low quality of deliberation. The former example
comesfromadebateintheSwissCouncilofStatesonamendingthecon-
stitutionwithalanguagearticle.InthecommitteestageGerman-speaking
Rene´Rhinowmadetheproposaltoestablishintheamendmenttheabstract
principleoffreedomoflanguage.Hewithdrewhisproposalintheplenary
session in deference to the opposition of many French speakers, referring
totheimportanceofpeacefulrelationsamongthelanguagegroups.From
adeliberativeperspectiveitisimportantthatRhinowwaswillingtolisten
with respect to the arguments of the French speakers and that he did not
withdrawhisproposalaspartofabargainingdealinexchangeforthevotesof
theFrenchspeakersinothermattersimportanttohim.Rather,hebasedthe
withdrawalofhisproposalonhisconcernforlanguagepeace.Anextreme
1
2 DELIBERATIVE POLITICS IN ACTION
exampleofalowqualityofdeliberationoccurredinanabortiondebatein
the German Bundestag when Claus Ja¨ger interrupted another member of
parliament,saying:“Youdeserveaslapinthefaceforthat!”Withthisrude
remarkJa¨gerlackedanyrespectforotherarguments;inthiswayhesignaled
thathewasunwillingtoyieldtotheforceofthebetterargument.Hedenied
thatotherargumentshadanymeritsatallsothatitwasnotworthhiswhile
toconsidertheminanyseriousway.ThespeechactsofRhinowandJa¨ger
are at the extreme ends of our Discourse Quality Index with most speech
actsbeingsomewhereinbetween.
At the beginning of the book we put forward two concrete illustra-
tions in order to make clear at the outset that we are addressing the is-
sueofdeliberativepoliticsinanempiricalway.Wewishtoinvestigatethe
level of discourse quality in the parliamentary debates of several coun-
tries and to see how variation in discourse quality can be systematically
explained by its preconditions and consequences. Until very recently, the
discussionondeliberativepoliticstookplacealmostentirelyamongpoliti-
calphilosophers.Withinthisphilosophicaldiscussionthefollowingques-
tions are at the center: (1) How is the deliberative model of democracy
to be defined and how is it different from other models of democracy?
(2) Is deliberation a good thing in itself? (3) Has deliberation beneficial
consequences, in particular for social justice? (4) What are the favorable
conditions for deliberation? The last two questions cry out for empiri-
cal investigation, and it is precisely our intention to tackle them in this
book.
We address several audiences in this book. First, we address polit-
ical philosophers by formulating our DQI in a theoretically justifiable
way, linking it in particular to the ideas of Ju¨rgen Habermas. Because
of this theoretical foundation, empirical data generated using the DQI
should be of interest to political philosophers. They can inform future
philosophical debates about the preconditions for and merits of delibera-
tion.
Our second audience consists of the scholars of political institutions.
Muchofthetheoreticalunderstandingofinstitutionsisbasedontwotra-
ditions–rationalchoicetheoryandpsycho-sociologicalmodelsofnorms.
The former tradition typically views legislators’ preferences as fixed and
generally focuses on the way in which institutional rules translate those
preferencesintoformaloutcomes(e.g.votes).Thelattertraditionfocuses
onthemannerinwhichlegislatorsadoptbehavioralnormsandhowthose
norms influence behavior. In both traditions, strong emphasis is given to
voting.Ofcourse,votingisanimportantaspectoflegislativebehavior,and
part of this book is concerned with that topic. But much (if not most) of