Democracy, succinctly understood as `rule by the people and for the people,' has been valued throughout history for a variety of reasons which I construe as belonging to two categories. Either democracy has been taken as the arrangement that best respects either the equality of each citizen or its ability to raise its epistemic credentials by pooling information and improving political argumentation. However, these two aspects of democratic rule are not always compatible: ensuring every citizen is treated with equal regard can sometimes hinder decision-making processes from "getting it right," while the correct answer need not be achievable fairly.;The first line of argument of the dissertation explores a promising strand of democratic theory, deliberative democracy. This school of thought holds that these two aspects of democracy can be made compatible by integrating deliberation at the center of political legitimacy and ensuring that it is both egalitarian and able to reach correct outcomes. However, most theories do not fully achieve a stable balance between substance and procedure.;Hence, the second line of argument focuses on Jurgen Habermas' theory of deliberative politics. Based on Habermas' discourse theory, his conception of political deliberation offers important resources to understand how deliberation helps us reach both egalitarian and epistemic goals of democracy.;What is more, and this is the final contribution of the dissertation, a Habermasian conception of discourse sheds light on the sources of potential tensions between the epistemic and the egalitarian aspects of democracy. Proceeding from a fine-grained understanding of three distinct uses of discourse in politics---to address either pragmatic, ethical-political, or moral issues---the mechanics and norms of discourse reveal in more specific detail how we may occasionally fail to reach the balance between treating every citizen with equal respect and attempting to reach the best available outcome from a substantive point of view.
展开▼
