Abstract

Many contemporary philosophies of democracy agree that public deliberation plays an essential role in the making of legitimate political decisions. However, this consensus masks significant disagreement concerning the exact source of its value, as it is alternatively located in its impact on participants, in its expressive value, in its fairness, or in the quality of the decisions it produces. These rival justifications of democratic deliberation have different, and sometimes contradictory, consequences for political practices and institutions. This article analyses these justifications to decide between them and to clarify how they relate to each other. It develops an original justification of democratic deliberation by showing that it treats citizens fairly as listeners if not speakers. While it is not certain that democratic deliberation makes it in general more likely to reach a good decision, it makes the conditions for political judgement less unequal.