Does democracy require procedural consensus among its citizens, and should such consensus be actively pursued? While democratic institutions structure decision-making, they also entrench power relations, warranting critical scrutiny. This paper takes issue with a democratic proceduralism that demands support for democratic institutions and procedures while ignoring the way in which they reinforce power asymmetries. Recognizing how institutional design choices shape political outcomes allows us to better understand the dimensions that structure conflicts over decision-making procedures. I argue that conflicts about egalitarianism and pluralism in the substantive policy space are reflected in the procedural “process space,” and show how they motivate calls for institutional stability or change. I conclude by endorsing a political constitutionalism that views the concrete design of democratic procedures as fallible, preliminary and revisable and helps to inform public and academic discourses on institutional design.
BedockCPiletJB (2021) Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens. Government and Opposition56(3): 485–504.
2.
BellamyR (2007) Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
BertsouEPastorellaG (2017) Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics40(2): 430–458.
5.
BöhmKLandwehrCSteinerN (2014) What explains ‘generosity’ in the public financing of high-tech drugs? An empirical investigation of 25 OECD countries and 11 controversial drugs. Journal of European Social Policy24(1): 39–55.
6.
BoixC (1999) Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American Political Science Review93(3): 609–624.
7.
BrennanGBuchananJM (1985) The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BurkeE (1982 [1790]) Reflections on the Revolution in France. London: Penguin Classics.
9.
CaramaniDANIELE (2017) Will vs. Reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review111(1): 54–67.
10.
CekaBMagalhãesPC (2020) Do the rich and the poor have different conceptions of democracy? Socioeconomic status, inequality, and the political status quo. Comparative Politics52(3): 383–412.
11.
CohnRC (1969) The theme-centered interactional method—group therapists as group educators. Journal of Group Psychoanalysis and Process2(2): 19–36.
12.
DassonnevilleRHoogheLMarksG (2024) Transformation of the political space: A citizens’ perspective. European Journal of Political Research63(1): 45–65.
13.
DestriC (2021) Extrinsic democratic proceduralism: A modest defence. Res Publica27(1): 41–58.
14.
ElsässerLSchäferA (2023) Political inequality in rich democracies. Annual Review of Political Science26: 469–487.
15.
EstlundD (2008) Democratic Authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
FleußD (2021) Radical Proceduralism: Democracy From Philosophical Principles to Political Institutions. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited.
17.
ForstR (2022) The justification of trust in conflict. Conceptual and normative groundwork, ConTrust Working Paper, No. 2, Frankfurt am Main: ConTrust – Trust in Conflict.
18.
GausDLandwehrCSchmalz-BrunsR (2020) Defending democracy against technocracy and populism: Deliberative democracy's strengths and challenges. Constellations27(3): 335–347.
19.
HabermasJ (1985) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society, vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press.
20.
HabermasJ (1997) Popular sovereignty as procedure. In: BohmanJRehgW (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.35–67.
HakhverdianASchakelW (2022) The political representation of left-nationalist voters. Acta Politica57(3): 489–509.
23.
HeBWarrenME (2011) Authoritarian deliberation: The deliberative turn in Chinese political development. Perspectives on Politics9(2): 269–289.
24.
HetheringtonMJ (1999) The effect of political trust on the presidential vote, 1968–96. American Political Science Review93(2): 311–326.
25.
HibbingJR (2001) Process preferences and American politics: What the people want government to be. American Political Science Review95(1): 145–153.
26.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
27.
HillenSVENSteinerND (2020) The consequences of supply gaps in two-dimensional policy spaces for voter turnout and political support: The case of economically left-wing and culturally right-wing citizens in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research59(2): 331–353.
IversenTSoskiceD (2006) Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American Political Science Review100(2): 165–181.
30.
JoergesCNeyerJ (1997) From intergovernmental bargaining to deliberative political processes: The constitutionalisation of comitology. European Law Journal3(3): 273–299.
31.
KriesiH (2013) Restructuration of partisan politics and the emergence of a new cleavage based on values. In: EnyediZDeegan-KrauseK (eds.) The Structure of Political Competition in Western Europe. Milton Park: Routledge, pp.259–271.
32.
LafontC (2003) Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls-Habermas debate for discourse ethics. Philosophy & Social Criticism29(2): 163–181.
33.
LafontC (2020) Democracy Without Shortcuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
LageJThemaJZell-ZieglerC, et al (2023) Citizens call for sufficiency and regulation — A comparison of European citizen assemblies and National Energy and Climate Plans. Energy Research & Social Science104: 103254.
35.
LandwehrC (2015) Democratic meta-deliberation: Towards reflective institutional design. Political Studies63(1_suppl): 38–54.
36.
LandwehrC (2017) Disturbances Take Precedence. Why We Need to Regain the Procedural Consensus. New York: SSRC Items.
37.
LandwehrCSteinerND (2017) Where democrats disagree: Citizens’ normative conceptions of democracy. Political Studies65(4): 786–804.
38.
LuhmannN (1969) Legitimität Durch Verfahren. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
39.
MalkaALelkesYBakkerBN, et al (2022) Who is open to authoritarian governance within western democracies?Perspectives on Politics20(3): 808–827.
40.
MillsCW (2005) “Ideal theory” as ideology. Hypatia20(3): 165–183.
41.
NiesenP (2007) Politische Theorie als Demokratiewissenschaft. In: BuchsteinHGöhlerG (eds) Politische Theorie und Politikwissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp.126–155.
42.
NiesenP (2022) Politische Theorie und Ideengeschichte: von der Demokratiewissenschaft zur PPE-Wissenschaft? In: Flügel-MartinsenOJörkeD (eds) Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Politischen Theorie und Ideengeschichte: Rainer Schmalz-Bruns zum Gedenken. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp.319–341.
OffeC (1983) Political legitimation through majority rule?Social Research50(4): 709–756.
45.
PatbergM (2016) Against democratic intergovernmentalism: The case for a theory of constituent power in the global realm. International Journal of Constitutional Law14(3): 622–638.
46.
PatbergM (2020) Constituent Power in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
PitkinHF (1969) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ of California Press.
48.
RawlsJ (1971) A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
49.
RuncimanD (2021) Confronting Leviathan: A History of Ideas. London: Profile Books.
50.
SawardM (2021) Democratic Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
SchakelWPerssonMSundellA (2024) The economic and cultural dimensions of unequal policy representation. Socio-Economic Review mwae043: 1–22.
52.
SwiftAWhiteS (2008) Political theory, social science, and real politics. In: LeopoldDStearsM (eds) Political Theory Methods and Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.49–69.
53.
UrbinatiN (2014) Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
WarrenME (2017) What kinds of trust does a democracy need? Trust from the perspective of democratic theory. In: ZmerliSvan der MeerTWG (eds) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing, pp.33–52.
