Um dos principais problemas apresentados pela concepção tradicional de democracia, caracterizada pela mera competição política entre interesses ou preferências, é sua insuficiência na avaliação dos resultados políticos. Em contraposição, a idéia de uma democracia deliberativa pretende, dentre outros objetivos, fornecer uma reflexão epistêmica, na medida em que se propõe a ir além do mérito dos procedimentos democráticos, com vistas a apresentar boas razões para as escolhas públicas. Ela requer uma justificação pública que se faça por meio da argumentação pública de todos os concernidos. Essa abordagem, contudo, é comprometida por falhas relacionadas a sua postura excessivamente idealista caso entendamos os procedimentos deliberativos como discussões políticas efetivas voltadas para o consenso ou à eventual vagueza de seus parâmetros epistêmicos. Procuro defender, em sentido contrário, que critérios adequados à justificação pública podem ser encontrados na concepção política de justiça presente no liberalismo político de John Rawls. Sua proposta deve ser interpretada, em discordância com críticas correntes, como defensora da democracia e plenamente compatível com a deliberação democrática. / One of the major problems that beset the traditional conception of democracy, marked by a mere political contention of interests or preferences, is the absence of a due appraisal of political outcomes. Contrarily, the idea of deliberative democracy intends inter alia to provide an epistemic account so far as it goes beyond procedural values in order to find good reasons for a public choice. It claims a public justification by way of a public reasoning among all those concerned. This account reveals, however, shortcomings for being either too idealist if its deliberative procedures mean a public discussion whose aim is consensus or too vague whether one considers those procedures as epistemic standards. I sustain otherwise that appropriate criteria for public justification can be found in a political conception of justice supported by John Rawls political liberalism. This account is to be shown in opposition to common objections - as encouraging democracy and not inimical to democratic deliberation.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2017-10-04T14:02:31Z No. of bitstreams: 1 José Carlos de Castro Dantas_.pdf: 1311441 bytes, checksum: a765d1fddb4b6e12d592013a80b9106e (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-10-04T14:02:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 José Carlos de Castro Dantas_.pdf: 1311441 bytes, checksum: a765d1fddb4b6e12d592013a80b9106e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-06-09 / UEMA – Universidade Estadual do Maranhão / A tese básica dessa pesquisa toma a democracia deliberativa pública como paradigma teórico e como recurso político relevante para as democracias moderno-contemporâneas plurais e complexas. É fato histórico que, na heterogênica construção da democracia ocidental estabelecida como regime político mais apropriado, esse modelo deliberativo pode constituir-se atualmente em notável proposição de ethos e práxis democrática e, consequentemente, como objeto de intensos debates. Seus defensores advogam, comumente, que aquilo que é considerado do interesse comum seja resultado dos processos de deliberação coletiva, racional e equitativa entre indivíduos livres e iguais. Além disso, a democracia deliberativa é uma concepção de governo democrático que prioriza a discussão racional na vida política. Princípios associados do liberalismo rawlsiano, tais como o da preservação das liberdades subjetivas, da pluralidade e da razão pública, e do republicanismo pettitiano da liberdade como não dominação positiva fundamentando a democracia, são contributos relevantes considerados à luz racionalidade e dos princípios discursivos habermasianos os quais fundamentam a concepção deliberativo-procedimental no âmbito correlacional do direito e da política. Nesse contexto, o orçamento participativo de Porto Alegre, calcado no histórico associativismo local e na vontade política da Administração Popular entre 1990 e 1996 cujos procedimentos metodológico-discursivos estabeleceram que cidadãos livres e iguais habilitam-se, de cooperações institucionais, a debates, avaliações e decisões em torno dos interesses públicos, foi tomado nessa pesquisa como modelo exemplar de possibilidade deliberação democrática pública. / The basic thesis of this research takes public deliberative democracy as a theoretical paradigm and as a relevant political resource for pluralistic and complex modern contemporary democracies. It is a historical fact that, in the heterogeneous construction of Western democracy established as the most appropriate political regime, this deliberative model can now constitute a remarkable proposition of ethos and democratic praxis and, consequently, as the object of intense debates. Its defenders commonly advocate that aspects considered of common interest have to be a result of processes of rational, equitative and collective deliberation between free and equal individuals. Moreover, deliberative democracy is a conception of democratic government that prioritizes rational discussions in political life. In the Habermasian theory, in particular, contributions such as the Rawlsian liberalism, concerning preservation of subjective freedoms and public reason, and the Pettitian republicanism, related to freedom as positive non-domination, are considered within the context of rationality and discoursive principles, which ground the deliberative-procedural conception on the correlacional scope of law and politics. The context of the Porto Alegre participatory budgeting, based in the historical and local associativism and in the political will of the Popular Administration, whose metodological-discoursive procedures established that free and equal citizens qualify themselves, within the context of institutional cooperations, to debates, evaluations and decisions of public interests, was taken in this research as an exemplary model of possibility of public democratic deliberation.

Nesta dissertação, propusemos uma investigação dos contornos político-jurídicos do poder decisório dos conselhos populares, através de questões identificadas por meio da atividade de assessoria jurídica universitária popular a grupos e movimentos populares que participam desses órgãos. A primeira questão que analisamos diz respeito às garantias que a Constituição Federal de 1988 prevê para a existência e a participação da sociedade na gestão das políticas públicas por meio de conselhos populares. Identificamos que os conselhos populares foram pautados em inúmeras propostas que tramitaram na Assembleia Nacional Constituinte e que todas elas foram rejeitadas ou tiveram seu conteúdo bastante alterado no sentido de torná-las mais abstratas. Apesar da não aprovação das propostas, o contexto de mobilização popular da Constituinte contribuiu para a construção de um ideário participativo que viria a influenciar o processo de criação de conselhos populares por meio da regulamentação dos direitos sociais previstos na Constituição. Esse processo foi marcado pela reivindicação de conselhos com poder decisório, o que se expressou por meio da exigência de que esses tivessem caráter deliberativo. Entretanto, após três décadas da Constituinte, os conselhos deliberativos parecem não responder ao anseio pela participação popular nas decisões estatais. A partir dessa questão, propusemos um modelo analítico que considera as matizes do poder decisório atribuído aos conselhos para classificar suas atribuições, com base em alguns conceitos do Direito Administrativo. Por meio da análise realizada, buscamos demonstrar que a previsão de caráter deliberativo não é, por si só, suficiente para garantir poder de decisão aos conselhos, que deve ser expresso por meio da previsão de competências que especifiquem o alcance desse poder. Identificamos que há uma grande variedade de tipos de decisões que podem ser tomadas pelos conselhos e que as leis e normas que regulamentam esses órgãos estabelecem muitas competências imperfeitas, ou seja, aquelas que definem uma finalidade sem prever, contudo, os poderes instrumentais que permitam sua execução. Identificamos ainda uma tendência de que essas competências sejam estabelecidas por decreto, e não por lei, o que tende a prejudicar a autonomia dos conselhos. / In this dissertation, we proposed an investigation of the political and juridical contours of the decision power of the popular councils, through issues identified by means of the activity of popular legal advice at the university to groups and popular movements that participate these councils. The first question that we analyzed concerns the guarantees that the Federal Constitution of 1988 provides for the existence and participation of society in the management of public policies through popular councils. We identified that the popular councils were based on innumerable proposals that were processed in the Constituent National Assembly and that all of them were rejected or had their content heavily altered in the sense of making them more abstract. Despite the non-approval of the proposals, the context of popular mobilization of the Constituent Assembly contributed to the construction of a participatory ideology that would influence the process of creating the popular councils, through the regulation of social rights provided in the Constitution. This process was marked by the demand for councils with decision- making power, which was expressed through the requirement that these have a deliberative character. However, after three decades of the Constituent Assembly, the deliberative councils don\'t seem to respond to the wishes for popular participation in state decisions. From this point of view, we propose an analytical model that considers the nuances of the decision-making power attributed to the councils to classify their attributions, based on some concepts of Administrative Law. Through the analysis, we demonstrate that the prediction of deliberative feature isn\'t enough by itself to guarantee decision-making power to the councils, what should be expressed through the forecast of competencies that specify the scope of this power. We identified that there is a big variety of types of decisions that can be taken by councils and that the laws and norms that regulate these bodies establish many imperfect competencies, that is, those that define a purpose without, however, foreseeing the instrumental powers that allow its execution. We also identified a tendency for these competences are established by decree, not by law, which tends to undermine the autonomy of councils.

A discussão contemporânea sobre a organização de uma sociedade política que estabeleça princípios normativos visando à legitimação do Estado de direito está no epicentro da fundamentação das teorias de democracia deliberativa. Assim, indagaremos sobre a estruturação de mecanismos constitucionais que possibilitem o exercício dos direitos políticos para a formação da opinião pública. A tese a ser defendida é que há pontos problemáticos na teoria deliberativa de Habermas que dificultam a sua aplicação na práxis social. O que observamos é a necessidade do estabelecimento de mecanismos para a defesa dos cidadãos perante a forma instrumental por meio da qual os sistemas sociais operam na sociedade capitalista tardia. Por isso, com o auxílio da teoria de democracia contestatória e a concepção de liberdade republicana, apresentadas por Pettit, almejamos salvaguardar os princípios discursivos da teoria habermasiana de democracia e, ao mesmo tempo, possibilitar uma ampliação no processo de reconstrução normativa e discursiva do Estado democrático de direito. A teoria republicana de liberdade como não-dominação nos oferece um estratagema para escapar da aporia na qual as teorias contemporâneas de democracia deliberativa encontram-se aprisionadas, em particular, no que se refere à finalidade de equilibrar a força de legitimação do poder comunicativo e a sua influência na formatação do aparelho administrativo-estatal. / The contemporary discussion on the organization of a political society to establish normative principles aimed at legitimizing the rule of law is at the epicenter of the grounds of deliberative democracy theories. Therefore, we inquire on structuring constitutional mechanisms that enable the exercise of political rights for the formation of public opinion. The thesis to be defended is that there are trouble spots in the deliberative theory of Habermas that hinder their implementation in social praxis. What we observe is the need to establish mechanisms for the protection of citizens before the instrumental means by which social system operate in late capitalist society. Therefore, with the help of contestatory democracy theory and the design of republican liberty, presented by Pettit, we aim to safeguard the discursive principles of Habermas\' theory of democracy and at the same time, enabling an expansion in the process of normative and discursive reconstruction of the democratic state of law. The republican theory of freedom as non-domination gives us a ploy to escape quandary in which contemporary theories of deliberative democratic are trapped in particular as regards the purpose of balancing the legitimacy under power communicative and their influence in shaping the administrative-state apparatus.

[pt] O poder dos juizes de rechaçar uma lei emanada dos poderes dotados de alto nível de legitimação democrática é elemento central das democracias constitucionais. Entretanto a sua justificação em um nível que transcende o enfoque positivista é complexa, já que a jurisdição constitucional envolve um paradoxo: ao mesmo tempo em que as cortes são vitais à democracia, também representam seu limite. Nesta dissertação propõe-se a abordagem da dificuldade contramajoritária da jurisdição constitucional a partir do debate doutrinário norteamericano e europeu, analisando, detalhadamente três perspectivas que procuram superar o seu déficit democrático através de uma justificação que a compatibilize com o ideal da democracia. A conclusão proposta considera a instituição da jurisdição constitucional num nível genérico centrada na democracia deliberativa que preconiza um equilíbrio entre direitos e soberania popular. / [en] The power of the Judicial Branch to overule a law enacted by other branches with higher democratic legitimation constitutes a central feature of constitutional democracies. Nevertheless its justification beyond a positivist approach is complex, since judicial review envolves a paradox: at the same time that courts seem to be vital to democracy they also impose limits. In this dissertation is proposed the discussion of the counter- majority difficulty of the judicial review from the american and european doctrines point of view, and a detailed analisys of the perpectives that try to overcome its democratic deficit, proposing one justification that reconciles it with the democratic ideal. The conclusion offered considers the institution of judicial review in a general level, and is focused in a deliberative democracy basis that promotes an equilibrium between human rights and popular sovereign.

Nesta dissertação, propusemos uma investigação dos contornos político-jurídicos do poder decisório dos conselhos populares, através de questões identificadas por meio da atividade de assessoria jurídica universitária popular a grupos e movimentos populares que participam desses órgãos. A primeira questão que analisamos diz respeito às garantias que a Constituição Federal de 1988 prevê para a existência e a participação da sociedade na gestão das políticas públicas por meio de conselhos populares. Identificamos que os conselhos populares foram pautados em inúmeras propostas que tramitaram na Assembleia Nacional Constituinte e que todas elas foram rejeitadas ou tiveram seu conteúdo bastante alterado no sentido de torná-las mais abstratas. Apesar da não aprovação das propostas, o contexto de mobilização popular da Constituinte contribuiu para a construção de um ideário participativo que viria a influenciar o processo de criação de conselhos populares por meio da regulamentação dos direitos sociais previstos na Constituição. Esse processo foi marcado pela reivindicação de conselhos com poder decisório, o que se expressou por meio da exigência de que esses tivessem caráter deliberativo. Entretanto, após três décadas da Constituinte, os conselhos deliberativos parecem não responder ao anseio pela participação popular nas decisões estatais. A partir dessa questão, propusemos um modelo analítico que considera as matizes do poder decisório atribuído aos conselhos para classificar suas atribuições, com base em alguns conceitos do Direito Administrativo. Por meio da análise realizada, buscamos demonstrar que a previsão de caráter deliberativo não é, por si só, suficiente para garantir poder de decisão aos conselhos, que deve ser expresso por meio da previsão de competências que especifiquem o alcance desse poder. Identificamos que há uma grande variedade de tipos de decisões que podem ser tomadas pelos conselhos e que as leis e normas que regulamentam esses órgãos estabelecem muitas competências imperfeitas, ou seja, aquelas que definem uma finalidade sem prever, contudo, os poderes instrumentais que permitam sua execução. Identificamos ainda uma tendência de que essas competências sejam estabelecidas por decreto, e não por lei, o que tende a prejudicar a autonomia dos conselhos. / In this dissertation, we proposed an investigation of the political and juridical contours of the decision power of the popular councils, through issues identified by means of the activity of popular legal advice at the university to groups and popular movements that participate these councils. The first question that we analyzed concerns the guarantees that the Federal Constitution of 1988 provides for the existence and participation of society in the management of public policies through popular councils. We identified that the popular councils were based on innumerable proposals that were processed in the Constituent National Assembly and that all of them were rejected or had their content heavily altered in the sense of making them more abstract. Despite the non-approval of the proposals, the context of popular mobilization of the Constituent Assembly contributed to the construction of a participatory ideology that would influence the process of creating the popular councils, through the regulation of social rights provided in the Constitution. This process was marked by the demand for councils with decision- making power, which was expressed through the requirement that these have a deliberative character. However, after three decades of the Constituent Assembly, the deliberative councils don\'t seem to respond to the wishes for popular participation in state decisions. From this point of view, we propose an analytical model that considers the nuances of the decision-making power attributed to the councils to classify their attributions, based on some concepts of Administrative Law. Through the analysis, we demonstrate that the prediction of deliberative feature isn\'t enough by itself to guarantee decision-making power to the councils, what should be expressed through the forecast of competencies that specify the scope of this power. We identified that there is a big variety of types of decisions that can be taken by councils and that the laws and norms that regulate these bodies establish many imperfect competencies, that is, those that define a purpose without, however, foreseeing the instrumental powers that allow its execution. We also identified a tendency for these competences are established by decree, not by law, which tends to undermine the autonomy of councils.

審議民主模式強調公民為中心的政策參與；傳統多元主義式政治參與則強調利益團體對政府決策的影響，公民與利益團體皆是公民社會中不可或缺的重要組成，本研究聚焦於兩者在政策參與上的互動關係。本研究選擇原能會委託辦理之「核廢何從公民討論會」審議模式為個案，利用深度訪談與次級資料分析，探究利益團體對審議民主之態度及其與公民之間的互動關係。 本研究主要的研究結果如下： （一） 主管機關採用審議民主模式之因素：溝通過程不順利、嘗試增加社會層面思考、建立對話平台及傳達正確資訊。 （二） 利益團體參與審議民主之因素：包含監督審議民主模式進行、提供正確資訊以及嘗試新型態參與管道等；然而，受到過去互動經驗、團體自主性考量以及效果不確定，對參與審議民主模式的呈現負面考量。 （三） 利益團體與公民在審議活動過程中交相產生影響。 （四） 審議民主模式有利於利益團體與公民的互動關係中提升公民能力，然而，在弱勢聲音投入方面有所限制；在制度設計上，一方面能突破團體在政策資訊蒐集之困境，另一方面卻限制了議題討論的範疇。最後，團體與審議民主在決策影響上，尚未產生具體的作用。 據此，本研究提出三項實務建議：加強政策資訊公開流程、建立審議民主制度化體制以及利益團體廣泛參與審議民主活動。 / Deliberative democracy emphasizes citizen-orientation in decision-making and pluralist democracy emphasizes interest groups’ influence on public policy. Since both citizens and interest groups are important components of civil society, this article focuses on the interaction between deliberative democracy and interest groups in policy participation. This research takes “Public Forum for Low-level Radioactive Waste Disposal Siting” as the empirical case and explores it by secondary data and in-depth interview. The findings are as follow: 1. The reasons for government to adopt public deliberation as policy tool were to face the obstacles in communication process, to increase social discussions in this issue, to build up a new communication platform, and to disclose accurate information to the public. 2. The motives for interest groups to participate deliberative process are monitoring public forum, providing accurate information, and attempting to create new forms of public participation. Nevertheless, there are also some concerns which might cause interest groups’ unwillingness to participate the deliberative process, including their prior experiences of interacting with governments, the maintenance of group autonomy, and uncertain effects from deliberative process. 3. This study shows that both interest groups and deliberative democracy have mutual effect deliberative process. 4. Deliberative process in the interaction could enhance civic competence, but restrict the voice from social minority; in the dimension of the institutional design, deliberative process can help interest groups collect necessary information, but limit the scopes of policy issues for discussion. Finally, there is no apparent evidence supporting that interest groups and deliberative democracy process can make decision making difference. In the end, this study proposes that the governments should strengthen information disclosure, build infrastructure regarding deliberative democracy as well as promote deliberative activities.

<p>Private organizations are facing organizational field pressures which need to be addressed from an economic and ethical point of view in order to be sustainable in the long term. The present research study analyzes the role of the Pharmaceutical Industry as a provider of a social good and its responsibility towards its organizational field and stakeholder network. On the one hand it is argued that the mentioned industry should be profitable in order to make investments in research and development; while on the other hand, the industry must demonstrate engagement in the social sphere because of the good it commercializes, human health care. The Role of Organizational Policies, Codes and Structure will also be studied in order to deepen the understanding of the organization strategy towards Corporate Responsibility Practices.</p><p>This research project presents a case study of AstraZeneca Sweden Corporate Responsibility practices. In this study an Analytical Framework is developed based on institutional theory, the stakeholders' model, deliberative democracy model and business ethics. The mentioned framework will contribute to the understanding of AstraZeneca's Corporate Responsibility practices. The role of the company towards the demands from the outside world that causes the organization to respond and act will be addressed as well as the role of Policies, Codes and Organizational Structure in the Corporate Responsibility practice of the organization. We argue that the managerial response should be based upon a deliberative engagement method, in which all the interest parties are included in the decision making process.</p><p>The study is supported by two interviews which were conducted with key actors and extensive secondary data.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>In the beginning of 2007 the Swedish municipality Örebro decided to have a democratic</p><p>experiment, which ought to go under the name, “Dialouge for the citizens”. The</p><p>representative elected politicians in Örebro tried to find ways to involve the people in the</p><p>process of ruling. Why they choose to try this experiment on this very delicate matter, the</p><p>closure of several schools in the municipal, is one of the questions this essay is trying to</p><p>answer.</p><p>The purpose of this essay is to find out whether the process was an attempt for the politicians</p><p>of the representative democracy to implement deliberative democracy in the structure of the</p><p>local governance.</p><p>The result of this study is that the politicians didn’t manage to reach to the citizens the way</p><p>they formerly had planned.</p>

<p>ABSTRACT</p><p>Citizendialogue in the District of Rasbo</p><p>A Case Study in the Municipality of Uppsala</p><p>Author: Camilla Östlund</p><p>Supervisor: Stig Montin</p><p>The essay is written inside the scope of Örebro Universitys evaluation of the new organisation in the municipality of Uppsala.</p><p>The purpose of this essay is to study the citizendialogue in the district of Rasbo. This will be done partly by an examination of how the participants themselves</p><p>perceive citizendialogue. Their descriptions are put in relation to deliberative democracy and its critics amongst other. Partly by study how those involved have choosen to put it into practice. The opponents of the reorganization chose to start a non-profit association, Rasbo in co-operation, to carry on local mobilization and it will be compared with other similar groups. The municipality of Uppsala arranged a citizens forum in the district of Rasbo and the essay will examine how the participants experienced it.</p><p>The study is based upon a total of 19 semistructured interviews with politicians and officials in the municipality of Uppsala and also working members of Rasbo in co-operation.</p><p>The overall result of the analysis is that the politicians and the officials as well as the members of the association support the form of actions that endorse the representative system and look att citizendialogue as a tool to regenerate it and make it better. Rasbo in co-operation has almost everything in common with similar groups including a contradictory view on politics. The association has the important requirements for local mobilization, dedicated people, a positive collective identity and a constructive relation to the municipality. The participants of the citizens forum liked the way the forum was arranged and enjoyed the evening. But there was some problem between the unicipality and the association in connection with the preliminaries before the event. There is also some deficiency in the follow-up.</p><p>Keyword: local democracy, citizendialogue, deliberative democracy, local mobilization, citizens forum, Uppsala, Rasbo, Rasbokil, Stavby, Tuna.</p>