The Democratization of Parliamentary Institutions: Communicativeand Procedural Approaches

Democratic transformation can be conceptualizedin two different ways: as a movement from authoritarian to democratic forms (transitology), or as socio-philosophical models of transformation. In this paper we followed the second line,and identified two approaches to change: procedural and communicative. According to the first approach,procedures governing the forms of political interaction should be the object of change. Democratizationis understood as the construction of democratic procedures, or as the process of changing theold ones, in accordance with democratic principles. For second approach the forms of interactionthemselves should be transformed. Democracy is implemented in democratic models of communication.In modern western theory liberal and deliberative models of democracy are distinguished in thesimilar way. D. Dryzek and S. Benhabib argued that the first approach is more limited in the prospectof democratization.The second part of this paper present a comparative analysis of selected approaches of the democratizationof parliamentary institutions. According to the criteria of participant's orientation, the proceduralapproach focuses on compliance with external rules and doesn't mention the strategies of deputies.The communicative approach, on the contrary, puts a priority to relationship between individualstrategies in the process of aggregation of the common will. According to the criteria of participant'sorientation, the procedural approach focuses on compliance with external rules and doesn't mentionthe strategies of deputies, whereas the communicative approach puts a priority to relationship betweenindividual strategies in the process of aggregation of the common will. In decision- making process,the procedural approach make an accent on the procedure of aggregation of votes, while the communicativeapproach emphasize on the integration of deputy's positions during the debate. The boundariesbetween the parliamentary groups in the procedural approach are considered more stringent than in thecommunicative approach. Transformation of the private opinions into the common will in a proceduralapproach is regarded as a mathematical problem, in the communicative approach - both, as mental andsociological processes. The subject of democratic action in a procedural approach is a group that controlsthe decision-making process in the legislature. In the communicative dimension, solutions areidentified as the will of the entire community. And finally, in the procedural approach, the problem ofincluding members in the activities of the representative assembly is solved by providing formal rightsof participation. Concerning the communicative view, skills of including perspectives of others in thescope of discussion are required.Thus, the differences between the approaches are so significant that they should be mentionedwhen we make strategies for democratization.

Keywords

Authors

References