抄録
The issue is whether deliberative democracy can reasonably be expected to protect basic rights and liberties in risk society where people care about security and safety under the condition of deep uncertainty. According to radical deliberative democracy which John Dryzek calls discursive democracy, everything is subject to inclusive and critical deliberation, with an expectation that deliberative transformation of preferences and opinions will change things better. Against radical theorists. I think deliberative democracy at its best can not remain purely procedural and should explain somehow substantive principles and rights theoretically. In this respect, liberal constitutionalist deliberative democracy has a point At the same time, deliberative democracy should acknowledge that the final court of appeal are people themselves who are influenced by deliberative decisions. Radical theorists are right at that Deliberative democracy so understood is risky business because we can not
say for certain that actual deliberation will proceed properly and lead to desirable outcomes, panticularly in emergency situations. But although deliberation could not protect individual rights and liberties at the moment of panic, we might hope that through deliberations preceding and following panic, with constitutional rights enabling them, democracy would contribute toward protecting individuals over time.
https://ror.org/00965ax52 
