抄録
The idea of using randomly selected citizens in political will-formation has stimulated democratic innovations called Mini-publics since the last decade of the 20th century. Citizen juries, planning cell, consensus conferences, and deliberative poll are known as such methods. While they are different in many respects, they share two fundamental assumptions: 1) randomly selected citizens, i.e. mini-publics, achieve better representation than election, and 2) mini-publics can be practical surrogates of ideal speech situation, where deliberation proceeds along communicative ethics. These are the assumptions which cannot be justified a priori. The representativeness and the deliberative quality of minipublics should be empirically examined. In this study, I will review the evaluation studies on Deliberative Poll and compare the result of Kanagawa DP experiment. In particular, a method to analyze ”inter-subjective rationality„ is developed and it is shown that the level of inter-subjective rationality has been increased in the case of Kanagawa DP. Then, finally, the possibility of deliberative democracy using mini-publics is discussed further.
