Legitimacy and Diversity: Dialectical Reflections on Analytical Distinctions

Jurgen Habermas's discourse theory of democracy has repeatedly been criticized for placing too much emphasis on consensus and not enough on conflict. He wants, it seems, to defend a discourse-theoretical version of the "general will" as the key to democratic legitimacy, whatever the cost. The costs are usually reckoned in terms of the theory's tenuous relation to the hurly-burly of democratic practice, where disagreement is the rule and unanimity is in short supply. Many of these criticisms miss their target, for they are often based on superficial readings and serious misunderstandings.

But enough of them hit the mark to indicate that there are real problems here. My own view is that the problems can be addressed without surrendering the discourse approach to democratic deliberation. But adjustments need to be made.