Deliberative Democracy and Non-Majoritarian Decision-Making

The growing number and relevance of non-majoritarian bodies in modern democracies casts doubt on the legitimacy of resulting policy-decisions. This doubt is commonly responded to by highlighting the potential deliberative and thus epistemic qualities of appointed bodies. At the same time, the paradox consisting in the fact that empirically, deliberation is rarely democratic, while democracy is rarely deliberative, poses a challenge to theories of deliberative democracy. This paper explores the systemic perspective on deliberative democracy, asking whether non-majoritarian forums, to which decision-making is delegated, can be legitimated in a democratic system or even contribute to the deliberative quality of it. The paper points out the necessity of democratizing institutional design and addresses the opportunities and problems democratic meta-deliberation would have to face if it is to generate legitimacy for non-majoritarian decision-making within majoritarian democracy.