public sphere, the quality of discussion, accessibility, and the discursive
structure of opinion- and will-formation,’’ none of which is necessarily tied
to a particular territory or nation-state-based political institutions (Habermas
2001 a, 110 – 11 ). For this reason, Habermas considers the paradigm of delibera-
tive democracy especially fruitful for thinking through the possibility of
developing and democratizing regional political and economic blocs (e.g.
the European Union); it also helps us consider how such regional blocs
might come to constitute core components of a broader cosmopolitan system
of governance. Although, aworld-stateis undesirable, a stronger and more
democratic United Nations (UN) able to exercise peacekeeping and humani-
tarian functions, operating in conjunction with regional blocs outWtted with
the decision-making muscle necessary for pursuing ambitious regulatory
policies, are now called for. 2 In lucky correspondence with the ongoing
intensiWcation of cross-border ties in countless arenas of social life, Seyla
Benhabib notes in the same vein, deliberation ‘‘can emergewheneverand
wherever human beings can aVect one another’s actions and well-being’’
(Benhabib 2002 , 147 ). Deliberative democracy should prove adept at coping
‘‘withXuid boundaries’’ and producing outcomes across borders since human
communication—especially in an age of high-speed communication and
unprecedented possibilities for simultaneity—easily explodes the conWnes of
conventional political and geographical boundaries (Dryzek 2000 , 129 ;
Schmalz-Bruns 1999 ). In the same spirit, Jim Bohman defends a ‘‘public
reason’’ model of decision-making by noting that the profound pluralism
characteristic of political aVairs at the global level requires unrestricted com-
munication along the lines encouraged by deliberative democracy. To be sure,
Habermasians need to rethink conventional ideas about the public sphere
in order to liberate them from unnecessary Eurocentric baggage, but there is
no reason to preclude the possibility of doing so successfully (Bohman 1998 ,
1999 b). Whereas communitarian or republican accounts occlude the ‘‘fact
of (rapidly growing) pluralism,’’ deliberative democracy can grapple success-
fully with diversity (Bohman 1997 , 185 ; Dryzek 2000 , 129 ). In contrast
to republican or participatory democratic decision-making models which
2 Whereas Held ( 1995 ) suggests that a refurbished UN might conceivably undertake ambitious
forms of social, economic, and environmental regulation, Habermas would more cautiously limit
global government to peacekeeping operations and the protection of fundamental human rights.
Social, economic, and environmental issues—what Habermas describes as ‘‘global domestic politics’’
[Weltinnenpolitik]—would be dealt with by transnational—but not necessarilyglobal—political
actors. Habermas suggests that regional blocs such as the EU should play a decisive role at this
transnational level ( 2004 , 134 – 5 ).
90 william e. scheuerman