deliberative democracy, appears ‘‘in another [more positive] light’’ (Haber-
mas 2001 a, 111 ).
As Robert Fine and Will Smith point out, however, this argument down-
plays the indispensable role of democratic representative bodies and threatens
to dissolve any link between deliberative civil society and formal political
institutions (Fine and Smith 2003 , 477 ). Discussing the implications of
Habermas’ ideas for the European Union, they worry that the development
of a civil society ‘‘in isolation fromsuch representative institutions might
enhance the feeling of detachment’’ and alienation already widespread in
relations between European citizens and institutions (Fine and Smith 2003 ,
477 ). More generally, Habermas’ distinction potentially opens the door to a
relatively conciliatory reading of actual transnational decision-making bod-
ies, many of which undoubtedly achieve useful ‘‘epistemic’’ functions but
hardly rest on broad democratic deliberation. Many deliberative processes in
the transnational setting arguably contribute to a measure of ‘‘rationally
acceptable results.’’ Unfortunately, few of them can claim to provide a suY-
cient institutionalization for deliberative global citizens who need to make
sure that their preferences gain a binding legal form.
3 Conclusion
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
At the beginning of this chapter I suggested that recent Habermasian at-
tempts to tackle the normative and institutional quagmires of globalization
oVer a useful test for determining whether the paradigm of deliberative
democracy should continue to occupy the energies of critical theorists.
How then has deliberative democracy fared on this test? If I am not mistaken,
the results look mixed. Although Habermas-inspired deliberative democracy
has undoubtedly enriched the ongoing debate about the prospects of trans-
national governance, it remains both programmatically and conceptually
tension-ridden. If it is to prove intellectually fruitful in the future, critical
theorists will need to make sure to avoid the worrisome tendency to discount
the indispensable democratic core of the idea of deliberative democracy. They
will also need to move beyond disappointing defensive models of trans-
national democratization, while simultaneously showing why deliberative
102 william e. scheuerman