ABSTRACT
Deliberative models have dominated democratic theory for the past ten years. This chapter argues that, in some prominent versions at least, these models are fundamentally flawed. Criticism of the deliberative model is not new; however, few critics challenge the most basic assumptions of that model, preferring to argue on the ground set out by the deliberationists themselves. My aim is to suggest that deliberative theory lacks basic coherence and consistency, and that it contains worrying elitist threads. The major shortcomings that I focus upon are: the models’ claims to legitimacy; their reliance on metaphor; and their exclusiveness. I proceed by examining, in turn, legitimacy, the siting of deliberative democracy, the work of Cohen, and the Schumpeterian problem (especially as it is raised in the work of Offe).
