ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the rationales and practices of deliberative democracy and conflict resolution. It reflects on the deliberative democracy and consensus building literature that suggests how less-adversarial processes might be used to achieve good policy making and contrasts the theory. Deliberative democracy is intended to have many goals: identifying issues for policy development; sifting, choosing, and modifying policy; and sometimes actually facilitating decision making on behalf of various levels of political and legal action. Modern deliberative democracy theories derive mostly from the work of social and political philosopher Jurgen Habermas, particularly from his work on "ideal speech conditions" for fair deliberation on political decisions affecting those governed by the decisions made. The decisions to hold these meetings could themselves be the subject of a separate paper on healthcare reform and dispute processes, implicating issues of venue choice, articulation of goals, coalition formation, and ordering of negotiation partners.
