ABSTRACT
This chapter states that whatever the intentions of those who use them, identity arguments represent a danger for democracy. It presents three types of results that can in principle emerge from deliberative democratic forums. They are 'consensus', 'balance of power' and 'compromise'. The chapter demonstrates that compromise, rather than consensus or balance of power, represents the appropriate goal for most deliberative forums. It shows that advancing identity arguments has the effect of changing the nature of deliberative democracy in a way that causes compromise to become less likely than it might have otherwise been. The chapter concludes that our democratic institutions should to the greatest extent possible be organized in a way that discourages the use of identity arguments or, at least, renders their usage less problematic. It explores whether these restrictions impose an unacceptable burden on certain actors within pluralistic and multicultural societies, by preventing them from presenting legitimate claims that could not be put forward in other ways.
