Is deliberative democracy unfair to disadvantaged groups?

Over the last ten years or so, many democratic theorists have been drawn to the idea of deliberative democracy. This is not because they believe that existing liberal democracies already conform to their conceptions of how an ideal deliberative democracy would work: no one could sensibly maintain that. But there appears now to be something of a consensus that if we want the real-world systems that we call democracies to become more truly democratic, we should be looking for ways of propelling them towards the deliberative ideal. ¹ What, then, is that ideal? A democratic system is deliberative when the decisions it takes are arrived at through a process of open discussion to which each participant is able to contribute freely but is equally willing to listen to and consider opposing views; as a result, the decisions reached reflect not simply the prior interests or prior opinions of the participants but the judgements they make after reflecting on the arguments made on each side, and the principles or procedures that should be used to resolve disagreements. ² Such an ideal democracy promises to meet at least the following three conditions: it is inclusive, in the sense that each member of the political community in question takes part in decision making on an equal basis; it is rational, in the sense that the decisions reached are determined by the reasons offered in the course of deliberation, and/or the procedures used to resolve disagreement in the event that no consensus can be found; and it is legitimate, in the sense that every participant can understand how and why the outcome was reached even if he or she was not personally convinced by the arguments in its favour.202