ABSTRACT
This article seeks to critically discuss the notion of deliberative systems, attempting to contribute to the strengthening of the concept through a less laudatory perspective. Initially, it challenges the current use of deliberative systems as a panacea against any critique of deliberation. It argues that the concept in itself opens new dilemmas to deliberative theorists and practitioners. The article argues that the idea of deliberative systems may (1) create political asymmetries; (2) increase decision makers’ discretionary powers; and (3) neglect the incompatibility of very different discursive dynamics. The article, then, argues that these criticisms may be partially remedied through the strengthening of connections between discursive arenas, and discusses the role that three types of actors may play to induce connectivity in deliberative processes: (1) bureaucrats; (2) the media; (3) activists.
