Theory of deliberative democracy in the face of objections to the national plan of development law

Abstract

This essay will defend the desirability of strengthening the postulates supported by transnational proponents of deliberative democracy respect to the legislative process. This has singular relevance due to criticism towards to the current model of approval of the National Plan of Development (because of the abusive provisions tacked on by Congress). The criticisms seek a return to the prior enactment model, which just required a presidential decree without previous legislative deliberation. Starting with a review of the “common nucleus” of this democratic theory, and particularly respect to the benefits that deliberation adds to the legislative process, this essay will argue that it is democratically impermissible to propose elimination of the current process simply because of the abusive provisions tacked on by Congress; instead it will be demonstrate how the incorporation of deliberation into the process improves the ability to attain impartiality in political decisions as well as promotes respect for opposing viewpoints, while tending to promote participation by large segments of society (as is the case with participants in the National Planning Council), all of which would be unattainable under the prior enactment process.