The first part of this article set out two possible models of proceduralisation. This second part of this article begins to develop one of those forms, 'thick' proceduralisation, building on but modifying Habermas's model of deliberative democracy in two important respects. First, it is argued that it is not sufficient simply to call for deliberation for there is a real likelihood that even if all deliberants can be brought together true communication will be blocked by difference; difference in the modes of discourse, the techniques of argument, language and validity claims. Discourse may therefore have to be mediated through the adoption of strategies of translation, mapping and dispute resolution. Whether regulators can or should perform such a mediating role remains however an open question. Second, it is argued that deliberative modes of policy formation and regulation are compatible with more pluralist and polyarchical arrangements than Habermas allows, and indeed that such arrangements may need to be adopted for thick proceduralisation to become operative
To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.