Citizens in Robes

the democratic participation in political deliberations towards a democracy without shortcuts

Abstract

In the current context of democratic crises and increasing criticism regarding the actions of constitutional courts and the gain of superpowers by their members, this article seeks to analyze the correlation between the alienation of citizenry from the deliberative political processes and the escalation of the democratic erosion. Drawing from the ongoing debate between Ronald Dworkin and Jeremy Waldron, and the recent work of Cristina Lafont, Democracy Without Shortcuts, which scrutinizes deliberative theories that suggest democratic “shortcuts” and alienate citizens from political deliberation through the demand of a blind deference, this paper discusses the role of constitutional courts and judicial review in increasing political alienation, which increasingly undermines the foundations of democracy. The article analyzes the legitimacy of judicial decisions regarding controversial issues, such as minority rights, and advocates for greater transparency and citizen inclusion in deliberative processes as a way to ensure grater legitimacy and stability. By rejecting pluralist, lottocratic and epistocratic conceptions of democracy, it suggests a reframing of the theoretical discussion on judicial legitimacy, focusing on strengthening democracy. It argues that the legitimacy of institutions such as the judicial review must be based on the citizens’ right to legal contest, and that citizen involvement in deliberative processes could ensure a more solid and stable democracy.