When we talk about Deliberation, we may define a process of political discussions to resolve disagreements supported by arguments and require the participation of all citizens by encouraging mutual respect. Deliberation is characterized by a specific scenario of structural inequalities, its civil and moral judgments and its ideal rationality to legitimate political decisions. Nevertheless, any deliberation in a democracy is apparently grounds for contradictions because of the actions from the hierarchy of power and the deconstruction of reality through the communication process to obey the rules for the common good. This response paper based on the reflections expressed by Lynn Sanders, Iris Marion Young, Frank Michelman, Jürgen Habermas and William Rehg in some articles focuses on this topic. The response paper will reflect over the different set of assumptions of political and communicative dimensions of this process of Deliberation that seems to be utopian and unequal at the end. 

When we talk about Deliberation, we may define a process of political discussions to resolve disagreements supported by arguments and require the participation of all citizens by encouraging mutual respect. Deliberation is characterized by a specific scenario of structural inequalities, its civil and moral judgments and its ideal rationality to legitimate political decisions. Nevertheless, any deliberation in a democracy is apparently grounds for contradictions because of the actions from the hierarchy of power and the deconstruction of reality through the communication process to obey the rules for the common good. This response paper based on the reflections expressed by Lynn Sanders, Iris Marion Young, Frank Michelman, Jürgen Habermas and William Rehg in some articles focuses on this topic. The response paper will reflect over the different set of assumptions of political and communicative dimensions of this process of Deliberation that seems to be utopian and unequal at the end.