The article examines the theoretical models of deliberative democracy in their opposition to the theoretical models of democratic elitism and participatory democracy. Having briefly described the features of the normative theory of deliberative democracy, the author proposes to distinguish three different forms of deliberation within this theory: microform, macroform and reflexive form. The microform involves discussion in specially formed small groups. The macroform is aimed at a nationwide discussion of socially significant problems (and correlates with direct democracy, defended by participatory democrats). Finally, the third form of deliberation, reflexive, suggests that genuine democracy is impossible without citizens reflecting on decisions made in the public space. It is argued that the distinction between micro- and macroforms of deliberative democracy in itself indicates that deliberative democracy does not completely break with democratic elitism and participatory democracy, since it is forced to lean either to the first or to the second in its assessment of the abilities and desire of citizens to participate in politics. However, some variations of the microform, as well as the reflexive form of deliberative democracy, radically transform the democratic ideal, since the will of the people ceases to play a decisive role in them. At the same time, the macroform of deliberative democracy is assessed by the author of the article as unrealistic, and therefore priority is given to the microform and reflexive form. In this regard, it is argued that the democratic theory is undergoing a revolutionary transformation, since democracy ceases to be associated with the will of the people.
N.A. Shaveko (Wed,) studied this question.