Pushing the boundaries of deliberative constitutionalism: from judicial dialogue to inclusive dialogue

Abstract

Deliberative constitutionalism is a theory that has arrived at the centre of the academic debate in recent decades. Its novelty and interest lie in the fact that it offers a way to escape the objections to judicial review through a commitment to the premises of deliberative democracy. In this context, however, a question needs to be clarified: who can legitimately participate in this constitutional dialogue, in order for the objections to judicial review to be avoided? The argument of this article is that, while deliberative constitutionalism is a promising alternative that takes note of the objections to judicial review as well as the deliberative turn in democratic theory, not all of its variants take both of these aspects seriously. To assuage the objections to judicial review, we need a variant of deliberative constitutionalism that is oriented towards inclusive dialogue, and which addresses the whole constitutional system, rather than only intrajudicial, transjudicial and interinstitutional dialogue.