To the extent discursive democracy poses a radical challenge to dominant institutions, it would flourish in a world beyond capitalism, interest group politics, and bureaucracy. Discursive democracy looks forward to such a world as a practical hypothesis, but how do we move toward it? Specifically, what are the forces and circumstances that could produce more in the way of discursive democracy in politics, how likely are they to transpire, and how might they be exploited? Conversely, what forces operate to frustrate discursive democratization? If these negative forces prove less than invincible, what kind of path and pace should be sought?

Forces Favoring Discursive Democratization

In Chapters 2 and 3 discursive designs were defined, their capabilities and consequences explored, and real-world approximations to them located. But concrete examples of the sort I have provided do not prove the importance of discursive designs. If these institutions merit recognition as manifestations of significant forces for emancipation in the modern world, then it must be demonstrated that there are important general developments abroad conducive to their actualization and impact. In this section I shall identify some such developments.

Spaces exist for the generation of discursive designs to the extent dominant political and economic institutions are crumbling under the weight of their contradictions. One of the more effective analysts of such contemporary contradictions in state, economy, and society is Claus Offe, whose main concern is the fate of the Keynesian welfare state.

According to Offe (1984), the Keynesian welfare state exists and expands in order to curb the self-destructive anarchy of capitalism. Without this institutional fabric, the instability, income insecurity, poverty, and alienation generated by capitalism would foster discontent sufficient to undermine the prevailing political-economic order. The current contradiction of the welfare state arises because the state depends on a flourishing capitalist market system for both its revenues and its popularity in the eyes of the populace, which now holds government officials accountable for the condition of the economy. Offe does not mention that revenues are also needed if the state is to compete successfully in a hostile international environment.

This dependence on economic conditions means that governments dare not pursue policies that might threaten business confidence and so precipitate disinvestment and economic downturn (Block, 1977; Lindblom, 1982b). The trouble is that the welfare state produces policy outcomes that may indeed cause disinvestment and recession.