How can we agree on democratic procedures? Dimensions of conflict in the political process space

Does democracy require procedural consensus among its citizens, and should such consensus be actively pursued? While democratic institutions structure decision-making, they also entrench power relations, warranting critical scrutiny. This paper takes issue with a democratic proceduralism that demands support for democratic institutions and procedures while ignoring the way in which they reinforce power asymmetries. Recognizing how institutional design choices shape political outcomes allows us to better understand the dimensions that structure conflicts over decision-making procedures. I argue that conflicts about egalitarianism and pluralism in the substantive policy space are reflected in the procedural “process space,” and show how they motivate calls for institutional stability or change. I conclude by endorsing a political constitutionalism that views the concrete design of democratic procedures as fallible, preliminary and revisable and helps to inform public and academic discourses on institutional design.