A Precious Gift to Politics: an Investigation into Analytical Discourse Evaluation


  • Max van Steen




 Should liberal democratic societies accept Teun Dekker’s Analytical Discourse Evaluation as a gift from analytical philosophy? In this essay, the premises on which Analytical Discourse Evaluation is based are the topic under investigation. By performing Analytical Discourse Evaluation on Analytical Discourse Evaluation, some of the hidden structures behind Teun Dekker’s argument in favor of the use of Analytical Discourse Evaluation are lifted out of the fog. In this contribution, both the Data side and one of the possible Warrant sides of Teun Dekker’s argument are reconstructed according to Toulmin’s model. Subsequently, each side of the argument is evaluated rigorously. In this manner, it is shown which premises lie at the core of Teun Dekker’s argument. Ultimately, three basic Claims will sketch the position one has to agree to before one can accept this precious gift to politics.  


Rousseau, J. (2010). The Social Contract’ and Other Later Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dekker, T. (2013). Draft – A Manifesto for Analytical Discourse Evaluation, personal communication.

Dekker, T. (2013). Paying Our High Public Officials: Evaluating the Political Justifications of Top Wages in the Public Sector. London: Routledge.

Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Newton, K. (2001). Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy. International Political Science Review 22, 201-214.

Cohen, J. (2003). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In D. Matravers & J. Pike (eds.), Debates in Contemporary Political Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warren, M. (1999). Democracy and Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies 51. 180-196.