The review of democratic procedures in urban planning theories

Over the past few decades, democratic procedures have been raised as a core of most planning methods. In this regard, the present research adopts descriptive-evaluation methods and uses meta-analysis so as to review the democratic procedures at the heart of planning theories and democracy and to explore their paradigmatic interaction. The results of present research suggest that transition to post-modern era of planning perspective is accompanied by association between democratic procedures and certain subjects such as public interest, consensus, pluralism, uncertainty and agonistic arenas. In this regard, the theory of planning has experienced a paradigmatic shift towards agonistic planning which is a democratic accountability mechanism premised on intellectual support of agonistic democracy. In general, the theory regards the rational consensus of communicative planning as nothing but illusion and explains it as a strife to remove alternative discourses and eliminate democratic policy altogether. Compared with communicative planning, the essential notion of agonistic planning is turning hostility into agnostic and consequently replacing enmity by disagreement or aggression by competition. K e y w o r d s: Communicative planning, deliberative democracy, agnostic planning Introduction Cities are the largest and probably the most significant heritage of mankind. They represent certain democratic values such as justice, consistency, social life, innovation and creativity. In addition, freedom-seeking nature of humankind evolves into perfection by embodiment in the cities. This democratic heritage dates back to ancient cities of Greece and Iran where the first human rights charter on clay tablets were developed based on democratic values. As time passed, the heritage was transferred to current cities as well as urban planning knowledge paradigms. The perfection horizon of this heritage has emerged in urban planning theories so that its developments could be traced to structure and organization of current cities. Cities provide the condition for dialogue, consensus and unity. In addition to private relationships, dialogues of public sharing occur in public places of these cities. From this perspective, urban planning knowledge has radically changed its paradigms to provide the conditions for the betterment of nature and collective desire of human beings. On the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Journal of Geography and Spatial Justice Received:2018/04/12 accepted:2018/06/6 57 Journal of Geography and Spatial Justice. Year 1th Vol . 1 Issue. 2 Spring 2018 other hand, planning has been historically entangled with minimum degrees of democracy. Based on the analytical results detailed in this study, planning and democracy are two codependent notions since development of one results in the development of the other. In other words, planning is a means or a process which leads to evolution and promotion of democracy and along the way, the planning develops too. Therefore, one could suggest that planning theories are the primary means of realization of development based on recognition of personal and social freedoms, consensus, and unity in democratic society and in a peaceful manner (Torkame, 2015: 16). The sociopolitical developments of last two decades of 20th century became a turning point in the shift from authoritarian and technocratic urban planning to participatory and democratic urban development. The rise of environmentalism movement and sustainable development, fall of authoritarian systems, extensive development of democracy and human rights, raising the notions of civil society, pluralism and cultural movements have exposed urban planning tradition to crisis and a type of theoretical and scientific deadlock (Mehdizadeh, 2001: 45). The significant point to note in this field is that consideration of democratic procedures results in better control and outcomes of most urban problems and this is one of the primary challenges that the present study aims to address. Despite systematic endeavors for establishing democratic procedures in contemporary planning, we still witness the emergence of authoritarian and technocratic planning and lack of attention to main owners of the cities. As a result, the primary problem is evolution of planning based on public demand and its democratic nature. Despite different approaches to urban planning, the communicative approaches premised on Habermas's theory of communicative action and Chantal Mouffe' theory of agonistic democracy drew a lot of attention to themselves as they were more consistent with democratic procedures. Therefore, the necessity of studying the bond and paradigmatic interaction of theories of planning with theories of democracy (e.g. agonistic, deliberative and aggregative theories) will be addressed, prevalent procedures will be criticized, and roots of modern paradigm of agonistic planning will be detailed. In fact, this paper is an effort to reread democracy theories, evolution of democratic bases of urban planning paradigms and effective changes of the field. Theory and Methodology Since their development, urban planning theories have sought social justice, public consensus and will and they have inclined toward democratic and participative procedures. However, this section aims to detail the paradigms resulting from theories of Habermas and Chantal Mouffe. The sequence of evolutionary paradigms forms the basis of this paper. The objective problems frequently emerge in literature of planning under headlines of equality, social justice and democracy. Campbell and Fainstein (2009: 13) addressed the primary problem of theory of planning by raising the question, “What is the role of planning in urban and regional development when limitations of political economy of capitalism and political democratic system are taken into consideration? ” Hilly (1987: 373 and 401) suggests that the challenge of contemporary planning is modern interpretation of democracy in western communities. On the other hand, Almandinger (2010: 340) suggests that the most significant aspect of planning as communicative process is its dependence on forms of participatory democracy. In his article, Fainstein notes that the basis of different approaches to planning is political thought and the political value and interests of planning procedures could be revealed. As a result, he traces four types of traditional, democratic, equity and incremental planning in technocratic, democratic, socialist and liberal political theories respectively (Berkpur, 2001: 69). Regarding agonistic procedures, Hillier notes that the inherent uncertainty of decisionThe review of democratic procedures in urban planning theories. 58 making should be recognized and unresolvable differences of values and beliefs should be accepted without value judgment. Similar to agreement, freedom of disagreement should exist too. When consensus cannot be attained through negotiation, bargain or deal could be used to achieve comprise agreement. Compromise is a part of political process (Hillier, 2008: 178). However, one of the most significant works which this paper addresses was written by Mantisalo (Mantisalo, 2010: 333). He deals with consistency of planning theories with theories of democracy and suggests that emergence of agonistic paradigm contributed to paradigmatic shift and filling the gap between theory and practice of planning. Since this survey aims to analyze the paradigms of urban planning so as to clarify the notion of democracy, it could be recognized as a fundamental study which draws on theoretical analysis method. As to method of approaching and dealing with the problem, it is a descriptive-evaluative study since it details the nature, characteristics and condition of the subject and the problem so as to explain the “whatness” and “howness” of the problem and its aspects. The present survey is divided into three main sections. First, evolutions of democracy paradigms in the world will be reviewed and democratic norms of urban planning procedures will be detailed. Second, paradigmatic evolution of theories of urban planning will be studied and theories of Jürgen Habermas and Chantal Mouffe will be compared so as to detail the conditions of evolution of communicative theory and modern theory of agonistic planning. Finally, conditions for emergence of the theory will be studied. Figure 1: Paradigmatic evolution of democracy and planning theories Theoretical evolution of democracy (values and norms) In its limited and minimalistic meaning, democracy refers to a governmental system in which power is gained by those authorities which are selected through free election (Rorety, 2005: 389). Rorety regards this notion of democracy as rule of law. As intended in this study, democracy in its general meaning represents a social ideal, equal opportunities and equal use of available means. Despite basic differences, deliberative democracy is raised as alternative to other theoretical democracies such as direct and aggregative democracy. The theory takes cooperation requirements a step further. Based on the theory, dialogue between independent and equal citizens enables real democracy (Hanberger, 2006, 23). From the viewpoint of deliberative democracy theory, if democratic systems seek to retail their legitimacy, decision-making 59 Journal of Geography and Spatial Justice. Year 1th Vol . 1 Issue. 2 Spring 2018 processes should be recognized by qualified people based on logical reasons (King, 2003: 25). One of the ways of legitimization of the processes is raising all involved discussions in a council. Lack of this arrangement could lead to deficiency of discussions raised for decision-makers to address and more difficult recognition of decisions by stakeholders. Therefore, arranging for consultation in a public place (e.g. public and media meetings) could be regarded as a significant means of affecting planning processes and effe