The political benefits of deliberation are increasingly cited, but not well understood. Neither are the processes involved in arriving at deliberative politics from pluralism and inclusion. This research reviews the available literature on political impacts related to deliberation following the empirical turn taken in deliberative democracy in recent years. The analysis of a specific case reveals that before deliberation the arguments presented gave rise to a deep fracture in the consensus. The deliberative process served to structure the consensus in pluralism helping citizens to formulate their own judgments. The findings suggest a renewed and complementary approach with the classical notion of deliberative democracy in the terms formulated by Jürgen Habermas in ecological and social terms in the line opened by various authors and assumed by Habermas himself in Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, 1992.
