本文主要是討論不同文獻對於審議民主的批評，並且根據台灣實施公民會議（citizen conferences ）的豐富經驗來反省這些批評的適當性，具體的提出一些回應。審議民主第一個限制是過度強調共善取向與共識當成決策的依據，在社會主流意見的主導和團體壓力的情況下，可能使得少數意見或是弱勢者的意見無法表達。其次，審議民主的討論是以理性對話為主，可能會忽略公共溝通過程所包涵的情感表達、立場宣示或遊說等對於結論形成有重要影響的表達方式。最後，審議民主的公共討論主要是由一般民眾參與，是在公開、透明、平等的情況下進行，但並沒有探討來自政治菁英、經濟優勢階級、專家學者、媒體的政治操弄對於公共討論的過程和結論所產生的影響，忽略所有的公共討論和公共政策決定都具有政治性的面向。民眾在實際參與公民會議後，無論是在政治效能感、政策知能和參與公共事務的能力都有所增加，因此建立更多的審議民主的公共討論可能是促進民主發展重要的工作。但是，審議民主的公共討論模式必須更為多元，讓不同溝通方式能夠充分呈現，瞭解參與者的理性能力是有極限的，也要接受討論無法形成共識是常態。

The main purpose of this paper is to take Taiwan’s abundant experience with citizen conferences as a reference to allow not only a review, but also a response to the criticisms of deliberative democracy in the extant literature. Three limitations of deliberative democracy are pointed out. The first limitation is its excessive dependence on the common good, as well as viewing consensus as the foundation of decision-making. Secondly, deliberative democracy, which is based on rational discussion, may ignore the impact on the final decision of expressions of emotion, declarations of one’s position, and lobbying. A format of rational discussion expects the public to make decisions based on adequate information and evaluation of all the relevant opinions. Within the limitations of risks, uncertainty of benefits, and the public’s ability to process information, the best result often remains a stalemate. Finally, the deliberative democracy approach is criticized for being so naïve as to overlook that public discussion and public policy-making are all political. Political, economic, and social gaps are a reality in Taiwanese society, which makes an open, fair, and transparent public discussion even harder to realize. Citizen conferences have helped participants develop a sensibility for political efficiency, their knowledge of policy, and an ability to engage in public participation. Hence, establishing more public discussions based on the spirit of deliberative democracy may be an essential mission to advancing the development of democracy. By the same token, giving more chances for public participation helps to resolve the problems that we face in practicing deliberative democracy. Moreover, the mode of deliberative democratic discussion needs to be diversified in order to allow different methods of communication.