In a deliberative democracy, policy making is justified by the rational public deliberation of all those affected. To this end, the state provides procedural guarantees for continuous rational...Show moreIn a deliberative democracy, policy making is justified by the rational public deliberation of all those affected. To this end, the state provides procedural guarantees for continuous rational deliberation and collective opinion formation, aimed at reaching a collective decision. Apart from of these procedural features, a deliberative democracy also heavily relies on the personal rational abilities of its citizens. This requires certain common abilities, like certain standards of argumentation, the freedom of discussion and the possibility of rational deliberation. The structural inequality argument specifically focusses on this ‘difference blind’ approach to individuals’ abilities. This critique argues that deliberative democracy is unable to address underlying unequal societal structures. Consequently, the outcome of rational deliberation is no longer constructed by ‘all those affected’ but only by individuals who are able to make their voice heard in the public deliberation. This thesis focusses on this critique, examines possible solutions, and argues that structural inequality can never be completely eradicated in democratic deliberation. However, by realizing political equality as the equal opportunity for political effectiveness, the practice of democratic deliberation should not be regarded illegitimate.Show less