Route 1 not rival models → two halves of one legitimacy → participation = demos, deliberation = logos

Route 2 statement marks the exact failure point → each collapses without the other → breadth needs depth, depth needs breadth

participatory democracy = active citizen beyond the ballot → Pateman: participation revives civic life, counters alienation → but headcount alone turns populist → loses credence → deliberative democracy fills the gap: quality of reasoning → Habermas: communicative action, better argument over power → reasoned debate gives participation its credence → but narrow expert deliberation = elite discourse → loses salience → each completes the other: inclusion makes deliberation authoritative, reason makes participation credible → Barber’s strong democracy = participation + debate → Rousseau: sovereign people who must continuously deliberate

fusion is a demand, not a guarantee → Fraser: single public sphere reproduces inequality, needs counter-publics → skilled speakers form an epistemic elite → mobilisation can still capture participation

Route 1 statement holds → deliberation alone = elite talk, no salience → participation alone = populist noise, no credence

Route 2 Fishkin’s deliberative polling / citizen assemblies fuse wide participation + evidence-based reason → legitimacy needs demos and logos together