Abstract
Expertise plays an ambiguous role in the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. By involving lay citizens in reasonable discussion on complex topics, deliberative democracy aims to bridge the gap between populist and elitist forms of democracy. Deliberative democracy provides an alternative to both ignorant mob rule and technocratic rule by experts. When lay citizens have real opportunities publicly to discuss their interests, opinions, and experiences, they are more likely to reach reasonable decisions. Lay deliberation enhances the epistemic quality of political decisions and, in this respect, deliberation might be seen as a substitute for both technical and ethical expertise.