Deliberative theory proposes that local decision making should be made by focus groups made up of a mix of economic, racial and educational backgrounds, of all genders, who perceive themselves as equal. This improves the quality of democracy as the decisions made are more legitimate in the eyes of the people, as the public has been involved in the decision-making process. Deliberative democracy not only increases the number of the public involved in the decision-making process, but also leads to a better quality of decisions. This is because the process of deliberation suggests contemplation and allows more informed views to come forward, even in situations where members are willing to modify their opinions in light of dialogue (Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009: 216). Furthermore, deliberation could, over time, lead to better solutions to conflicts within societies, as citizens come to accept the most reasonable and effective decisions; however, this does not mean that it must “result by unanimity or consensus” (Sunstein, cited in Johnson 1998: 162). Despite this, this system presents some problems because it is based on assumptions that are too unrealistic. First, it is almost impossible to create the necessary circumstances for debates to take place. It is unlikely that there can be a space free from coercion or inequality in the current socioeconomic system. Second, deliberative democracy suggests that participants are likely to change their opinions as a result of the debate, however, this is an unreasonable assumption (Johnson 1998: 174), since human beings are naturally selfish and inclined to protect their beliefs and ideas. While deliberative democracy makes a compelling case in theory, it is unlikely to succeed in practice due to the idealism on which it is founded.