The purpose of this paper is to highlight the structure of a deliberative process starting from a normative explanation, first individually (Rawls) and then extended to the concept of deliberative politics reflected in social institutions and understood as an “ideal case” of making the decision within the group. On the other hand I will try to outline the extent in which that such differences/complementarities can be noticed, the scope of the concept of deliberative democracy of that of the concept of democracy discourse in two stages: in the first instance I will consider how Habermas filters the result of deliberative action through the discourse theory (here at least two types of elements are important: communicative action, discourse principle as a principle of globalization based on a reasoning technique). In fact one can see that there is a conversion of the deliberative process with one with a dual purpose discursive structure: as deliberations to acquire a legitimizing force and subsequently to be socially integrated as citizens expect that the deliberation results to have a reasonable quality – the result of a decision process, the deliberative model provides an invariably true and balanced solution. The second stage brings into question the instrumental rationality critique (according to Dryzek, the instrumental rationality can be defined as the ability to design, select and execute through the best methods the clarified purposes). This type of criticism, primarily highlights a number of accents considered antidemocratic by Dryzek, noticed in political practice, political institutions or even in the individual actions arising from the official use of the instrumental rationality as effective instrumental action, and on the second hand, it determines all the elements of a new paradigm, based on communicative rationality, that of the discursive democracy