Emile Durkheim wrote only a few sociological texts on democracy, but they seem to remain important for both the neo-republican theory and for the idea of deliberative democracy. This article attempts to explain this paradox through a reconstruction of Durkheim’s conception of political democracy. This conception implies three channels of communication: within the state, between the state and civil society, and within civil society. Only the first channel rests on deliberation, in the two meanings implied by this word in French (collective discussion and decision). The paternalist dimension of Durkheim’s conception clearly appears in the way he understands the typical pathologies of democracy; it is also found in the neo-republican theory. Conversely, even though Durkheim develops a non-substantialist vision of democracy and assigns an important role to reflection in the political bond, the absence of the notion of public sphere opposes him to the concept of deliberative democracy. Nevertheless, discussing Durkheim makes it possible to highlight some of the sociological problems and challenges that deliberative democracy has to face.