Search results

'Rethinking Democratic Innovation' takes a fresh look at diverging visions of improving democratic governance and asks whether these existing tensions could be made productive. Could different visions of democratic revitalisation complement and correct each other in ways that are good for democracy? Is it conceivable that combined approaches address a larger part of the democratic challenge, while isolated approaches, centralizing deliberative or plebiscitary democracy, are confined to more limited areas of concern? This book ultimately provides an affirmative answer, outlining the scope for hybrid democratic innovations that thrive on exploiting, not eliminating, tensions between diverging visions of improved democracy.

Democracy is one of the most used and misinterpreted terms of our time. In public discussions concerning the subject it is tacitly assumed that everyone is aware of the meaning of democracy and the implications it carries. In reality democratic ideals and practices take on various forms in various countries. Frank Hendriks sheds light on this subject matter in a comprehensible manner. He distinguishes four ground forms of democracy, which are inherent to democratic forms everywhere. Along with "consensus democracy", Hendriks compares "pendulum democracy", "voter democracy" and "participatory democracy", at national as well as subnational levels of governance. Hendriks concludes in his studies that contrary to popular belief, not one model is superior to the others and calls for a realistic approach to a democracy that is sensitive to the context in which democracy must prove and sustain itself

Democracy is one of the most used and misinterpreted terms of our time. In public discussions concerning the subject it is tacitly assumed that everyone is aware of the meaning of democracy and the implications it carries. In reality democratic ideals and practices take on various forms in various countries. Frank Hendriks sheds light on this subject matter in a comprehensible manner. He distinguishes four ground forms of democracy, which are inherent to democratic forms everywhere. Along with "consensus democracy", Hendriks compares "pendulum democracy", "voter democracy" and "participatory democracy", at national as well as subnational levels of governance. Hendriks concludes in his studies that contrary to popular belief, not one model is superior to the others and calls for a realistic approach to a democracy that is sensitive to the context in which democracy must prove and sustain itself. - In Nederland wordt net als elders veel geklaagd over 'het democratisch tekort' en 'de kloof tussen burger en bestuur'. De aangedragen oplossing is doorgaans 'meer democratie'. De consensus op dit punt lijkt groot. Maar de werkelijkheid is anders. Uit een schijnbaar eenvoudig principe, de samentrekking van demos en kratia, het volk dat regeert, vloeien zeer uiteenlopende denk-en handelingswerelden voort. In Vitale democratie werpt Frank Hendriks licht op deze zaak. Hij doet dat in een verhelderend en stimulerend relaas dat op verschillende niveaus kan worden gelezen. Enerzijds schetst Hendriks een panoramisch beeld van wat er in de wereld te koop is aan beproefde modellen van democratie. Anderzijds ontvouwt hij een theoretisch perspectief van waaruit de meervoudige werkelijkheid van de democratie op een zinvolle manier kan worden bekeken, vergeleken en op waarde geschat.

AbstractThis article advances our understanding of the key values for democratic‐governance innovation by integrating two important, yet divergent, discourses—the one on democratic innovations, the other on governance innovations—thus capitalizing on their mutually reinforcing potential. The result is an integrative framework of core values, related normative coordinates, and key questions for improving democratic governance. The integrative values framework refines our understanding of the fundamental value diversity surrounding democratic governance innovation, and facilitates, as a sensitizing framework, critical analysis, evaluation, and design thinking. The values framework integrates core values—inclusiveness, efficaciousness, appropriateness, resilience, and counterbalance—which are complementary but not without friction. Mindfulness of the fundamental value diversity is critical for handling democratic governance innovation in a more encompassing value‐sensitive way. For realistically applying the values framework, acknowledging the complementarities and tensions between core values, roads ahead are discussed stressing necessarily open and situated conversations.

AbstractPushed by technological, cultural and related political drivers, a 'new plebiscitary democracy' is emerging which challenges established electoral democracy as well as variants of deliberative democracy. The new plebiscitary democracy reinvents and radicalizes longer-existing methods (initiative, referendum, recall, primary, petition, poll) with new tools and applications (mostly digital). It comes with a comparatively thin conceptualization of democracy, invoking the bare notion of a demos whose aggregated will is to steer actors and issues in public governance in a straight majoritarian way. In addition to unravelling the reinvented logic of plebiscitary democracy in conceptual terms, this article fleshes out an empirically informed matrix of emerging formats, distinguishing between votations that are 'political-leader' and 'public-issue' oriented on the one hand, and 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' initiated on the other hand. Relatedly, it proposes an agenda for systematic research into the various guises, drivers and implications of the new plebiscitary democracy. Finally, it reflects on possible objections to the argumentation.

Building on the relevant international literature, as well as empirical research on urban cases, this article determines and discusses five core values of good urban governance: responsiveness, effectiveness, procedural justice, resilience, and counterbalance. The quest for good governance can take various forms. This article focuses on urban governance, and identifies four different shifts, with increased emphasis on the real decision makers or the ordinary citizens, with increased attention to selective choice or integrative deliberation as modes of urban governance. Urban governance and good urban governance are not synonymous. This article advocates critical reflection, moving beyond the performance bias that tends to accompany governance reform.

In this paper, the crucial factors behind credible political leadership are investigated, distinguishing between the X-factor, the Y-factor, and the Z-factor. The X-, Y-, and Z-factors relate to appeal, persuasion, and competence, or to put it quite simply, to images, words, and deeds. The paper connects to the relevant literature on leadership, credibility, charisma, rhetoric and dramaturgy, finding an empirical frame of reference in the Netherlands and other countries. Ultimately, a credible politician is compared to a tightrope walker, mastering a balance pole with the X-factor of appeal at one end, the Z-factor of competence at the other end, and, as their essential connector in the middle, the Y-factor of conviction. Adapted from the source document.