Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes critically the appeal the unpolitical is enjoying among contemporary political philosophers who are democracy's friends. Unlike a radical critique of democracy, what I propose to call "criticism from within," takes the form of dissatisfaction with the erosion of an independent mind and impartial judgment per effect of the partisan character of democratic politics. This paper proposes three main criticisms of the actual trend toward unpolitical views of democracy: the first points to the strategic use of deliberation as an antidote against democratic procedures themselves (like voting and majority rule); the second to the negative conception of democracy that the unpolitical aspiration makes visible; and the third to the dissolution of political judgment within a model of judgment that is tailored around justice. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

In recent years radical democracy has seen significant reemergence as a key intellectual & political mode of thought, this taking place in particular alongside a growing skepticism in the capacity of "conventional democracy" to adequately represent public interests. While radical democracy is based on the competitive representation just as its conventional counterpart, radical democracy seeks a more extensive representation of values than is possible with conventional democracy. With commitment to broader participation in decision making & an emphasis on deliberation, radical democracy aims to overcome deficiencies observed in competitive representation by focusing on three main values: responsibility, equality, & political autonomy. Tensions between participation & deliberation & the potential means for resolving these tensions through both mediated & direct strategies are discussed here in detail. It is here suggested that despite the inherent complexity of developing a participatory-deliberative arrangement, these two positions could be used to strengthen each other. In addition, some of the challenges that arise in expanding the actual scope of radical democracy are also discussed as key areas of engagement necessary to developing a unique form of democracy in which participatory-deliberative arrangements enhance the interaction between the informal public sphere & the formal system of competitive representation. 26 References. C. Brunski

These papers were part of the proceedings of the first national conference organized by IDASA in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, on 8-9 May, 1987

Reflections on democracy are offered, contending that democracy is concerned with the political potentialities of ordinary citizens, particularly with their possibilities for political engagement via the self-discovery of shared concerns & strategies for realizing them -- strategies that can be used to overcome the boundaries created by cultural differences. The notion of boundaries is used to think through the era's preoccupation with differences, arguing that postmodern cultural politics follows nationalism in its insistence on boundaries that establish difference. It is contended that the modern state has been rendered paradoxical, if not anachronistic, because of the tangle of issues surrounding the status of boundaries in postmodern societies. Democracy's unstable, or "fugitive," character is examined via an exploration of modern political theory's reading of the "state of nature" to retrieve aspects of democracy that suggest a tension with organizational impulses of ancient & modern constitutionalism. W. Howard

Democracy is defined by two core tenets: voice and pluralism. Within these constraints, a wide variety of regime types can be designed. We show that the only new, untested form of democracy is when every citizen is governed by the political party of his/her choice. Multiple full-edged governments would coexist in the same national territory at the same time, each one sovereign only over the people who chose to vote for it - hence the name: Choice Democracy. Choice Democracy can be regarded as pure polyarchy, the broadest form of political competition, and a robust mechanism for disciplining government agencies. We argue that this system makes democracy more stable by reducing the risk of revolutionary and financial crises. We develop a theory for the optimal number of governments per countries, where the answer is determined by a trade-off between cooperation and competition. We also provide evidence indicating that Choice Democracy would be viable in the real world.

Der Autor erörtert in seinem Vortrag auf dem Hintergrund seiner Erfahrungen in der Schweiz die Möglichkeiten der direkten Demokratie in Deutschland. Er betont, dass angesichts des modernen Entwicklungsstandes der Rechtsvergleichung und der vergleichenden Rechtspolitik nicht das jeweilige Land mit seinen Besonderheiten, sondern ihr verallgemeinerungsfähiges Gestaltungspotential im Mittelpunkt des Interesses stehen sollte. Im ersten Teil seiner Ausführungen zeigt er die Unterschiede zwischen direkter und repräsentativer Demokratie sowie die hauptsächlichen Rechtfertigungsgründe der direkten Demokratie auf, die in der Bekämpfung autokratischer Willkür, einer sachlich-gemeinwohlorientierten Beurteilung, der politischen Freiheit und der Relativität dieser Rechtfertigungen bestehen. Der zweite Teil hat die bisherigen Entwicklungen in Deutschland im Allgemeinen und den Gesetzesentwurf von SPD und Bündnis 90/Die Grünen im Besonderen zum Inhalt. Im dritten Teil diskutiert der Autor die Perspektiven der direkten Demokratie, die sich z.B. auf den Wandel zur Bildungs- und Informationsgesellschaft, die erzieherisch-integrierende Wirkung, die Qualität der Deliberationsprozesse und finanzwirtschaftliche Vorzüge beziehen.

Intro -- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America -- Front Matter -- Title Page -- Copyright Details -- Volume I -- Table of Contents, p. ix -- Translator's Note, p. xxi -- Key Terms, p. xxvi -- Foreword, p. xxviii -- Abbreviations and Symbols Used in This Edition, p. xxxix -- Editor's Introduction, p. xlvii -- Foreword to This Edition, p. cli -- Part I. Introdution, p. 3 -- Chapter 1. Exterior Configuration of North America, p. 33 -- Chapter 2. Of the Point of Departure and Its Importance for the Future of the Anglo-Americans, p. 45 -- Chapter 3. Social State of the Anglo-Americans, p. 74 -- Chapter 4. Of the Principle of the Sovereignty of the People in America, p. 91 -- Chapter 5. Necessity of Studying What Happens in the Individual States before Speaking about the Government of the Union, p. 98 -- Chapter 6. Of the Judicial Power in the United States and Its Action on Political Society, p. 167 -- Chapter 7. Of Political Jurisdiction in the United States, p. 179 -- Chapter 8. Of the Federal Constitution, p. 186 -- Part II -- Chapter 1. How It Can Be Strictly Said That in the United States It Is the People Who Govern, p. 278 -- Chapter 2. Of Parties in the United States, p. 279 -- Chapter 3. Of Freedom of the Press in the United States, p. 289 -- Chapter 4. Of Political Association in the United States, p. 302 -- Chapter 5. Of the Government of Democracy in America, p. 313 -- Chapter 6. What Are the Real Advantages That American Society Gains from the Government of Democracy?, p. 375 -- Chapter 7. Of the omnipotence of the Majority in the United States and Its Effects, p. 402 -- Chapter 8. Of What Tempers Tyranny of the Majority in the United States, p. 427 -- Chapter 9. Of the Principal Causes That Tend to Maintain the Democratic Republic in the United States, p. 451.

This 2nd edition includes a new chapter on presidential leadership and foreign policy, and has expanded its coverage of Schumpeter's and other leadership models of democracy. Its focus, however, remains on pioneering political leadership in the electoral, governmental, legislative, and administrative sectors of the US and British democracies.

When the nation-state loses many of its traditional powers, Daniele Archibugi argues, democracy requires a cosmopolitan political authority above it. But current 'humanitarian' interventions do not fulfill such higher norms -- they betray them, as the self-arrogated prerogatives of the few. Adapted from the source document.

A review essay on books by (1) Paul Hirst, Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 1994); (2) Chantal Mouffe (Ed), Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community (London: Verso, 1992); & (3) Geoff Mulgan, Politics in an Antipolitical Age (Cambridge, MA: Polity, 1994). These texts address the "undemocratic" nature of Western democratic systems & how the Left & Right have responded to the need to reconceptualize democracy. Hirst's assertion that Western parliamentary states are as flawed as Eastern collective states & support for the creation of the "associationalist" state are discussed. Mouffe's volume calls for the radicalization of modern democracy. Although these conceptual alternatives for future democratic practice are welcomed, it is asserted that the application & implementation of these approaches remains problematic, eg, the realization of Mouffe's call for cultural & personal pluralism. Mulgan's contention that the Left must replace its utopian perspective with a concern for individual & collective responsibility is reviewed. His position is criticized for not considering the institutional & constitutional prerequisites of implementing "cosmopolitan democracy." It is asserted that US political science & sociology can assist in sustaining democracy; Robert Putnam's (1993) study of Italian regional politics is applauded for scrutinizing the cultural & historical traditions of Italy's southern & northern regions & how they affected democratic practices. J. W. Parker

In this article I submit that the pandemic politics of the Covid-19 crisis have unmasked the inadequacies of existing representative democracies. Mixing the experiences and responses of various democracies and thinkers to this crisis, particularly from India and South Africa, I argue that a minimally functioning democracy must do two things at least: ensure the health and well- being of citizens and the equal means competitively to select prudent, empathetic and courageous leaders. For this, I suggest, we need a politics that allows us to express and assess our needs, and determine who is best placed to represent us in responding to these needs, all in non-dominating conditions. To this end, the article also proposes and defends four institutional reforms that would enable a dynamic, anti-oligarchic form of democracy to consistently empower the least powerful and keep elites properly in check.

This text deals with one of the attempts to make the idea of deliberative
democracy more acceptable by conducting it through the Internet. Citing the
simplicity of access and use of the Internet, many authors believe that it is
possible to join deliberative democracy with direct democracy, and thus reach
the best possible system of political decision making. It will be shown,
however, that although this idea has many advantages over classical theories
of deliberative democracy, it raises more issues than it solves. Despite
this, the idea of online deliberative democracy should not be neglected, but
rather joined with existing procedures of political decision making,
significantly improving these procedures.

Democratic theorists frequently assume that the "people" must have something in common, or else democracy will fail. This produces an ironically anti-democratic tendency to emphasize the passive possession of commonality. Sharing Democracy counters this tendency with a radical vision of democracy grounded instead in the active exercise of political freedom.

"This book addresses the widely held belief that liberal democracy embodies an uneasy compromise of incompatible values: those of liberal rights in the one hand, and democratic equality on the other. Liberalism is said to compromise democracy, while democracy is said to endanger the values of liberalism. It is these theses that Janos Kis examines and tries to refute."--Jacket