The advent of impact assessment as a tool of policy is the latest chapter in our understanding of the relationship between science and politics. As such, it presents at least two challenges to democratic politics. Given its emphasis on appropriate procedural character of conteniporary democratic systems. And by raising the value of technical and scientific information in environmental disputes, impact assessment poses a challenge to existing concepts of popular sovereignty, based as they are on interest and preference rather than knowledge. These challenges, however, do not rep‐ resent irreconcilable differences. Although there may be an inherent ten‐ sion between impact assessment and democratic politics, there are also areas of affinity between the two. And we are destined to accept and adapt to this tension because, in fact, understanding is one of our principal defenses against tyranny.
Is there good reason to worry about celebrity involvement in democratic politics? The rise of celebrity politicians such as Donald Trump and Vladimir Zelensky has led political theorists and commentators to worry that the role of expertise in democratic politics has been undermined. According to one recent critique (Archer et al. 2020), celebrities possess a significant degree of epistemic power (the power to influence what people believe) that is unconnected to appropriate expertise. This presents a problem both for deliberative and epistemic theories of democratic legitimacy, which ignore this form of power, and for real existing democracies attempting to meet the standards of legitimacy set out by these theories. But do these critiques apply to democratic elitism? In this paper, we argue that recognition of celebrity epistemic power in fact represents a valuable resource for supporting the legitimacy and practice of democratic elitism, though these benefits do come with certain risks to which elite theories are particularly vulnerable.
In the last generation, the American Supreme Court has constitutionalized an increasing number of issues concerning the structure of elections and the design of democratic governance institutions. Similar developments are emerging in the courts of other countries. This Foreword critiques the current premises and methodology that underlie this emerging new domain of constitutional law. The Foreword offers an alternative, functional foundation for judicial review of democratic politics in which the central task should be ensuring that political processes are appropriately competitive and in which conventional understandings of individual rights, associational rights, and political equality should play a diminished role. The Foreword then applies these ideas to several central, recent constitutional issues concerning the structure of democracy: the design of election districts, the issue of groups and political representation, the legal regulation of political parties, and the financing of elections.
Democracy is a system of government that is considered modern in the twentieth century. Along with the development of the situation, the system of government in the world of democracy has existed together with the monarchy as a familiar system of government. Montesque's theory of division Trias politics is to be very easily implemented with a democratic system. Indonesia as one of the modern countries in the world that also implements the Pancasila Democracy system in its government system as one of the 4th largest countries in the world that adheres to the Indonesian democratic system has become a role model in the democratic system. The selection of regional heads autonomously and direct presidential elections is a golden achievement of Indonesia's democratic system, coupled with several regional head elections that have been carried out simultaneously making Indonesia increasingly establish itself as a modern with a democratic system. However, the democratic system also has a number of weaknesses, one of which is financial matters that require high costs, so that democracy often causes problems in the financial sector because it requires a lot of money in the event. Not infrequently the practice of money politics takes place in the practice of democracy so that everything really hurts the essence of the state, then what is the legal view of Indonesia regarding money politics in democracy then what are the sanctions for perpetrators of money politics in the perspective of criminal law in Indonesia.
PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to focus on the role of church in relation to state in providing support for needy.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis takes place in a Nordic welfare state context between two recessions in the early 1990s and late 2000s. The welfare state regime hypothesis suggests that the kind of traditional assistance the church lends to the poor would die out in the course of "socio‐democratic" welfare state development, a statement analogous with the secularization hypothesis.FindingsWith data on the volume of poverty alleviation activities of the Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church it is shown that after decades of marginalization, the role of the church's poverty alleviation became more pronounced after the recession in the early 1990s and continued to do so throughout the economic collapse of 2008.Research limitations/implicationsThe results give ground to challenge the conventional clear cut conception of the universal Nordic welfare state model.Originality/valueEuropean welfare state research has focused on the links between religious values, religious cleavages and the shaping of the welfare state but has mostly ignored the role of faith‐based institutions in improving welfare. The current economic crisis may provide religious institutions a window of opportunity to expand their poverty alleviation activities.
Some of the most fundamental concerns about democratic politics involve information—who has access to it, how do individuals get it, and of what quality and type is it? The answers to each of these questions invariably involve other people, and it is for this reason that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of social networks.
Abstract.In recent years, there has been increasing popular and academic debate about how ethnic and racial diversity affects democratic politics and social cohesion in industrialized liberal democracies. In this introduction, different interdisciplinary theoretical approaches for understanding the role of diversity for intergroup relations and social cohesion are reviewed and four extensions to the current literature are proposed. These include taking advantage of a comparative framework to understand how generalizable the consequences of diversity are. A comparative country approach also helps to reveal which policies might be able to mitigate any potential negative consequences of diversity. Most importantly, we propose that the research in this area should include other aspects of social cohesion beyond measures of generalized trust, such as solidarity, attitudes about the welfare state and redistributive justice, as well as political and social tolerance. Finally, research on the effects of diversity might gain more insights from taking less of a majority-centric approach to include the effects on various minority groups as well.Résumé.Ces dernières années ont procuré un sol fertile au débat populaire et universitaire autour des effets de la diversité ethnique et raciale sur la politique démocratique et sur la cohésion sociale dans les démocraties libérales industrialisées. Dans cette introduction, nous passons en revue diverses approches théoriques interdisciplinaires permettant de clarifier le rôle de la diversité dans les relations entre les groupes et dans la cohésion sociale et nous proposons quatre ajouts à la littérature courante. Nous suggérons, entre autres, de tirer profit d'un cadre comparatif pour comprendre à quel point les conséquences de la diversité sont généralisables. Une étude comparative des pays aide également à cerner les politiques qui pourraient atténuer les conséquences négatives potentielles de la diversité. Par-dessus tout, nous avançons que la recherche dans ce domaine devrait inclure d'autres aspects de la cohésion sociale à part les mesures de la confiance généralisée, des aspects tels que la solidarité, les attitudes envers l'État-providence et la justice redistributive, ainsi que la tolérance politique et sociale. Finalement, la recherche sur les effets de la diversité pourrait devenir plus instructive en adoptant une approche moins centrée sur la majorité afin d'inclure également les effets sur divers groupes minoritaires.
An examination of the relationship between morality & politics. Taking two contradictory assertions -- namely, that politics is a form of techne based solely on technical rules that can be learned & followed, & secondly, that politics, while encompassing technical rules, must be founded on morality -- it is shown that both rely on the assumption that political activity follows technical rules & not moral norms. Except in the case of absolute rule, all political activities, including the technical rules, are governed by social norms. It is argued that politics can therefore be conducted in accordance with a set of moral maxims. Politics cannot be founded on morality, but rather only on principles that, while universal, guarantee the plurality of value systems. Such principles would function as moral maxims to guide political argument, decisions, & action. A democratic politics could be universalized on this basis. Using the model of the Declaration of Independence, five principles are formulated for a democratic system of politics: liberty, political equality, rational equality, justice, & equity. Using these as moral maxims, the basic law of democratic politics is formulated: "Act in a way which allows all free & rational human beings to assent to the political principles of your actions." The concepts of domination & power are considered in light of this law, & the application of the moral maxims to political decisions is also addressed. A relative equality of property is seen as a prerequisite for equality of freedom. AA.
