Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Jean-Jacques Rousseau tient une place équivoque dans les théories contemporaines de la démocratie délibérative. La conception épistémique, radicale et unanimiste de la démocratie développée dans le Contrat social exerce une influence essentielle sur des auteurs tels que J. Habermas, S. Benhabib, J. Cohen, D. Estlund ou B. Manin. Toutefois, alors que la délibération publique paraît absente de l'Assemblée des citoyens, ces philosophes en font le fondement premier de la légitimité politique. Cet article montre comment ces théories doivent être comprises comme autant de tentatives d'atteindre les fins politiques de Rousseau par des voies non rousseauistes. Elles font du vote l'instrument d'une découverte collective du bien commun, affirment la co-originarité de la souveraineté et des droits individuels, et fondent en dernière instance la légitimité sur l'unanimité.

International audience ; Jean-Jacques Rousseau tient une place équivoque dans les théories contemporaines de la démocratie délibérative. La conception épistémique, radicale et unanimiste de la démocratie développée dans le Contrat social exerce une influence essentielle sur des auteurs tels que J. Habermas, S. Benhabib, J. Cohen, D. Estlund ou B. Manin. Toutefois, alors que la délibération publique paraît absente de l'Assemblée des citoyens, ces philosophes en font le fondement premier de la légitimité politique. Cet article montre comment ces théories doivent être comprises comme autant de tentatives d'atteindre les fins politiques de Rousseau par des voies non rousseauistes. Elles font du vote l'instrument d'une découverte collective du bien commun, affirment la co-originarité de la souveraineté et des droits individuels, et fondent en dernière instance la légitimité sur l'unanimité.

Les attachements individuels entre citoyens de l'Union européenne les transformeront-ils en Européens? Discordance entre démocratie délibérative et contexte institutionnel européen A travers une lecture approfondie du modèle de patriotisme constitutionnel d'Habermas, cet article tente d'élucider le lien entre développements institutionnels européens, l'émergence possible d'une sphère publique européenne – conçue par Habermas comme la seule source de légitimité des décisions publiques et comme condition préalable au développement d'un sens civique de citoyenneté chez les Européens – et les relations affectives ('horizontales') entre Européens. Plusieurs dynamiques sont mises en lumière. Tout d'abord, il ressort qu'au cœur de la conception habermasienne de citoyenneté supranationale se trouvent aussi les relations horizontales entre Européens, essentielles au fonctionnement de la sphère publique européenne – et sur laquelle repose le modèle d'Habermas. Cependant, si l'existence d'un attachement 'vertical'au système politique européen – lui-même promu par les initiatives de l'Union européenne visant à la création d'une identité européenne – peut permettre aux relations affectives entre Européens de se développer, la façon dont les formes horizontales d'intégration entre individus peuvent, réciproquement, avoir un impact sur l'identification des individus à l'Union européenne en tant que projet politique est moins claire. L'article montre, en particulier, que le système institutionnel européen n'est pas propice au développement d'une forme délibérative de démocratie, dans la mesure où les institutions sont structurellement prédisposées à filtrer les discussions publiques de telle manière que les différents participants au débat public ne se sentent pas également représentés à travers le contenu des décisions politiques. Dans un tel contexte, et en imaginant même l'éventualité qu'une réelle sphère publique européenne émerge progressivement, il est peu probable que les citoyens de l'UE développent un sentiment d'appartenance à une réelle communauté de citoyens.

This article analyses the main elements of the debate in terms of negotiating democracy and notes the deep crises in the main countries organised in this way. Finally, it looks at the case of Switzerland, whose matching model is more resilient. Finally, the assumption that the Swiss regime is more resilient due to the contribution of direct democracy and thus allows for a transition to deliberative democracy is discussed. ; International audience ; This article analyses the main elements of the debate in terms of negotiating democracy and notes the deep crises in the main countries organised in this way. Finally, it looks at the case of Switzerland, whose matching model is more resilient. Finally, the assumption that the Swiss regime is more resilient due to the contribution of direct democracy and thus allows for a transition to deliberative democracy is discussed. ; Cet article analyse les principaux éléments du débat en terme de démocratie de négociation et dresse le constat des crises profondes que connaissent les principaux pays qui sont organisés sur ce mode. Il s'intéresse enfin au cas de la Suisse dont le modèle de concordance résiste mieux. L'hypothèse selon laquelle le régime suisse résiste mieux en raison de l'apport de la démocratie directe et permet ainsi une transition vers la démocratie délibérative est abordée pour finir.

International audience ; What has become of the 'French experiment in participatory democracy' instituted with the creation of the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) 25 years ago? This paper proposes to characterise the political fact of public debate and its transformations during this quarter of a century by examining the answers successively given by the actors in the planning and environmental conflicts to the questions concerning the nature of the public debate (how it works?) and its scope (what is used for?). The process of institutionalising public participation is formalised by a trajectory that is powered by the claims for a right to public debate that are regularly formulated in conflicts over projects with strong impacts on development and the environment, and then gradually transcribed into law. But the reflective legitimacy of public debate, resulting from the democratic experience of the participants and the political work done by the CNDP to articulate the issues arising in the conflicts, is being exhausted because of its insufficient influence on the decision. Territorial mobilisations are standing for new rights for citizens, primarily through direct democracy to ensure better control over decision-making, and new forms of citizen involvement are facing the urgency of ecological issues. If these challenges call for a strengthening of public participation, then it is necessary to characterise the agency of participation in order to relaunch a new cycle of institutionalisation that increases its impact in decision-making processes and not only improves the procedural norms for conducting public policies. This paper highlights the potential for action offered by the participatory approach to deliberative democracy practiced during 25 years in the public debates, and the necessary transformations of the CNDP to empower citizen action to meet the democratic challenges of ecological transition. ; Qu'en est-il de l'« expérience française de démocratie participative » instituée avec la ...

International audience ; What has become of the 'French experiment in participatory democracy' instituted with the creation of the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) 25 years ago? This paper proposes to characterise the political fact of public debate and its transformations during this quarter of a century by examining the answers successively given by the actors in the planning and environmental conflicts to the questions concerning the nature of the public debate (how it works?) and its scope (what is used for?). The process of institutionalising public participation is formalised by a trajectory that is powered by the claims for a right to public debate that are regularly formulated in conflicts over projects with strong impacts on development and the environment, and then gradually transcribed into law. But the reflective legitimacy of public debate, resulting from the democratic experience of the participants and the political work done by the CNDP to articulate the issues arising in the conflicts, is being exhausted because of its insufficient influence on the decision. Territorial mobilisations are standing for new rights for citizens, primarily through direct democracy to ensure better control over decision-making, and new forms of citizen involvement are facing the urgency of ecological issues. If these challenges call for a strengthening of public participation, then it is necessary to characterise the agency of participation in order to relaunch a new cycle of institutionalisation that increases its impact in decision-making processes and not only improves the procedural norms for conducting public policies. This paper highlights the potential for action offered by the participatory approach to deliberative democracy practiced during 25 years in the public debates, and the necessary transformations of the CNDP to empower citizen action to meet the democratic challenges of ecological transition. ; Qu'en est-il de l'« expérience française de démocratie participative » instituée avec la ...

What have been the functions of the political use of sortition in the Florentine Republic, with what kind of relation with deliberation? Why has this device come back in the last decades, in many deliberative devices? The invention of the representative sample makes a decisive difference between Ancient and Modern use of random selection in politics. While keeping a function of impartiality, its logic has shifted from Republican self-government, where each citizen is governing and governed in turn, to deliberative democracy, where a counterfactual mini-public is given a voice. Through this historical comparison, one can better understand the actual deliberative experiments and underline several challenges they have to face. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author aims at supporting a deliberative conception of secession & at justifying it against other rival theories. In the absence of clear & rigorous legal regulations of more & more numerous cases of secession going beyond the situations of colonial domination already covered by the international law, the question arises as to whether other means for their pacific solution are available. The author contends that deliberative democracy could provide such a means & examines in what conditions & within what limits this could be achieved. References. Adapted from the source document.

It seems there is an insuperable contradiction between two conceptions of social change -- one rooted in collective action and critique by activists, the other based on the construction of a collective agreement after a fair deliberation, as argued by deliberative democrats. Through a dialogue between these two positions, this essay casts a new light on certain limitations of deliberative democratic norms, especially in a context of wide structural inequalities, making public discussion hardly ever equitable. In so doing this essay emphasizes the democratic virtues of non-deliberative and contentious political practices. It is only by opening deliberation to non-argumentative and critical forms of expression that it can achieve its ideal of inclusion and social change. Adapted from the source document.

Rawlsian public reason and deliberative democracy are often associated, as both reject a strictly aggregative view of democracy. However, they imply two distinct and irreconcilable conceptions of political legitimacy. While deliberative democracy grounds legitimacy in unrestrained public deliberation aimed at producing moral and epistemic agreement among citizens, public reason grounds it in the exclusion of private reasons from public justification and thus makes deliberation dependent on a prior agreement on a political conception of justice. The former understands democracy mainly as an ideal of self-government through public debate; the latter understands it mainly as an ideal of fair cooperation. Adapted from the source document.

The pathologies of the democratic public sphere, first articulated by Plato in his attack on rhetoric, have pushed much of deliberative theory out of the mass public and into the study and design of small scale deliberative venues. The move away from the mass public can be seen in a growing split in deliberative theory between theories of democratic deliberation (on the ascendancy) which focus on discrete deliberative initiatives within democracies and theories of deliberative democracy (on the decline) that attempt to tackle the large questions of how the public, or civil society in general, relates to the state. Using rhetoric as the lens through which to view mass democracy, this essay argues that the key to understanding the deliberative potential of the mass public is in the distinction between deliberative and plebiscitary rhetoric. Adapted from the source document.

This article argues that in order to foster democratic deliberation, adversarial debates should be promoted rather than discussion. Discussion, in which participants talk to and answer each other, can have detrimental consequences, even when it is strictly argumentative. The article analyses the psychological and social mechanisms that can lead to such undesirable results. The worth of democratic deliberation comes from the exchange of arguments for and against a certain course of action, and the weighting of the opposing reasons. The article thus defends a different perspective on democratic deliberation than the dominant one. Adapted from the source document.

La légitimité du recours aux mini-publics est souvent justifiée par les défenseurs de la théorie délibérative de la démocratie par le fait que ceux-ci seraient unanalogonde la délibération publique par le grand public. Cet article analyse cette justification et identifie quatre défis qui se posent à elle : l'autonomie interne des mini-publics, le risque de fragmentation des enjeux sociaux, l'ontologie sociale individualiste et surtout le défi de la démocratie de masse. Il conclut sur la nécessité de considérer plutôt les mini-publics comme des moyens visant à stimuler le débat au sein du grand public.