Suchergebnisse

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

The propensity of citizens to engage in political discussion is classically considered to be a basic component of democratic political systems (Lane, 1961; Almond & Verba, 1963). However, the renewal of academic interest in political discussion over the last two decades has been stimulated by research focused both on political participation and deliberative democracy. In the current debate over the consequences of everyday political discussion on citizens and democracy, the most common way to conduct research is to base it on declarations and find out patterns of causality between, on the one hand, how much citizens say they talk politics and with whom, and on the other hand, respondents' characteristics (Mutz, 2004; Searing et alii, 2008; Huckfeldt and Mendez, 2008). Other researchers try to find out more precisely what these discussions are really made up of, what they are like, how citizens manage to discuss politics with others. There are different methods to approach this question: asking people to tell us about it (Conover, Searing and Crewe, 2002), observing people discussing politics (Gamson, 1992, Cramer Walsh, 2004), or both (Eliasoph, 1998). Our contribution belongs to the second category: we conducted focus groups in order to observe how "ordinary" citizens discuss politics. The design of this project differs from others notably because we set up the discussion in such a way that participants knew they were expected to discuss politics, but we then let them free to do it in their own way (or not). We will present and explain the research design in the first section of the paper. Our analysis of how participants did talk politics emphasises two processes: a process that which recalls deliberation, as debated in the framework of deliberative democracy, because it is a cooperative process of opinion building; another process that we call "conflictualisation" (section 2). We will explain how these two processes involve "raw material" of different natures, respectively opinions and cleavages (section ...

International audience ; The Conference on the Future of Europe intends to blend representative and participatory institutions such as the citizens' agoras, which will be drawn by lot to organize deliberations and make recommendations, and then send representatives to the Convention's plenary assemblies. It will also rely on a series of events and debates organized at the national or local level, the conclusions of which will be integrated into the multilingual platform that will serve as a "hub" for the large-scale democratic exercise. This article analyzes the formula chosen for this hybridization. It intends to show that the example of the Convention makes it possible to identify more generally the stakes and difficulties of deliberative and participative democracy. Our criticism will adress both the inadequacy of the mechanism implemented in relation to the demanding ideals of deliberative or participatory democracy, and certain limitations of these visions themselves. What can we expect from the inclusive procedure chosen as a method for this new type of Convention? Can we hope, at the end of the two years allotted to the work, for a decisive refoundation of the European institutions? Or should we deplore the travesty of democracy and the illusion of a civic renewal? ; La Conférence sur l'avenir de l'Europe entend hybrider des institutions représentatives et des institutions participatives comme les agoras citoyennes tirées au sort, vouées à organiser des délibérations et à formuler des recommandations, puis envoyer des représentants dans les assemblées plénières de la Convention. Elle s'appuiera également sur une série d'événements et de débats organisés à l'échelle nationale ou locale, dont les conclusions seront intégrées à la plate-forme multilingue qui doit servir de « plaque tournante » à l'exercice démocratique à grande échelle. Cet article se propose d'analyser la formule retenue pour cette hybridation. Il entend montrer que l'exemple de la Convention permet plus généralement de cerner les enjeux et ...

How does one think about the form of the State in its management of conflicting ethnic groups in positive light in Africa in the present and in the future? Ethnic reality in Africa continues to be the principal determining factor of individual and collective existence, constituting an obstacle to the normal operation of its States, which often fail or collapse. In the global era, the re-organisation of power and of thought in plural societies leads to socio-political and geopolitical stabilisation. The author here argues for the implementation of 'deliberative democracy' or 'governance under the tree' as a synthesis of liberal and republican democracy based on the 'win-win' principle, different from majoritarian democracy where the 'winner takes all'. The theory of the multinational state thus proposes a constitutional, political and conceptual innovation in the plural societies of the 21st century: it entails restructuring the imagination to allow a global shift in African political thought, its needs, desires, quests, expectations and hopes.

International audience ; The Conference on the Future of Europe intends to blend representative and participatory institutions such as the citizens' agoras, which will be drawn by lot to organize deliberations and make recommendations, and then send representatives to the Convention's plenary assemblies. It will also rely on a series of events and debates organized at the national or local level, the conclusions of which will be integrated into the multilingual platform that will serve as a "hub" for the large-scale democratic exercise. This article analyzes the formula chosen for this hybridization. It intends to show that the example of the Convention makes it possible to identify more generally the stakes and difficulties of deliberative and participative democracy. Our criticism will adress both the inadequacy of the mechanism implemented in relation to the demanding ideals of deliberative or participatory democracy, and certain limitations of these visions themselves. What can we expect from the inclusive procedure chosen as a method for this new type of Convention? Can we hope, at the end of the two years allotted to the work, for a decisive refoundation of the European institutions? Or should we deplore the travesty of democracy and the illusion of a civic renewal? ; La Conférence sur l'avenir de l'Europe entend hybrider des institutions représentatives et des institutions participatives comme les agoras citoyennes tirées au sort, vouées à organiser des délibérations et à formuler des recommandations, puis envoyer des représentants dans les assemblées plénières de la Convention. Elle s'appuiera également sur une série d'événements et de débats organisés à l'échelle nationale ou locale, dont les conclusions seront intégrées à la plate-forme multilingue qui doit servir de « plaque tournante » à l'exercice démocratique à grande échelle. Cet article se propose d'analyser la formule retenue pour cette hybridation. Il entend montrer que l'exemple de la Convention permet plus généralement de cerner les enjeux et les difficultés de la démocratie délibérative et participative. Notre critique visera à la fois l'insuffisance du dispositif mis en œuvre par rapport aux idéaux exigeants de la démocratie délibérative ou participative, et certaines limites de ces visions elles-mêmes. Que peut-on attendre de la procédure inclusive retenue comme méthode de cette Convention d'un genre nouveau ? Peut-on espérer, à l'issue des deux années imparties aux travaux, une refondation décisive des institutions européennes ? Ou faut-il déplorer le simulacre de démocratie et l'illusion d'un renouveau civique ?

Issued in 2 parts: Book. 1. European Community law; Book. 2. The protection of human rights in Europe ; AEL Collected courses 1990-1997. Digitised version produced by the EUI Library and made available online in 2020 ; -- Quelques réflexions sur les perspectives politico-institutionnelles de l'intégration européenne en 2000 et au-delà, Emile Noël -- Reasserting the political will to move Europe forward, Klaus Hânsch -- Le pouvoir judiciaire de la Communauté européenne au stade actuel de l'évolution de l 'Union, Gil Carlos Rodriguez Iglesias -- General course: community and national legal orders: autonomy, integration and interaction, Ricardo Alonso Garcia -- 'Civil society' and the European Union: opening spaces for deliberative democracy?, Deirdre M. Curtin -- Challenges of European integration to private law, Christian Joerges -- European football law, Stephen Weatherill -- Index of decisions by Transnational Courts

International audience ; This article analyses paradoxical relationships between conflict and participation through the notion of learning process. It shows that apparently opposed experiences such as citizens' conference and social movement lead actors who take part to comparable – if not similar – political learning. They learn both to identify antagonisms (conflict learning) and to construct collective agreements (participation or deliberation learning) The analysis takes place in a global reflection on possibility to identify agonistic practices of deliberative democracy. ; Cet article analyse les relations paradoxales entre conflit et participation à partir de la notion d'apprentissage. Il montre que des expériences apparemment aussi opposées qu'une conférence de citoyens et une mobilisation collective entraînent des apprentissages politiques comparables – sinon identiques – chez les acteurs qui y prennent part. Ceux-ci apprennent à la fois à identifier les antagonismes (apprentissage du conflit) et à construire des accords collectifs (apprentissage de la participation ou de la délibération). L'analyse s'inscrit dans une réflexion globale sur la possibilité d'identifier des pratiques agonistiques de démocratie délibérative.

International audience ; This article analyses paradoxical relationships between conflict and participation through the notion of learning process. It shows that apparently opposed experiences such as citizens' conference and social movement lead actors who take part to comparable – if not similar – political learning. They learn both to identify antagonisms (conflict learning) and to construct collective agreements (participation or deliberation learning) The analysis takes place in a global reflection on possibility to identify agonistic practices of deliberative democracy. ; Cet article analyse les relations paradoxales entre conflit et participation à partir de la notion d'apprentissage. Il montre que des expériences apparemment aussi opposées qu'une conférence de citoyens et une mobilisation collective entraînent des apprentissages politiques comparables – sinon identiques – chez les acteurs qui y prennent part. Ceux-ci apprennent à la fois à identifier les antagonismes (apprentissage du conflit) et à construire des accords collectifs (apprentissage de la participation ou de la délibération). L'analyse s'inscrit dans une réflexion globale sur la possibilité d'identifier des pratiques agonistiques de démocratie délibérative.

Dans cet article, j'analyse les idées principales de la théorie de la démocratie délibérative de Jürgen Habermas. Le philosophe allemand développe une conception procédurale et discursive de la légitimité démocratique selon lequel une décision est légitime et juste seulement dans la mesure où elle est fondée sur des raisons publiques résultant d'un processus de délibération inclusive et équitable, à laquelle tous les les citoyens peuvent participer et dans lequel ils sont en condition de coopérer librement. Cette conception de la démocratie est présenté comme une alternative aux conceptions républicaines traditionnelles de la démocratie, qui postulent un intérêt général transcendant de représentants élus par rapport aux points de vue des citoyens ordinaires, et les conceptions libérales, qui construisent cumulativement l'intérêt général comme simple addition ou négociation entre les différents intérêts. Notre thèse principale est que la légitimité démocratique dépend d'un processus de formation de la volonté (non pas d'une volonté pré-formé, c'est à dire anterieur à le débat public).[In this paper, I analyze the main ideias of the Jürgen Habermas' deliberative theory of democracy. The german philosopher develops a procedural and discursive notion of democratic legitimity according to which the decision is legitimate and therefore correct only in the moment that it is grounded on public reasons which are resulting of an inclusive and fair procedure of deliberation, to which all citizens can participante and in which they cooperate freely. Such notion of democracy appears as an alternative to traditional republican notions of democracy which postulate a general interest of the elects ones regarding to the interests of the common citizens, as an alternative to the liberal notions of democracy which construct in a cumulative way the general interest as a simple addition or negotiation among different particular interests. Our main argument is that democratic legitimity depends of a formative process of the will (and not of the pre-formed wills which are previous to the public debate.]

Building upon the experience of the Convention for the elaboration of the Charter of fundamental rights and upon the suggestions of the White Paper on European Governance, this article puts forward proposals for a better involvement of the 'civil society' in the system of the European Union. It offers a general diagnosis of the misunderstandings surrounding the notion of 'civil society' and the relationship of representative democracy to participatory democracy. It then draws some lessons from the experiment in deliberative democracy which led to the drafting of the Charter of fundamental rights. Finally, it focuses on the contribution the organisations of the civil society can make to good governance in the European Union. Altogether, the proposals presented tend to encourage a better structuration of the actors of the civil society. Such a structuration, the article concludes, although it is usually considered with suspicion even by those whom it would most benefit, must be seen instead as a condition for the effective exercise of whichever participatory rights might be granted to the organisations of the civil society.

Building upon the experience of the Convention for the elaboration of the Charter of fundamental rights and upon the suggestions of the White Paper on European Governance, this article puts forward proposals for a better involvement of the 'civil society' in the system of the European Union. It offers a general diagnosis of the misunderstandings surrounding the notion of 'civil society' and the relationship of representative democracy to participatory democracy. It then draws some lessons from the experiment in deliberative democracy which led to the drafting of the Charter of fundamental rights. Finally, it focuses on the contribution the organisations of the civil society can make to good governance in the European Union. Altogether, the proposals presented tend to encourage a better structuration of the actors of the civil society. Such a structuration, the article concludes, although it is usually considered with suspicion even by those whom it would most benefit, must be seen instead as a condition for the effective exercise of whichever participatory rights might be granted to the organisations of the civil society.

Cet article vise à esquisser les contours de la notion d'autogouvernement, activité permettant d'influer sur les conditions de vie commune, lorsque les personnes concernées rencontrent une rupture du continuum de leur expérience. En effet, il semble aujourd'hui indispensable, au vu du « désempowerment » progressif affectant les individualités et la santé humaine et de l'insuffisance de la démocratie participative et délibérative à insuffler un renouveau démocratique, de resituer la participation sociale et politique au cœur du quotidien. Le développement de la sociabilité se pose notamment comme essentiel à la préservation des individualités et à la constitution de soi en sujet social et politique. ; This article aims at framing the notion of "self-government", as an activity capable of affecting the living condition of a community, whose member encounter a rupture in their life experience continuum. The restoration of the central role of social and political participation in our lives proves to be vital at this present time. The progressive disempowerment affecting individuals and human health, and the limited impulse of participatory and deliberative democracy in the renewal of democracy are two signs of this necessity. Notably, the development of sociability is essential to preserve individuals and to promote the definition of one's self as a social and political subject.

Since Daniel Gaxia's work (1978), it is considered that representative democracy is confronted with a 'hidden cens' which leads a majority of citizens to abstain from effective political participation even though nothing in law prevents them from participating. Following the development of participatory procedures, several authors have shown that this 'hidden cens' also applies to participatory or deliberative democracy. The purpose of this article is to question the effectiveness of these self-censorship mechanisms when looking at citizen participation from institutionalised political processes to research processes, at a time when the institutions are increasingly asking researchers to open up their teams to representatives of civil society. It is therefore necessary, on the basis of a quantitative study of the 9 297 research projects of FP7 and a qualitative study of fifteen collaborative environmental projects, to show that participation in the present case faces a double hidden participatory cens: due to the selection of citizens and civil society organisations involved, but also due to the modalities of such participation and its impact on the functioning of the research projects themselves ; International audience Since Gaxie's seminal work (1978), representative democracy is usually said to be bound to a "cens caché" which leads a majority of citizens to refrain any political participation although nothing, in law, prevent them from actingdoing it. Following the participatory designs' rise, a set of actors have demonstrate that this "cens caché" applies also to deliberative or participatory democracy. The stake of this paper is to question the efficiency of those self censorhip when not studying citizens' participation in the frame of institutionalized procedures anymore but in the frame of research process, at a time when institutions ask more and more often the researchers to open their teams to civil society. We will show that this participation, in practice, comes up against a double participatory ...