Suchergebnisse

The effects of public attitudes & expectations upon the political communications delivered by various US presidents are investigated. After contending that presidential rhetoric possesses a democratizing function, three categories of powers & constraints placed upon US presidents are identified. State of the Union & inaugural addresses delivered from 1885 to 1992 are analyzed to demonstrate how US presidents have generated notions of shared national identity & promoted diversity. Several aspects of this shared national identity produced by the aforementioned presidential communications are identified: the nation's citizens are engaged in a covenant with American society; certain individuals, especially immigrants, require government assistance in acting like American citizens; & the paradoxical inclusion & exclusion of particular groups from American citizenship. Three directions for future research are offered, eg, studying the effects of deliberative democracy upon political change or reform. J. W. Parker

Contends that the distinction between a specific, emancipation-oriented critical theory-based critical security studies (CSS) & a more general, emancipation-skeptic, post-structuralist-influenced CSS is exaggerated. It is argued that the idea of emancipation is not only implicit in general CSS, but "some concept of emancipation is a necessary element of any form of analysis that attempts to problematize & criticize the status quo." The serious & sophisticated attempt of the Frankfurt School of critical theory to explain the meaning of emancipation is examined to contend that it is not without problems & contradictions. The theme of emancipation is examined in the work of Frankfurt School figures like Horkheimer, Adorno, & Habermas, as well as in the scholarship of contemporary theorists who have developed newer conceptualizations, including David Held's concept of deliberative & cosmopolitan democracy, & Andrew Linklater's notions of political community. Consideration is given to how critical theorists have attempted to transpose understandings of emancipatory potential into "visions of concrete utopias." It is concluded that a concern with emancipation is central to any form of CSS. J. Lindroth

Der Artikel basiert auf einem Deliberativen Forum zur deutschen Arbeitsmarkt- und Sozialpolitik. Er untersucht Gruppendynamiken und Meinungsänderungen sowie den Einfluss von aktiven Personen auf diese Dynamiken mittels quantitativer Vor- und Nachbefragung der Teilnehmer_innen, um einen Beitrag zur Debatte über einen möglichen Mehrwert von Deliberation in demokratischen Entscheidungsprozessen zu leisten. Die These von durch Deliberationsprozessen angestoßenen Meinungsänderungen kann grundsätzlich bestätigt werden, allerdings deuten die Ergebnisse darauf hin, dass die Mehrheit in ihren Positionen weitgehend unverändert aus der Debatte gegangen ist. Auch inhaltlich lässt sich feststellen, dass die in der Demokratietheorie und empirischen Deliberationsforschung getroffenen normativen Erwartungen hinsichtlich Gemeinwohlorientierung, Großzügigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit von getroffenen Entscheidungen nur zu einem geringen Ausmaß erfüllt wurden. Gleichzeitig finden sich kaum Hinweise auf einen systematischen Einfluss aktiver Personen auf die Positionen der übrigen Gruppenmitglieder.

"Citizens' Assemblies and Democracy" published on by Oxford University Press.

Examines the innovative potential of the Internet for democracy as applied to deliberative transnationalism, asserting, however, that this public sphere requires innovative institutions. Keeping in mind deliberative democracy, a conceptual clarification of the conditions for a public sphere is provided. It is contended that for the public sphere to exist in large & highly differentiated modern societies, technological mediation of public communication is needed; this necessitates finding indirect & mediated alternatives to the public sphere as face-to-face public forum. Dialogue, when it can expand & transform the conditions of communicative interaction, is taken as a key feature of any public sphere. How computer-mediated communication extends the forum is then addressed in terms of how the Internet, with its many-to-many communicative potential, can fulfill the requirements of publicity. The Internet opens a space for a "distributive," ie, a transnational public of publics, rather than unified public sphere with new forms of interaction; the public sphere becomes decentered, where the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive & democratic activity, ie, dialogue, with the defining characteristic that all participants can propose & incur mutual obligations. This reflexive agency would foster the creation of software capable of turning networks into publics using the distributive processes of communication to transcend space & time limitations inherent in national public spheres & state forms. However, some remarks are offered on whether the Internet has the capacity to escape the manner in which state sovereignty organizes space & time, highlighting the thought of Will Kymlicka. The European Union is taken as a case study to explore the democratic deficit of transnational & international institutions, focusing on proposals indicative of how a polycentric form of publicity night allow a more directly deliberative form of governance. Considered in closing is whether the kind of public sphere generated in transnational politics might spur new institutional forms of democracy that confront the problems of time and space concomitant with global democracy, eg, collective identity. 26 References. J. Zendejas

Examines the innovative potential of the Internet for democracy as applied to deliberative transnationalism, asserting, however, that this public sphere requires innovative institutions. Keeping in mind deliberative democracy, a conceptual clarification of the conditions for a public sphere is provided. It is contended that for the public sphere to exist in large & highly differentiated modern societies, technological mediation of public communication is needed; this necessitates finding indirect & mediated alternatives to the public sphere as face-to-face public forum. Dialogue, when it can expand & transform the conditions of communicative interaction, is taken as a key feature of any public sphere. How computer-mediated communication extends the forum is then addressed in terms of how the Internet, with its many-to-many communicative potential, can fulfill the requirements of publicity. The Internet opens a space for a "distributive," ie, a transnational public of publics, rather than unified public sphere with new forms of interaction; the public sphere becomes decentered, where the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive & democratic activity, ie, dialogue, with the defining characteristic that all participants can propose & incur mutual obligations. This reflexive agency would foster the creation of software capable of turning networks into publics using the distributive processes of communication to transcend space & time limitations inherent in national public spheres & state forms. However, some remarks are offered on whether the Internet has the capacity to escape the manner in which state sovereignty organizes space & time, highlighting the thought of Will Kymlicka. The European Union is taken as a case study to explore the democratic deficit of transnational & international institutions, focusing on proposals indicative of how a polycentric form of publicity night allow a more directly deliberative form of governance. Considered in closing is whether the kind of public sphere generated in transnational politics might spur new institutional forms of democracy that confront the problems of time and space concomitant with global democracy, eg, collective identity. 26 References. J. Zendejas

Explores the issues of democracy, liberalism, & the rule of law in the work of Michel Foucault & Jurgen Habermas. It is argued that, although it would appear on the surface that Foucault has little to offer on these themes compared to Habermas, Foucault's account of the normalizing practices of biopower &/or government provides an analysis of forms of reason & practices that tackles the question of how to make subjects act discursively. Foucault's account of governmental relations typical of the present is considered in light of Habermas's project of reconstructing the foundations for a procedural account of law/democracy. In addition, Foucault's genealogies of modern rationalities of rule reveal the unacknowledged preconditions of Habermas's proceduralist democracy in the emergence of biopower. It is maintained that Habermas's attempt to normalize democracy cannot explain the normalizing powers needed to construct the deliberative public spheres that legitimize the exercise of power. 41 References. J. Lindroth

"Democracy and human rights are reciprocal political concepts. Democracy is supposed to protect and secure human rights, but can also violate them. Republicans argue that democracy has priority over human rights, liberal positions argue the other way round. I would like to enter the dispute between a liberal and a republican view from the perspective of the political human rights. I will then discuss different versions of the idea of a self-commitment of democracy to human rights: first on the single state basis by constitutional court jurisdiction (R. Alexy), then J. Habermas's conceptions of a deliberative democracy and his interpretation of human dignity as a moral source of modern, human right based law. But still, the 'constititutionalisation of the international law' (J. Habermas) shows the tensions between the universalism of human rights and the particularism of a concrete democracy." (author's abstract)

Argues that direct (referendum) democracy is not a viable way to democratize the polity, enhance citizenship, or empower people in a complex democratic institutional system, because it promotes political stratification & individualistic behavior. The argument is bolstered with examples from Switzerland, Italy, & the US, where referendum measures are commonly used as a source of pressure from below, but where their record is ambiguous at best. It is shown that direct democracy not only fails to enhance the deliberation process but often serves as an obstacle to cooperation & compromise. In addition, the marketization of the public space in contemporary democracies has made the control of monetary resources an overriding factor in decision making & has generated claims that referendum campaigns can be "bought" by those with large financial reserves. Other issues addressed include the importance of organizational & rhetorical resources; political stratification caused by social inequality; conflicts between self-interest & the common good; problems of legitimacy; & alternative forms of participation that could produce a more deliberative & reflective democracy. 77 References. J. Lindroth

Argues that direct (referendum) democracy is not a viable way to democratize the polity, enhance citizenship, or empower people in a complex democratic institutional system, because it promotes political stratification & individualistic behavior. The argument is bolstered with examples from Switzerland, Italy, & the US, where referendum measures are commonly used as a source of pressure from below, but where their record is ambiguous at best. It is shown that direct democracy not only fails to enhance the deliberation process but often serves as an obstacle to cooperation & compromise. In addition, the marketization of the public space in contemporary democracies has made the control of monetary resources an overriding factor in decision making & has generated claims that referendum campaigns can be "bought" by those with large financial reserves. Other issues addressed include the importance of organizational & rhetorical resources; political stratification caused by social inequality; conflicts between self-interest & the common good; problems of legitimacy; & alternative forms of participation that could produce a more deliberative & reflective democracy. 77 References. J. Lindroth