Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface and Acknowledgements -- 1 Conflict and Community -- 2 The Forms and Nature of Political Violence -- 3 The State and Violence -- 4 Democracy and Terrorism -- 5 Ethnic and Nationalist Violence and Democracy -- 6 Violence and the Installation of Democracy -- 7 Culture, Violence and Democracy -- 8 Democracy in Times of Risk and Uncertainty -- Bibliography -- Index
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Introduction: Re-Interpreting Democracy for Our Time -- 2 Autonomy in and between Polities: Democracy and the Need for Collective Political Selves -- 3 Rethinking 'Modern' Democracy: Political Modernity and Constituent Power -- 4 Democratic Surplus and Democracy-in- Failing: On Ancient and Modern Self- Cancellation of Democracy -- 5 Setbacks of Women's Emancipation (Condition, Consequence, Measure and Ruse) -- 6 Political Modernity, Democracy and State-Society Relations in Latin America: A New Socio-Historical Problématique? -- 7 Communitarian Cosmopolitanism: Argentina's Recuperated Factories, Neoliberal Globalisation and Democratic Citizenship. An Arendtian Perspective -- 8 Middle-Classing in Roodepoort: Unexpected Sites of Post-Apartheid 'Community' -- 9 Democracy and Capitalism in Europe, Brazil and South Africa -- 10 From Realism to Activism: A Critique of Resignation in Political Theory -- 11 The World as We Find It: A Suggestion for a Democratic Theory for Our Times -- 12 Epilogue: Democracy as Capacity for Self-Transformation -- Index
Taking into account the epistemological convergence between political science and political anthropology, the author reflects on the nature and contents of pluricultural democracy, providing some critical remarks. ; Desde la convergencia epistemológica entre ciencia política y antropología política el autor reflexiona sobre la naturaleza y los contenidos de la democracia pluricultural, aportando algunas consideraciones críticas. ; Depuis la convergence épistémologique sur Science Politique et Anthropologie Politique, l'auteur réflechie sur la nature et les contenus de la Démocratie Pluri-culturelle, en apportant quelques considérations critiques. ; Fil: Vázquez, Amancio. Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Etnolingüísticas y Antropológico-Sociales. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina
In: International political science review: the journal of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) = Revue internationale de science politique, Band 43, Heft 5, S. 648-661
After the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump, a widespread perception emerged that the world was witnessing a crisis of liberal democracy. Not surprisingly, said crisis is at the core of a new batch of political science literature. This review article takes stock of some key contributions to the literature, namely Albright (2018), Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018), Norris and Inglehart (2018), Runciman (2018a) and Eatwell and Goodwin (2018). My key argument is that the reviewed books are fundamentally limited by problematic ontological assumptions stemming from artificial disciplinary boundaries. Privileging either individual traits of authoritarian leaders or the very specific experience of the USA or the UK, they fail to capture varied, yet deeply interconnected international expressions of contemporary authoritarianism. Following Justin Rosenberg's open invitation to place the concept of multiplicity at the centre of a renewed research agenda, I suggest that a more holistic take on the crisis of democracy requires a renewed attention to inter-societal dynamics.
The study of democratic theory and democratic politics is at the core of the discipline of political science. Yet the very centrality of democracy to the discipline may be what makes it difficult to sort out whether political science is doing the work of democracy rather than simply the analysis of it. Political science's origins were civic minded but it has evolved into a more professionalized observer of politics than a promoter or creator of democracy. Nonetheless, in recent years there has been, as in many disciplines, a renewed interest in the civic component of our work and a challenge to the dominant paradigms of disinterested analysis and formal modeling. There are promising developments in political science that are contributing to the deliberative democracy "movement," both in research and pedagogy.
The study of democratic theory and democratic politics is at the core of the discipline of political science. Yet the very centrality of democracy to the discipline may be what makes it difficult to sort out whether political science is doing the work of democracy rather than simply the analysis of it. Political science's origins were civic minded but it has evolved into a more professionalized observer of politics than a promoter or creator of democracy. Nonetheless, in recent years there has been, as in many disciplines, a renewed interest in the civic component of our work and a challenge to the dominant paradigms of disinterested analysis and formal modeling. There are promising developments in political science that are contributing to the deliberative democracy "movement," both in research and pedagogy.
Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Introduction -- One -- 1. Beginnings (1274b32- 41) -- 2. Citizens (1274b41- 1276b15) -- 3. To Be or Not to Be (1276a6- 1276b15) -- 4. To Be and to Be (1276b16- 1277b32) -- 5. Noncitizens (1277b33- 1278b5) -- Two -- 1. "The Few in Opposition" (1278b6- 1279a21) -- 2. From a Man's Point of View (1279a22- 1280a6) -- 3. Ignoble Division (1280a7- 25) -- 4. The Oligarchic Logos (1280a25- 1281a10) -- 5. Unreason Is the Reason (1281a11- 39) -- 6. The Multitude, the Demos, and Free Men (1281a39- 1282b13) -- Three -- 1. Political Philosophy (1282b14- 1284a3) -- 2. Hares and Hermaphrodites (1284a3- 1284b34) -- 3. Kings (1284b35- 1286a9) -- 4. The King of Kings (1286a7- 1286b40) -- 5. The King of the Beasts (1287a1- 1288b6) -- Appendix 1: A Note on the Translation -- Appendix 2: Translation of Aristotle's Politics, Book III -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index
In: A new version of the paper published as chapter 1 of Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2009.
In: International political science review: the journal of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) = Revue internationale de science politique, Band 43, Heft 5, S. 648–661
Democracy in Thailand is the result of a complex interplay of traditional and foreign attitudes. Although democratic institutions have been imported, participation in politics is deeply rooted in Thai village society. A contrasting strand of authoritarianism is present not only in the traditional culture of the royal court but also in the centralized bureaucracies and powerful armed services borrowed from the West. Both attitudes have helped to shape Thai democracy's specific character. This topical volume explores the importance of culture and the roles played by leadership, class, and gender in the making of Thai democracy. James Ockey describes changing patterns of leadership at all levels of society, from the cabinet to the urban middle class to the countryside, and suggests that such changes are appropriate to democratic government--despite the continuing manipulation of authoritarian patterns. He examines the institutions of democratic government, especially the political parties that link voters to the parliament. Political factions and the provincial notables that lead them are given careful attention. The failure to fully integrate the lower classes into the democratic system, Ockey argues, has been the underlying cause of many of the flaws of Thai democracy. Female political leadership, another imported notion, is better represented in urban rather than rural areas. Yet gender relations in villages were more equitable than at court, Ockey suggests, and these attitudes have persisted to this day. Successful women politicians from a variety of backgrounds have begun to overcome stereotypes associated with female leadership although barriers remain. With its wide-ranging analysis of Thai politics over the last three decades, Making Democracy is an important resource for both students and specialists
The article develops normative assumptions about what the political ideologies, democracy and political parties ought to be and advocates a reconsidered version of liberalism, which is perceived as an alternative to the prevailing modern political ideologies. Assumptions of reconsidered liberalism about the role of ideologies in democracy are generalized in the concept of ideological pluralism. The article also presents a concept of comprehensive democracy as an alternative to representative, direct, deliberative, civic and other modern conceptions of democracies. In this perspective democracy is perceived as a mode of collective decision-making process. Normative criteria for the basic elements of a collective decision making process, i.e.: participants of decision-making processes, decisionmaking procedures, content of decisions and implementation of decisions, are formulated. Assumptions about the alternative role of political parties in democracy are derived from the conception of the comprehensive democracy. It is proposed to assign to political parties functions such as civic education, organizing and moderating public deliberations, monitoring policy implementation. ; Straipsnyje plėtojamos normatyvinės prielaidos, kokios turėtų būti politinės ideologijos, demokratija ir politinės partijos. Formuluojama persvarstyto liberalizmo, kuris suvokiamas kaip patraukli alternatyva vyraujančioms šiuolaikinėms politinėms ideologijoms, versija. Persvarstyto liberalizmo prielaidas, kokios turi būti ideologijos, apibendrina ideologinio pliuralizmo samprata. Ideologiniam pliuralizmui būdinga: 1) skirtis tarp "kairės" ir "dešinės" nėra vienintelė, kuri paaiškina ideologinių schemų įvairovę – galimos ir kitokios skirtys, politinės ideologijos nebūtinai turi būti kategorizuojamos kairės-dešinės skalėje; 2) kad ideologijos būtų pripažintos demokratinėje visuomenėje, jos turi atitikti bendrus demokratiškumo principus; 3) ideologijos padeda politinėms partijoms generuoti alternatyvias socialinės tikrovės vizijas ir viešosios politikos alternatyvų paketus, įtikinti rinkėjus, suburti komandas, kompetentingas įgyvendinti šias vizijas ir viešosios politikos alternatyvas, išugdyti lyderius, kurie sugebėtų įkvėpti ir motyvuoti žmones siekti bendrų tikslų. Taip pat formuluojama visapusiškos demokratijos samprata, alternatyvi tiek atstovaujamosios, tiek tiesioginės, deliberatyvinės, pilietinės, tiek kitų šiuolaikinių demokratijų koncepcijoms. Visapusiškos demokratijos modelyje demokratija yra suvokiama kaip kolektyvinio sprendimų priėmimo proceso savybė, formuluojami normatyviniai kriterijai pagrindiniams kolektyvinio sprendimų priėmimo proceso elementams: sprendimų priėmimo proceso dalyviams, sprendimų priėmimo proceso procedūroms, sprendimų turiniui ir sprendimų įgyvendinimui. Tokia integruota demokratijos teorija sudaro galimybę formuoti naujas demokratines institucijas, keisti sprendimų priėmimo praktikas. Iš visapusiškos demokratijos sampratos išvedamos prielaidos apie kitokį politinių partijų vaidmenį – politinėms partijoms siūloma priskirti tokias funkcijas kaip piliečių ugdymas, viešųjų diskusijų iniciavimas ir moderavimas, viešosios politikos sprendimų įgyvendinimo priežiūra. Politinės partijos visapusiškoje demokratijoje turėtų veikti vadovaudamosi ideologijomis, kurios atitiktų jau minėto ideologinio pliuralizmo sąlygas. Politinių partijų vidaus valdymas taip pat turėtų būti organizuotas pagal visapusiškos demokratijos modelio kriterijus.