At the very moment that humanity is facing a broadening ecological crisis, and that both policy makers and civil society are calling for a transition towards more sustainable societies, modern science seems incapable of providing operational solutions for managing this transition. In this context, both Noble prize laureates and high-level science officials have stressed the need of an in depth transformation of the modes of organization of scientific research for governing the transition to sustainable societies. However, existing analyses of on-going initiatives show that most of the barriers to a major, consolidated effort in sustainability science will not be removed without far-reaching institutional change. To address this challenge, this paper proposes an incremental institutional change approach, based on a gradual institutionalization process of existing initiatives. The analysis in this paper shows that strategic research for sustainability and reform of research funding mechanisms will only be effective if they are supported at the same time by reforms of career and training paths at higher education institutions. To promote this vision, the paper proposes a set of capacity building measures that can be undertaken at the level of research funding, higher education institutions and networking.
After years of political crises and negotiations, the deep-rooted conflict between Dutch- and French-speaking parties recently led to the 2011 agreement concerning a further reform of the Belgian state. This reform mainly furthers decentralises the – already federal – state structure, including the allocation of additional competences and fiscal powers to sub-national entities (Regions and Communities). But this new state reform also brings about a radical reform of the upper house: the Belgian Senate. Since 1995, the Senate was composed of three different types of members: Senators directly elected by two linguistically separated electorate (the Dutch-speaking and the French-speaking electorates), Senators indirectly elected by the Community parliaments and Senators coopted by the two other types. The French- and German-speaking linguistic minorities had a fixed amount of seats in this assembly. The reform of the state radically changed the legislative competences of the Senate and its composition as its members will now be designated by Regional and Community parliaments (plus 10 coopted senators). Broadly speaking, the appointment of the majority of the Senators moved from a system of direct and language-based election to a system of indirect and mixed regional and language-based designation. This change is not without consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. In May 2014, regional, community and federal elections will be organised in Belgium, testing for the first time this new system of designation of Senators by regional and community parliaments. This paper intends to present the 2013 reform of the Senate in Belgium and its consequence for the representation of linguistic minorities. The situations before and after the reform of the Senate will be compared, not only in terms of the way Senators are appointed but in terms of its consequence on the linguistic aspects of the regional and community elections campaign and of the profile of the appointed Senators.
Ever since the 1990's, deliberative theory has been heralded as the most promising new theory on political legitimacy. Democratic deliberation, conceived as the rational exchange of arguments, is claimed to improve the quality of democratic decision making because it instigates a more considered judgment; it allows citizens to hear other perspectives to a problem and to question their own opinions. However, deliberation's beneficial effects do not come about easily. If deliberative mini-publics want to contribute to the legitimacy of political decision making, they have to reflect the principles of legitimacy in their own functioning. It is therefore crucial to assess the internal legitimacy of deliberative mini-publics before making claims about their contribution to the legitimacy of the political system as a whole. In this paper, we set out to assess the input, throughput and output legitimacy of four deliberative events, namely the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, the Irish "We, The Citizens"-project, the Belgian G1000, and the Dutch Burgerforum. Based on a most-similar comparison of these cases, we argue that their internal legitimacy differs a great deal, and that this is due to factors relating to their process design, such as funding, recruitment and moderation.
Harvard University Professor Joseph Nye first revealed the concept of "soft power" which he describes as an ability of a state to form preferences of other actors of world policy using its attractiveness for them. This is connected with culture, political values, and the foreign policy of the USA. It is becoming obvious that the efficiency of using military forces is substantially limited, and the need for states to increase their influence cannot fully be realized. Ideas that in their essence are close to "soft power", appeared long before American political scientists started the discussion of the concept. It is necessary to pay attention to the works of G. Morgenthau, E. Carr, the Italian Marxist philosopher A.Gramsci, and others. Such concepts include the "concept of seduction" by J.Baudrillard, as well as the "concept of seduction" by Gilles Lipovetsky. Following John Hiring, researchers from different countries have made "soft power" the subject of their research. However, their positions concerning this concept are far from being unambiguous, and sometimes contradictory. An important rethinkingabout "soft power" is the Chinese school of research of this phenomenon. Chinese researchers point to the historical roots of the idea of "soft power", which can be found in the country's history, and that this concept is harmony and naturalness for Chinese society. ; Հարվարդի համալսարանի պրոֆեսոր Ջոզեֆ Նայը նախ բացահայտեց «փափուկ ուժ» հասկացությունը, որով նա հասկանում էր պետական ակտորի ունակությունը՝ ձևավորելու այլ ակտորների նախապատվություները՝ օգտագործելով իր գրավչությունը նրանց աչքերում: Սա վերաբերում էր ԱՄՆ մշակույթին, քաղաքական արժեքներին և արտաքին քաղաքականությանը: Ակնհայտ դարձավ, որ ռազմական ուժի կիրառումը սահմանափակ է, իսկ սեփական ազդեցությունը մեծացնելու անհրաժեշտությունը մնում է ոչ ամբողջովին իրականանալի: «Փափուկ ուժի» նման գաղափարներն ի հայտ եկան ամերիկյան քաղաքագիտության մեջ այդ հայեցակարգի քննարկումները սկսելուց շատ առաջ: Այս իմաստով պետք է նշել Հ. Մորգենթաուի, Է.Քարի, իտալացի մարքսիստ փիլիսոփա Ա. Գրամշիի և այլոց աշխատանքները: Նման հասկացությունները ներառում են Ժ.Բոդրիարի «գայթակղության հայեցակարգը», ինչպես նաև Ժ.Լիպովեցկիի «հրապուրման հայեցակարգը»: Հետևելով Ջ.Նային՝ տարբեր երկրների հետազոտողները «փափուկ ուժը» դարձրեցին իրենց հետազոտության առարկան: Նրանց դիրքորոշումները միանշանակ չեն: Այս երևույթի ուսումնասիրման չինական դպրոցը կարևոր է՝ մատնանշելով «փափուկ ուժի» գաղափարի պատմական արմատները: Այստեղից էլ թեզը չինական հասարակության համար՝ այս հայեցակարգի ներդաշնակության և բնականության մասին: ; Профессор Гарвардского университета Джозеф Най впервые раскрыл концепт «мягкой силы», под которой он понимал способность государства формировать предпочтения других акторов мировой политики, используя собственную привлекательность в их глазах. Это относилось к культуре, политическим ценностям и внешней политике США. Становилось очевидно, что применение военной силы ограничено, а потребность в увеличении своего влияния оказывается не вполне реализованной. Идеи, схожие по своему действию с «мягкой силой», появились задолго до того, как концепт начал обсуждаться в американской политологии. В этом смысле следует отметить работы Г. Моргентау, Э. Карра, итальянского философамарксиста А. Грамши и др. К подобным концепциям можно отнести «концепцию соблазна» Ж. Бодрийяра, а также «концепцию обольщения» Ж. Липовецки. Вслед за Дж. Наем исследователи разных стран сделали «мягкую силу» предметом своего исследования. Их позиции далеко не однозначны. Важной представляется китайская школа изучения данного феномена, указывающая на исторические корни идеи «мягкой силы». Отсюда - тезис о гармоничности, естественности данного концепта для китайского общества.
The article analyzes the nature and features of the formation of political myths, as well as the most common political myths in the political system of Armenia. It is argued that every myth has a semantic center, the role of which in most cases is played by archetypes. The main plot of the myth unfolds around the semantic center. History and politics are the areas where most myths are created. Political myths in the mass consciousness do not reflect real political processes, but their distortions, original interpretations. They are widely used due to modern communication technologies and mass media. It is argued, that in addition to the negative impact on public consciousness, the myth can also have a positive effect, which is expressed in the mobilization of society, without which it is sometimes impossible to imagine overcoming the crisis in the political system, expressing the interests and goals of society or affirming democratic principles. In the article, some examples of political myths in the political system of Armenia are discussed: by the myths about a young state and a transitional period the authorities of the country have for a long time motivated the impossibility of solving basic social problems, corruption, weak democratization of social relations, etc. The myths about guaranteed security and sustainability of social life in the mass consciousness reflected the idea of a supposedly productive domestic and foreign policy. One of the most resistant political myths is the myth of the legitimacy of the chosen power in which the legality and legitimacy of power are presented as implying each other phenomena, although legally elected power may not be legitimate, and illegitimate powermay act completely legally. Simultaneously, with the process of a mythologization of politics, the process of demythologization in society is also taking place, which is most productive in the development of analytical and critical thinking, as well as on the condition that political relations are public, not backstage. ; Հոդվածում վերլուծվում է ինչպես քաղաքական միֆերի ձևավորումը, այնպես էլ դրանցից ամենատարածվածը Հայաստանի քաղաքական համակարգում: Պնդվում է, որ յուրաքանչյուր միֆ ունի իմաստային կենտրոն, որի դերը շատ դեպքերում խաղում են արքետիպերը: Պատմությունն ու քաղաքականությունն այն ոլորտներն են, որտեղ ստեղծվում են ամենաշատ միֆերը: Զանգվածային գիտակցության մեջ քաղաքական միֆերն արտացոլում են ոչ թե իրական գործընթացները, այլ դրանց աղավաղումները և մեկնաբանությունները: Դրանք տարածվում են կապի ժամանակակից տեխնոլոգիաների և լրատվամիջոցների միջոցով: Պնդվում է, որ բացի հասարակության գիտակցության վրա բացասական ազդեցությունից, միֆը կարող է նաև ունենալ դրական ազդեցություն, որն արտահայտվում է հասարակության մոբիլիզացմամբ, առանց որի երբեմն անհնար է հաղթահարել ճգնաժամը: Երկար ժամանակ երկրի իշխանությունները երիտասարդ պետության ու անցումային շրջանի մասին միֆերով պատճառաբանում էին հիմնական սոցիալական խնդիրները և կոռուպցիայի լուծման անհնարինությունը: Ամենակայուն քաղաքական միֆերից մեկն է ընտրված իշխանության լեգիտիմության մասին միֆը, որում լեգիտիմությունն ու լեգալությունը ներկայացված են միմյանց փոխպայմանավորող երևույթներ՝ չնայած օրինականորեն ընտրված իշխանությունը կարող է լինել ոչ լեգիտիմ, իսկ ոչ լեգիտիմ իշխանությունը կարող է գործել ամբողջովին օրինական: ; В статье анализируется формирование политических мифов, а также наиболее распространённые из них в политической системе Армении. Утверждается, что каждый миф имеет смысловой центр, роль которого в большинстве случаев играют архетипы. История и политика – те области, где создаётся наибольшее количество мифов. Политические мифы в массовом сознании отражают не реальные процессы, а их искажения, интерпретации. Они распространяются благодаря современным коммуникационным технологиям и СМИ. Утверждается, что помимо негативного влияния на общественное сознание, миф может иметь и положительный эффект, который выражается в мобилизации общества, без чегоиногда невозможно преодолеть кризис.Мифами о молодом государстве и переходном периоде власти страны долго мотивировали невозможность решить основные социальные проблемы, коррупцию и т.д. Одним из наиболее устойчивых политических мифов является миф о легитимности избранной власти, в котором легальность и легитимность предстают как подразумевающие друг друга явления, хотя на самом деле легально избранная власть может быть нелегитимной, а нелегитимная власть может действовать вполне легально.
While a great deal of attention is devoted to the Pacific region as the new chessboard of international politics, Pakistan remains a key actor in terms of both threat and potential. Two observations back this argument: first, Pakistan's fundamental roles as a state are challenged by its ongoing conflict with India and internal insurgencies. Second, due to a power-status gap, Pakistan experiences difficulties in holding specific self-conceived roles. In addition to hampering its socio-economic potential, these developments prevent Pakistan's quest for normalization in the system. As a consequence, we argue that engaging with Islamabad should be a priority for Washington so as to prevent the country from further aligning with Beijing, thus reinforcing China's regional leadership and status as peer-competitor to the United States. Indeed, as the potential for deviance in the international system arises from its normative dimension, the US, as the global leader, counts among its roles that of norm-setter and primary socializer for most states. Our research proposes to look at an old puzzle with new theoretical insights. By addressing the question of Washington's engagement towards non-conforming states, we aim to document a set of socialization processes as intervening variables linking American global role as leader and primary socializer to Pakistan's process of social integration (normalization/deviance). Drawing from sociology and social psychology, the paper seeks to explore the ability of the leader to act as a primary source of role location and status recognition towards non-conforming states so as to integrate them (back) into the US-led system.
Because of its very conception, the G1000 in Belgium cannot be categorized as a form of constitutional deliberative democracy per se. Its grassroots origin never indeed entailed to change the constitution. Yet this chapter contends that there are some constitutional deliberative democracy features in the G1000, which paradoxically were not thought of by its citizen organizers who sought in the first phases of the G1000 to avoid any political and institutional ties. In fact, their focus was much more on a high input and throughput legitimacy, rather than a high output legitimacy. Their goal was to demonstrate that ordinary citizens, randomly selected, had a say about major social and political issues and that they were wiling and able to deliberate about them, should a design conducive to deliberation be put in place. While the G1000 scored highly on the input dimensions – the quality of representation was good and the agenda could not have been more open – and fairly highly on throughput legitimacy – with a clear script and trained moderators, but with processes of aggregation insufficiently transparent –, the outputs were in the short term very limited, which was a major source of criticism as media had fostered a climate of great expectations about the outputs. The absence of formal links to the main political actors meant that the organizers could not guarantee any formal implementation of the results. So the design characteristics that increase input legitimacy also undermine output legitimacy. But on the longer term the political uptake and the social uptake of the G1000 are increasing as, on the one hand, most of the political parties are now advocating some forms of participatory and deliberative democracy and, on the other hand, several experiences inspired by the G1000 have sparked around in Belgium and in neighboring countries. This twofold output consequence of the G1000 seems to indicate that this experience has fostered some sort of constitutional deliberative democracy broadly defined.
What are the outputs and effects of deliberative mini-publics? This is probably one of the most critical questions for any deliberative endeavor. In the realm of large-scale deliberative experiments, the G1000 in Belgium holds a special place: it happened in the wake of the longest government formation ever, it sought to gather 1000 randomly selected citizens in Brussels to discuss key social and political issues, and, above all, it was a fully citizen-led initiative. Its organizers explicitly sought to avoid any political and institutional ties and their focus was much more on guaranteeing a high representativeness and a qualitative process, rather than generating strong political outcomes. While the G1000 did well in terms of representativeness and open agenda setting, the political uptake was very limited in the short term. In the longer term, however, it seems that the effects of the G1000 were larger than initially expected. A rich set of empirical data is used to analyze the interaction between the G1000 with the entire political system by looking at the relation with the media, public opinion, political parties and MPs, and other experiments in deliberative democracy. Such endeavor sheds light on the "so what" question which is key to the development of real-world deliberative democracy.
What are the outputs and effects of deliberative mini-publics? This is probably one of the most critical questions for any deliberative endeavor. In the realm of large-scale deliberative experiments, the G1000 in Belgium holds a special place: it happened in the wake of the longest government formation ever, it sought to gather 1000 randomly selected citizens in Brussels to discuss key social and political issues, and, above all, it was a fully citizen-led initiative. Its organizers explicitly sought to avoid any political and institutional ties and their focus was much more on guaranteeing a high representativeness and a qualitative process, rather than generating strong political outcomes. While the G1000 did well in terms of representativeness and open agenda setting, the political uptake was very limited in the short term. In the longer term, however, it seems that the effects of the G1000 were larger than initially expected. A rich set of empirical data is used to analyze the interaction between the G1000 with the entire political system by looking at the relation with the media, public opinion, political parties and MPs, and other experiments in deliberative democracy. Such endeavor sheds light on the "so what" question which is key to the development of real-world deliberative democracy.
