Suchergebnisse

Examines the antidemocratic consequences & theoretical coherence of the eighteenth-century doctrine of national self-determination, focusing on the political context of Europe. The doctrine's claim that each nation is entitled to a territorially defined state is discussed, & it is argued that the struggle for national self-determination is always susceptible to nationalism, whose expansion & antidemocratic effects are, paradoxically, supported by democratic freedoms. Since democratic mechanisms facilitate the transformation of national identity into nationalism, democracy should eschew the doctrine of national self-determination & accept national identity as a legitimate form of cultural life. Contemporary trends opposed to the principle of national self-determination are discussed, & reflections on a postnational Europe are offered. 1 Photograph. Adapted from the source document.

Analyzes the historical construction of the "right to national self-determination." This principle has enjoyed considerable popularity among international lawyers, political philosophers, governments, & their opponents since WWI, but it actually has its roots in the struggles of early modern Europe & in the work of Francois Diderot & Thomas Paine. The collpase of the Soviet empire under pressure from struggles for national self-determination in our own period would appear to add weight to the thesis that a shared sense of national identity, in Hungary & Russia no less than in Scotland & Slovenia, is a basic precondition of the creation & strengthening of citizenship & democracy. However, since the logic of the French Revolution has been broadly repeated in so many countries, doubt must be cast on any such conclusion. Indeed, it seems that believers in a nation risk being seduced by the language & power fantasies of nationalism if they fail to recognize the differences among national identity, nationalism, & democracy. M. Maguire

In exploring whether or not the free and equal communication of citizens is a feasible ideal at the end of the twentieth century, this article presents a new account of the importance of the media to democracy. It offers a revised interpretation of the public service model of communications, in a risk-ridden society, and spells out the implications of these arguments for conventional views of democracy. After considering and rejecting foundationalist and relativist accounts of democracy, it offers a novel conception of democracy as a project of flexibly controlling the exercise of power.

IN EXPLORING WHETHER OR NOT THE FREE AND EQUAL COMMUNICATION OF CITIZENS IS A FEASIBLE IDEAL AT THE END OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS A NEW ACCOUNT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MEDIA TO DEMOCRACY. IT OFFERS A REVISED INTERPRETATION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE MODEL OF COMMUNICATIONS, IN A RISK-RIDDEN SOCIETY, AND SPELLS OUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE ARGUMENTS FOR CONVENTIONAL VIEWS OF DEMOCRACY. AFTER CONSIDERING AND REJECTING FOUNDATIONALIST AND RELATIVIST ACCOUNTS OF DEMOCRACY, IT OFFERS A NOVEL CONCEPTION OF DEMOCRACY AS A PROJECT OF FLEXIBLY CONTROLLING THE EXERCISE OF POWER.

The relationship between democracy & the communications media is analyzed by examining the pros & cons of public service broadcasting vs privately owned media, as well as possiblities offered by the new communications technologies eg, videotex & electronic mail. A revised public service media model is presented, with cautions about market liberalism, information overload, constitutional privileges conflicting with personal privacy, & audience information selectivity. It is concluded that the controversy over freedom of the press & the effect of media on democratization is a continuing conflict, as it should be in a democratic society. 3 Photographs. M. Malas

All the past history of the world testifies against the immortality of state power, and the earth is covered with the ruins of the fallen.[Johann K. Bluntschli, Lehre vom modernen Stat (1875).]