Suchergebnisse

Majority rule and compromise are both core elements of democratic politics: democracy would mean little without the majoritarian principle and compromise is required in pluralistic societies rife with fundamental moral and political disagreement. Although clearly opposed, there are also unexpectedly close ties between the two elements. Compromises are struck to make actual majority rule possible, but also to prevent majority decisions or to soften the impact of their (legal and administrative) interpretation and implementation. The very dynamic between majority rule and compromise poses dangers for the quality of and support for constitutional democracy. This is particularly visible in the case of referendums. Because citizens only see the outcomes of majoritarian procedures, they may regard the compromises struck to create majorities, to prevent majority decisions, and to mitigate their impact as elitist gaming, if not as democratic betrayal. Since arguably the quality of a democracy depends on how it treats its minorities, the majoritarian principle needs to be mitigated so as to break the negative spiral of raising expectations and growing disappointment and to preserve, in the end, constitutional democracy itself.

Sager, Fritz, and Patrick Overeem, eds. The European Public Servant: A Shared Administrative Identity? Colchester: ECPR Press.2015. ISBN: 9781907301742.

Among the plethora of public values, one special class is that of "regime values." This notion plays a central role in the constitutional approach to public administration mainly developed by the late John A. Rohr. In this article, an attempt is made to assess the viability of Rohr's concept of regime values and its applicability outside the United States. After brief overviews of the constitutional approach in general and Rohr's use of the concept of regime values in particular, it is argued that Rohr's conceptualizations of "regime" and "values" are too narrow and result in ambiguities within the concept of "regime values" itself. The applicability of the concept of "regime values" is unnecessarily affected by the typically American reference points Rohr uses and can best be improved, it is suggested, by treating "regime values" more frankly as an inherently normative concept.