Suchergebnisse

This paper presents the results of the INTERNORM action-research designed to support the involvement of not-for-profit organisations in international standard setting bodies such as the ISO. It analyses how a participatory mechanism can influence the institutional environment of technical diplomacy, and reflects on the democratisation of the field of international standardisation. This reflection draws upon international relations literature on new forms of global governance and social studies of science and technology.

Without radically upsetting the institutional & political balance of the Union, the Commission's White Paper on Governance, published 25 Jul 2001, proposes a new basis for the EU's institutional legitimacy. However, this conceptual re-foundation gives rise to new & fundamental questions. To speak of governance within democracy is indeed unthinkable unless 'governance' is redefined as a form of government where the legitimacy of public action (as well as its efficiency) is made possible by a 'proceduralization' of law. The failure to promote legitimacy with concepts borrowed from the vocabulary of the nation-state is nevertheless puzzling: should the 'participatory democracy' be considered a substitute for representative democracy? Even if this is not the case, it is uncertain whether 'participatory democracy' sufficiently embodies the democratic ideal, at least at the European Union level. 1 Table, 53 References. Adapted from the source document.

The European citizenship and the democratic deficit are at the heart of the ongoing discussion about the European integration. Critics think that the possibility for the citizens to participate in the decision making process of the EU is not sufficient. In order to shed some light on this matter, the two concepts are examined under their different aspects. We emphasize not only their place in the larger context of the integration and the political situation in Europe but also the link between the two notions. This allows the conclusion that the European citizenship, because of its flexible and innovative character, should be the starting point in the search of an answer to the democratic deficit.

Do governments still have margins for maneuver? The answer to this question can only be positive. Did not governments rescue the financial markets from bankruptcy in 2008? The question is, therefore, about the European Union: the member countries of the euro zone find themselves in the situation of federated states without a federal government. The result is a power deficit that mirrors the democratic deficit in Europe: on the one hand, the federated states have legitimacy but no means of action; on the other hand, means of action exist but their usage is limited by international treaties. We are, therefore, confronted with a politics of powerlessness rather than to the impotence of politics. Adapted from the source document.

In this article, the author evaluates the impact of the implementation of the e-government, notably in Quebec, on the citizen-State relationship. If the discourse put forward by governments to legitimize their action aims not only at modernizing services, but also at developing an e-democracy -- the latter being supposed to contribute to make up the democratic deficit, it is allowed to wonder what the impact of such a phenomenon really is. Along this line, the author suggests two dimensions to analyze the e-government, which translate into a process of individualization & instrumentalization likely to transform the citizen-State relationship. Adapted from the source document.

Access to official documents is a key outcome of the concept of transparency as applied to the institutions of the European Union. In the 1990s, transparency offered the promise of a cure to the "democratic deficit" from which these European institutions suffered. Key factors that underpinned progress towards greater transparency and the right of access to documents are identified as: the influence of globalization and the gradual adoption of national legislations of the various member states, the "Citizens Europe" movement, the legal evolution concerning access to environmental information, the institutional evolution of the European decision-making process, the difficulties encountered during the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty and, the accession of Sweden and Finland in 1995 to the European Union. These developments culminated with the insertion of article 255 to the Amsterdam Treaty and, under the 2001 presidency of Sweden, the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. Official statistics reveal, however, that the right of access to documents, produced and received by the European institutions, is rarely applied by European citizens. This right, like a working knowledge of the functioning of the European Union, remains the preserve of a small circle of professionals, usually established in Brussels. It seems that transparency and the right of access to documents does not bring the citizen closer to the European institutions and it does not solve the stated "democratic deficit". Rather, this research finds that it has been used as an instrument in an institutional struggle to limit the power of the Council and the Commission.

The Constitution ratified on October 5, 1958 did not mention Europe, although the latter had been created in Rome on March 25, 1957. For 35 years, the construction of Europe was the domain of diplomats and civil servants, until the democratic deficit awakened the Parliaments (in 1979) and the Treaty of Maastricht, signed in 1992, made its entry into the Constitution inevitable. Apparently, Europe has strengthened the dominant traits of the Fifth Republic: a two-headed executive, a weak parliament, and a great centralization of power. But reality is quite different: power resides elsewhere due to the permanent transfers of competence and of sovereignty, to the emergence of a European society and, more recently, to the growing globalization. One may therefore consider that the belated and limited institutional inscription of Europe in the Fifth Republic does not give a true account of its real place in the new Republic. Today Europe represents the future of France in the world. Adapted from the source document.

A central question of political theory has long been how to reconcile the democratic ideal – where the people rule – with the reality of political power that is restrained and limited in various ways. This question has recently been raised in the debate on the European Union's "democratic deficit". A neo-Madisonian discourse has emerged that identifies in the EU's multi-level governance a contemporary version of Madison's separation of powers and checks and balances. This article develops a critique of this discourse by revisiting Madison's writings and highlighting his republican vision of democratic legitimacy whereby institutional limitations to power are legitimized through their relationship with the principle of popular sovereignty. ; Une question centrale pour la théorie politique est de savoir comment réconcilier l'idéal démocratique – selon lequel le pouvoir est détenu par le peuple – avec la réalité d'un pouvoir restreint et limité. Cette question est apparue dans le débat autour du « déficit démocratique » de l'Union européenne. Selon le discours néo-madisonien, où la « gouvernance multi-niveaux » de l'UE est présentée comme version moderne du système de séparation et diffusion de pouvoir élaboré par Madison dans le Fédéraliste, l'UE apparait comme une solution aux problèmes du majoritarisme à l'échelle nationale. Cet article développe une critique de ce discours en proposant une lecture « républicaine » du système politique madisonien qui souligne le lien entre institutions et normes et entre limitations juridiques et souveraineté populaire.

A central question of political theory has long been how to reconcile the democratic ideal – where the people rule – with the reality of political power that is restrained and limited in various ways. This question has recently been raised in the debate on the European Union's "democratic deficit". A neo-Madisonian discourse has emerged that identifies in the EU's multi-level governance a contemporary version of Madison's separation of powers and checks and balances. This article develops a critique of this discourse by revisiting Madison's writings and highlighting his republican vision of democratic legitimacy whereby institutional limitations to power are legitimized through their relationship with the principle of popular sovereignty. ; Une question centrale pour la théorie politique est de savoir comment réconcilier l'idéal démocratique – selon lequel le pouvoir est détenu par le peuple – avec la réalité d'un pouvoir restreint et limité. Cette question est apparue dans le débat autour du « déficit démocratique » de l'Union européenne. Selon le discours néo-madisonien, où la « gouvernance multi-niveaux » de l'UE est présentée comme version moderne du système de séparation et diffusion de pouvoir élaboré par Madison dans le Fédéraliste, l'UE apparait comme une solution aux problèmes du majoritarisme à l'échelle nationale. Cet article développe une critique de ce discours en proposant une lecture « républicaine » du système politique madisonien qui souligne le lien entre institutions et normes et entre limitations juridiques et souveraineté populaire.

Published: 28 April 2018 ; In an interdependent world, this sensation that not everyone who should be here is here, that our constituencies should be completed with other criteria of inclusion, that there may be some who have been illegitimately excluded from our group points to a triple inclusion―spatial, temporal and natural―that we should undertake: the inclusion of our neighbors, of our descendants and of the environment. None of these three "votes" enough. One of the principal challenges of contemporary democracies is how to reintroduce these subjects in our systems of representation and decision-making. If this hypothesis is correct, then we have a true democratic deficit and the habitual question about whether democracy is possible beyond the national state should be reformulated to ask instead whether democracy is possible without including those who are outside the national state, or more concretely, whether we can continue calling a political system a democracy if it does not internalize the interests of its contemporaries, does not anticipate the rights of future generations or does not recognize in some way the political subjectivity of nature.

International audience ; The academic debates around the rise of so-called populist movements rarely refer to the origins of the tensions structuring representative democracies today. The "democratic deficit" or the "democratic crisis" are expressions that imply the unstructured nature of this moment. We argue here that it points out a structural shift, resulting from the progressive disarticulation between the representative principle and the democratic principle. As both principles defined representative democracy since the 19th century, their disarticulation raises interrogations and produces reactions within the political field: the return of the nation, the possible Constituent Assemblies, as well as the defence of a representative regime deprived of its democratic features are the many political possibilities born out of this disarticulation. The present article develops this thesis and aims at contributing to the theoretical discussions around the current situation of representative democracies, as well as around the so-called populist moment. ; Les débats académiques autour de la montée des mouvements définis comme populistes s'interrogent rarement sur ce à quoi renvoient les tensions qui traversent les démocraties représentatives aujourd'hui. Le « déficit démocratique » ou la « crise de la démocratie » sont autant d'expressions qui supposent le caractère non structurel de ce moment. Nous y voyons plutôt une rupture structurelle, issue de la désarticulation progressive du principe représentatif d'avec le principe démocratique. Alors que ces deux principes ont défini la démocratie représentative à partir du XIXe siècle, leur désarticulation suscite des interrogations et produit des réponses au sein du champ politique : le retour de la nation, l'évocation de possibles assemblées constituantes ainsi que la défense d'un régime représentatif dépourvu de ses traits démocratiques sont autant de possibilités politiques qui naissent de cette désarticulation. Le présent article développe cette thèse et la propose ...

International audience ; The academic debates around the rise of so-called populist movements rarely refer to the origins of the tensions structuring representative democracies today. The "democratic deficit" or the "democratic crisis" are expressions that imply the unstructured nature of this moment. We argue here that it points out a structural shift, resulting from the progressive disarticulation between the representative principle and the democratic principle. As both principles defined representative democracy since the 19th century, their disarticulation raises interrogations and produces reactions within the political field: the return of the nation, the possible Constituent Assemblies, as well as the defence of a representative regime deprived of its democratic features are the many political possibilities born out of this disarticulation. The present article develops this thesis and aims at contributing to the theoretical discussions around the current situation of representative democracies, as well as around the so-called populist moment. ; Les débats académiques autour de la montée des mouvements définis comme populistes s'interrogent rarement sur ce à quoi renvoient les tensions qui traversent les démocraties représentatives aujourd'hui. Le « déficit démocratique » ou la « crise de la démocratie » sont autant d'expressions qui supposent le caractère non structurel de ce moment. Nous y voyons plutôt une rupture structurelle, issue de la désarticulation progressive du principe représentatif d'avec le principe démocratique. Alors que ces deux principes ont défini la démocratie représentative à partir du XIXe siècle, leur désarticulation suscite des interrogations et produit des réponses au sein du champ politique : le retour de la nation, l'évocation de possibles assemblées constituantes ainsi que la défense d'un régime représentatif dépourvu de ses traits démocratiques sont autant de possibilités politiques qui naissent de cette désarticulation. Le présent article développe cette thèse et la propose ...

International audience ; The academic debates around the rise of so-called populist movements rarely refer to the origins of the tensions structuring representative democracies today. The "democratic deficit" or the "democratic crisis" are expressions that imply the unstructured nature of this moment. We argue here that it points out a structural shift, resulting from the progressive disarticulation between the representative principle and the democratic principle. As both principles defined representative democracy since the 19th century, their disarticulation raises interrogations and produces reactions within the political field: the return of the nation, the possible Constituent Assemblies, as well as the defence of a representative regime deprived of its democratic features are the many political possibilities born out of this disarticulation. The present article develops this thesis and aims at contributing to the theoretical discussions around the current situation of representative democracies, as well as around the so-called populist moment. ; Les débats académiques autour de la montée des mouvements définis comme populistes s'interrogent rarement sur ce à quoi renvoient les tensions qui traversent les démocraties représentatives aujourd'hui. Le « déficit démocratique » ou la « crise de la démocratie » sont autant d'expressions qui supposent le caractère non structurel de ce moment. Nous y voyons plutôt une rupture structurelle, issue de la désarticulation progressive du principe représentatif d'avec le principe démocratique. Alors que ces deux principes ont défini la démocratie représentative à partir du XIXe siècle, leur désarticulation suscite des interrogations et produit des réponses au sein du champ politique : le retour de la nation, l'évocation de possibles assemblées constituantes ainsi que la défense d'un régime représentatif dépourvu de ses traits démocratiques sont autant de possibilités politiques qui naissent de cette désarticulation. Le présent article développe cette thèse et la propose à la discussion théorique autour de la situation actuelle des démocraties représentatives, et du moment dit populiste.