Suchergebnisse

Considers the problem of a democratic deficit in the EU, arguing that the optimum way to fortify the polity's democratic legitimacy is by employing already existing policy instruments & subsidies to bolster democracy at the popular level. The EU can help revive local government -- the real bedrock of democracy -- & thus give citizens the political competencies & autonomy needed to flourish in an immense multi-tiered confederal system. Democratic legitimacy, for the EU, ought to be an outgrowth of its capacity to safeguard the potential for democratic government in Member States rather than originating from the mostly futile exercise of democratizing itself. 8 References. K. Coddon

Examines the significance of networks in modern governance in the US & the EU, utilizing a comparative approach that underscores a number of likenesses and differences between network structures. First, the reasons for the proliferation of network modes of governance & the accompanying legitimacy questions are clarified. Next, EU networks are described. The third section evaluates US network structures. The fourth section considers similar & contrasting network structures in the two regimes, emphasizing both critical points & network characteristics with ramifications for legitimacy, along with addressing how the democratic deficit that besets network types of governance might be remedied. 97 References. K. Coddon

The lack of democracy in the European Union (EU) has traditionally been examined as an institutional problem, but it is argued here to be a manifestation of the widespread disagreement about what constitutes the essential character of the EU. To make this point, the historical particularity of the EU is taken into account, the EU's governmental structures are discussed, & the conditions for democracy in the EU are compared to those in a sovereign state. The new instruments that the Maastricht Treaty sets up to work against the democratic deficit -- most notably, the concepts of subsidiarity, regionality, & EU citizenship -- are also examined & found wanting. M. Maguire

Examines the origins & steady expansion of powers of the European Parliament (EP) in the postwar period. Originating as the Common Assembly of the European Coal & Steel Community in 1950, the EP is described as traditionally suffering from a democratic deficit in which its weak legislative & control powers have created a gap between its democratic practice in theory vs in reality. The EP's strategy to expand its decision-making powers in the 1980s, culminating in the Single European Act, is reviewed, & it is suggested that its greatest success has been to expand the domain of its debates, investigations, & own-initiative reports. The further expansion of the EP's powers after the Maastricht Treaty is described as the movement from seeking cooperation with member governments to attaining the right of codecision. Finally, it is suggested that if the EP is to continue to expand its legislative role, it must continue to be innovative, flexible, & persuasive. D. M. Smith

Examines the innovative potential of the Internet for democracy as applied to deliberative transnationalism, asserting, however, that this public sphere requires innovative institutions. Keeping in mind deliberative democracy, a conceptual clarification of the conditions for a public sphere is provided. It is contended that for the public sphere to exist in large & highly differentiated modern societies, technological mediation of public communication is needed; this necessitates finding indirect & mediated alternatives to the public sphere as face-to-face public forum. Dialogue, when it can expand & transform the conditions of communicative interaction, is taken as a key feature of any public sphere. How computer-mediated communication extends the forum is then addressed in terms of how the Internet, with its many-to-many communicative potential, can fulfill the requirements of publicity. The Internet opens a space for a "distributive," ie, a transnational public of publics, rather than unified public sphere with new forms of interaction; the public sphere becomes decentered, where the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive & democratic activity, ie, dialogue, with the defining characteristic that all participants can propose & incur mutual obligations. This reflexive agency would foster the creation of software capable of turning networks into publics using the distributive processes of communication to transcend space & time limitations inherent in national public spheres & state forms. However, some remarks are offered on whether the Internet has the capacity to escape the manner in which state sovereignty organizes space & time, highlighting the thought of Will Kymlicka. The European Union is taken as a case study to explore the democratic deficit of transnational & international institutions, focusing on proposals indicative of how a polycentric form of publicity night allow a more directly deliberative form of governance. Considered in closing is whether the kind of public sphere generated in transnational politics might spur new institutional forms of democracy that confront the problems of time and space concomitant with global democracy, eg, collective identity. 26 References. J. Zendejas

Examines the innovative potential of the Internet for democracy as applied to deliberative transnationalism, asserting, however, that this public sphere requires innovative institutions. Keeping in mind deliberative democracy, a conceptual clarification of the conditions for a public sphere is provided. It is contended that for the public sphere to exist in large & highly differentiated modern societies, technological mediation of public communication is needed; this necessitates finding indirect & mediated alternatives to the public sphere as face-to-face public forum. Dialogue, when it can expand & transform the conditions of communicative interaction, is taken as a key feature of any public sphere. How computer-mediated communication extends the forum is then addressed in terms of how the Internet, with its many-to-many communicative potential, can fulfill the requirements of publicity. The Internet opens a space for a "distributive," ie, a transnational public of publics, rather than unified public sphere with new forms of interaction; the public sphere becomes decentered, where the Internet becomes a public sphere only through agents who engage in reflexive & democratic activity, ie, dialogue, with the defining characteristic that all participants can propose & incur mutual obligations. This reflexive agency would foster the creation of software capable of turning networks into publics using the distributive processes of communication to transcend space & time limitations inherent in national public spheres & state forms. However, some remarks are offered on whether the Internet has the capacity to escape the manner in which state sovereignty organizes space & time, highlighting the thought of Will Kymlicka. The European Union is taken as a case study to explore the democratic deficit of transnational & international institutions, focusing on proposals indicative of how a polycentric form of publicity night allow a more directly deliberative form of governance. Considered in closing is whether the kind of public sphere generated in transnational politics might spur new institutional forms of democracy that confront the problems of time and space concomitant with global democracy, eg, collective identity. 26 References. J. Zendejas

Describes the United Kingdom's parliamentary system, with particular reference to the Westminster model. The stringently unitary chain of delegation & accountability, which is generally viewed as characteristic of the Westminster model, is constructed to reduce the efficiency & transparency deficits caused by multiple principals & agents that are typical of other Western democracies. However, as a result of constitutional change since the 1970s, the ideal type of the Westminster model has decreasingly corresponded with the reality of British politics. For example, the privatization & marketization of the 1980s & 1990s have eroded the chain of delegation between ministers & executive agencies. Moreover, the far-reaching constitutional reform program begun during Prime Minister Tony Blair's first term involves at least the possibility of the establishment of several veto points & institutional checks that may weaken the unitary chain of democratic delegation & accountability. 1 Table, 76 References. K. Coddon