Isabel Maria Estrada Local Associationalism and the Path to A

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Isabel Maria Estrada Local Associationalism and the path to a Post-National understanding of social relations in Europe.

(The role of Civil Society and State in the Project for a Radical Democracy)

We will start this paper from the assumption that a new model of society must be set in place - a society of deeper and wider democratic participation for all its members.

What distinctive features should that society have? First of all, it should be a society willing to engage itself in a serious process of self-criticism about all its instituted boundaries as practices of exclusion, questioning itself on the moral validity of their existence(1). Such a society therefore would have to be defined as a living space of wide-open and intensive dialogue between all its members, relying on the authentic practice of rights of communication and participation. The idea that everybody has always something to teach and something to learn, having no place for a priori certainties, would be the only unquestioned thought. As a result, all moral positions should have equal opportunities to show themselves to each other, and this would guarantee that all practices of exclusion were fully and equally evaluated in their moral pertinence.

And it would certainly be a more sharing and a more inclusive society. More sharing, because the exercise of rights of participation and communication enables us to know each other better, hence enables - by the use of our imagination and memory of previous own experiences - the capacity to understand the pain and desires of other people. More inclusive, because the sentiment of solidarity resulting from those intersubjective experiences allows us to better accept plurality and diversity. Besides, the very use of rights of communication and participation requires to be democratically valid the inclusion of all those potentially interested in its results. Thus, inclusion is not only a condition, but also a consequence of truly democratic participation.

In a society of this nature, to be a citizen would mean to be an active agent in its construction, thanks to the full use of these fundamental rights. At the same time, the intensive, open and democratic use of such rights would turn citizenship into an articulating entity of collective plurality and individual integrity. In other words, citizenship would become synonym of a political identity detached from the concept of national membership because based upon the admission of individuals and groups on the grounds of common rights of democratic participation. Considering that in our societies this set of fundamental rights are embraced by the sphere of political rights, the argument for a project of radical democratic participation can only be compatible with the argument for the widening of all political rights to all fully residing members of any society. The distinction between citizen and non-citizen would then be absolutely meaningless, because in the light of this project both would be citizens, as both would share the same capacity of using fundamental political rights (whether it was by suffrage or by political and civic association). Simultaneously, the only acceptable separation between a citizen and a non-citizen would be the one resulting from the latter's decision to remain outside of such a social and political engagement.

These are the basics of a post-national citizenship proposal - a citizenship democratically valid because grounded on principles of full communication and participation, above and beyond any national membership's constraints.

The major difference between the traditional model and the post-national model of citizenship lays on the fact that in the second one the individual is identified as member of a political association (the respublica), and not of a national or ethnic community. And because it has no particular national, ethnical or cultural content, the respublica reveals a non-essentialist nature that makes it compatible with the presence of each individual's collective and personal identity, and also compatible with his/her real actions for the accomplishment of various interpretations of the common good(2).

Taking this ideal project as one we would like helping societies to build for the sake of all people's rights and democratic values, it is understandable our curiosity about the European Community project of a Union Citizenship, since it appears to be the only one with a post-national potential so far conceived. In this context it is reasonable to ask how close is the project of a European Citizenship of making immigrants into active subjects of a renewed social contract?

For fifteen countries in Europe, citizenship must be thought close to a wider space, that of the EU. It is thus fundamental to question if and how the project of a Union Citizenship (UC) has been contributing for a post-national understanding of the concept. In other words, what treatment and what place does the EU keep for its immigrants in its redefinition as a more inclusive and reliable space?

These questions are undeniably linked to another one about the meaning of Europe itself, the one we think it has now and the one we would like it to have in the future. The idea of Europe follows the history of its continent and that of the World, being therefore made of ruptures, reinvention and restlessness. Assuming the idea of Europe as one that renews itself along the way, it is perfectly reasonable that a new idea of Europe will come out in the future. And considering as valid the democratic renewal project we have been arguing for, it seems obvious that the future European identity should be based on a shared culture of common solidarity among all its members. But, such a culture is only viable if backed-up by another one: a culture of full participation, lived as close as possible to the model of the ideal situation of speech described by Habermas, and as close as possible to the pre-conditions of an intercultural dialogue as defined by Santos(3)

(The truth is without participation there is no Solidarity, only parochial solidarities, imprisoned in their small spaces of action, running the risk of revealing themselves as mutually aggressive and destructive). Secondly, from all the possible fields of participation, the political field remains as the privileged one by which men and women guarantee the capacity to participate in the decision-making processes potentially affecting their lives.(4) As a result, (although not discarding the democratic potentialities of participation in other spheres of social action), political participation should be taken as central in the definition of a new European identity. A political participation yet shaped by a post-national character, assuming that only such a model would protect the plurality of all possible participants.

However, the European scenario now being modelled doesn't seem to be getting close to such an ideal. The Treaty of Maastricht has brought the concept of European citizenship, act of undeniable symbolic weight, for it was as postulating the existence of a popular sovereignty at least common to all citizens of the member-states, hence disconnected from national constraints. But, a closer look to this promising picture and one finds several imperfections and doubts as far as its democratic features are concerned.

First, not only the amount of rights granted to the European citizens is small, but also too far from efficient establishment and protection. Second, and far the most important in our present analysis, the new space of participation has been conceived as an open space only for the already citizens of the member-states, excluding third-countries's resident communities from its (at least theoretical) virtues. In our minds, that space should be open to those communities too, because only by accomplishing the inclusion of all its different groups, and returning to the rights of participation their true status of rights and not privileges of a certain European elite, would the Union Citizenship reveal a true postnational nature. Yet, when we look to the European Law as a reliable source of the political wills and institutional practices of the European actors, we easily realise that third countries's nationals are still very far from acquiring the status of full European members.

Let's take for instance, the kind of distinctness given to the immigration policies. Obviously, it is not the interest in those policies per se that gives proofs of the kind of relationship that Europe has with its third-countries's nationals, but the terms in which that interest is revealed and the chosen actors to perform it. The fact that immigration policies are still mainly a State's matter; the fact that these policies are still the basis of the relationship between states, immigrants and the EU are in our point of view reasonable indicators of how in the light of a Union Citizenship, the national paradigm of citizenship built upon multiple exclusions is still being protected and even implemented.

It is undeniable that the continuing of the intergovernmental approach to immigration issues reveals the strength of the states in a traditionally dear terrain of their sovereign power, but it also reveals the lack of political will of the EU itself. And if in the case of states one can understand their attitude considering the historical meaning they have been building about themselves, in the case of the EU its inefficiency cannot be excusable only on the basis of the particular wills of each of its member-states. An entity such as the EU is more than a mere sum of states and sovereignties; it is above all a unique institutional entity that exceeds national assertions and lays its essence on a transnational and even supranational relationship with the people it gathers. Having this in mind, one would expect that this relationship could also be by its initiative a postnational one. Nonetheless, its action on this matter has been quite disappointing, insecure and ambiguous.

The main causes of this ambiguity are far too complex to be here fully exposed. Still, one point must be underlined: the utilitarian character of its action and thought. This character, in many ways fed by the continuous absence of a tradition of institutional democratic accountability - is quite obvious in the selection of decisions and behaviours, often guided by the Union's position in the international capitalist system. Well, it seems that an institution whose interest in the development of certain processes is merely instrumental cannot be taken as a source of credibility and reliability for the continuing of those processes. Therefore, when the Union talks about Union citizenship as a fundamental means for the accomplishment of the principle of free circulation, one can't help seeing, on the one hand, an interest shaped by the ambition of an economic project that demands for its attainment such principle without showing similar concern for the attainment of the well-being of all European people; and, on the other hand, an interest shaped by a dangerous notion of contingency. This means that only insofar as the European economic project demands the Union citizenship, can this one have some certainty about its development. It seems then the Union's commitment in recreating democracy depends highly on whether it is appropriate or not to its economic project, fact that could help us to understand why its capitalist dimension is so well developed in contrast with its political and social dimension.

We can conclude that the concept of Union citizenship is still rooted in a national paradigm, which leads to an obvious unsuitableness to the real cultural and social ground. It leads also to its affiliation to a certain restrict idea of what is Europe and what is to be a European. Indeed, in the reinvention of a citizenship model shaped by a postnational philosophy, the Union could have in its citizenship a very promising instrument. Yet, it has been showing a conservative essence that turns the words of Percy Lehning irrefutably real: "... when we talk about of excluding others, the Union as Union tries to keep a very clear boundary between members and the rest of the world"(5). Even the negocial spaces adopted for the treatment of the citizenship of the member-states' nationals and the third-countries' nationals is a good indicator of such truth. While the first find treatment at a supranational level, (articles 8 to 8-E of the European Union Treaty granted a common understanding of the European Citizenship to all EU members), the second are comprehended by the intergovernmental sphere, precisely the one that has better promoted the resistant forces to a post-national citizenship model.

· Civil society: the fundamental key to a more authentic view of democratic participation. We are here defending the utopia of a high-intensity democracy(6) - what others have been calling model of radical democracy. A high-intensity democratic model is a society-ruling model where communication and participation are not privilege but true rights for all human groups without exception.

Analysing the Union space, we have just concluded that, although possessing a project of citizenship that could be developed in a post-national sense, and despite being a space with a transnational and even supranational vocation, that has not been the chosen path. A post-national citizenship implies the settlement of a new social contract of a more embracing and plural nature, quality not yet assumed by this Union citizenship. On the contrary, it seems closer to a neo-nationalist model which, taking the exclusion rules typical to the national models, looms out to invent new boundaries between new conceptual spaces: the space of the nationals of the member-states vs. the space of the nationals of third-countries(7). But, if that space that seems to be the ideal one fails in the achievement of a postnational model, what other spaces could make it successfully? The answer lays (but does not run out) on the development of local spaces and civil society. This statement raises several questions, among which is to know to what extent in a basically local record can cohesion and solidarity be reached in order to embrace the entire European Union space. First of all, it is important to note that the argument for the democratic potentialities of the local space does not suggest the denial of the European space nor of the national space democratic viability.

Second, the argument for the democratic potential of local space relies on the assumption that democracy gets better if different democratic institutions are admitted, functioning at different spatial scales, without making the apologia of any one in particular. There is no unique valid institutionality for the making of democracy. (Actually, democratic legitimacy as a basic principle of social organisation can only be valid insofar as it does not presuppose any democratic formula in particular.) Civil society at a local dimension appears as indispensable to the development of a post-national citizenship, due precisely to its exceptional capacity to create a plurality of free associations that enable groups and persons to a full and free participation in the setting of their social relations. In fact, the plurality of associational forms, more than a characteristic, is an imperative of a civil society's integrity, considering that to fasten on a certain institutional rigidity would be to deny its very own essence: voluntary, dynamic, creative, open. Civil society must therefore correspond to a necessarily plural space regarding its associations, creative regarding its functioning forms, inclusive regarding the admission of individuals and groups, and democratic regarding their kind of participation (free and voluntary).

Having this definition in mind, a society which knows how to conciliate its political sphere (on which a representative democracy has been set) with its civil society sphere (set on forms of democratic participation generated mainly at a local level closer to groups and individuals), will be a society closer to the achievement of a high-intensity democracy as far as the level of inclusion of its members is concerned.

But, there are two conditions without which one cannot guarantee neither the viability of this society's plan or the quality of its democracy. The first condition says that political rights must be granted to all members of a society politically organised by a State. The second condition says that the articulating and co-ordinating presence of the State is fundamental in order to prevent civil society from possible less democratic features that it might contain.

a) The organisation of a strong civil society implies the public recognition of the right to political and civic association to all individuals.

Being the right to associate an eminently political one and being the political rights still exclusive to the citizen status, that means any person who has not been admitted to the citizen's sphere set by a State cannot enjoy political rights such as the right of free political association. In the post-national proposal, however, every mature rational person should possess the right to political participation, whether by the right to vote, or by the right to free association. It is important to underline the inseparability of these two rights, since that the right of association is not enough to complete the capacity of participating in a society. When looking at the immigrants, for instance, one realises the right to associate is almost useless if not followed by a) the right to participate in the public sphere by means of suffrage, since it is there where the main decision-making processes occur; and b) by the right to political association in order to enable more than a passive role in the public sphere.

b) Civil society presupposes not only the existence of democratic institutions, but has been historically quite important for the democratisation of the representative democracy itself.

The existence of a State that organises and runs the legal, military and administrative apparatus means obviously the existence of limitations to popular sovereignty. But, thanks to civil society, regional and local structures contribute to the enforcement not only of direct participation in the public sphere, but also of democracy in general, since it conditions the representative institutions to be necessarily more receptive to a dialogue with other democratic institutionalities, hence to be themselves more democratic in their functioning. But, democracy is more than a regime by which citizens control governments. It is necessary that a society democratically organised by a state, be itself a democratic space as far as its social relations are concerned. That only seems possible if the state is able to assume the role of a co-ordenating system of civil society's behaviours.

Not only we're stating that civil society might not be democratic in itself, as we are also introducing a new element to our proposal: State doesn't have to be civil society's public enemy.

Regarding the first statement, there is an obvious anti-democratic risk now being run by civil society. That risk derives, among other things, from the increasing importance of the market principle, and from the very nature of civil society's organising principle- the community principle. The explanation to this lays on what has been called the crisis of the vertical political obligation principle. The crisis of this principle has lead to the neoliberalist idea that only the private sphere can accomplish the well-being, substituting the State in its failed promotion of non-mercantilist relations. This current idea relies on the false assumption that private sphere equals market and therefore civil society is only another way to name the market run by citizens. However, neither does civil society mean market, nor does the market dry out the entire private sphere. Civil society is instead a place for both private and public relations, since individuals are simultaneously engaged in private relations ruled by the community principle (e.g. family & friends), and by the market principle (mercantilist relations), as also in public relations such as the ones typical to free associations(8). The antinomy between State and civil society (less state, more civil society and vice-versa), as Giuseppe di Palma stresses is then a false antinomy: 'a mere slogan without connotations'.(9)

Nevertheless, the idea that civil society and market are indeed synonyms has been widely spread by the neo-liberalist thought, dwelling in there many of the anti-democratic dangers now being faced by our societies. Those anti-democratic dangers reefer to the increasing difficulty in creating non-mercantilist relations due to the hegemony of mercantilist principles. In other words, the equalisation of civil society to market has been creating a sort of progressive illegitimacy of all relations that do not obey to the mercantilist logic. However, a society that limits itself to the reproduction of mercantilist logic and that turns its citizens into mere consumers of its private goods and services, is no longer a civil society in the true sense of the word, but instead a place for the trading of its own citizenship, a place where only buyers are survivors. That is the essence of this social fascism we are about to live in many places: the discrimination between individuals on the basis of their consumption performances in the marketplace. Still, the risk of giving too much anti-democratic features to our society derives not only from the market principle's overestimation, but also from the very nature of civil society's guiding principle: the community principle. In fact, the 'public sphere' of a civil society constituted by the associational voluntarism does not grant by itself the existence of democracy, because, although its horizontal obligation principle recognises values identical to the vertical obligation principle that defines citizenship, it also has other features(10) such as the non-recognition of the principle of reciprocity of rights and duties, or the principle of equality of treatment(11).

Considering all this, the only way to keep civil society safe from a pure mercantilist reading, and to assure that solidarity resulting from horizontal relations might be equally distributed by all, is to take an already existing institution - the State - as a democratic system of co-ordination to the actions of civil society. What consequently distinguishes this conception from a liberal or a neoliberal conception of the state, is that in the arguing for a more democratic society, the state is not dismissed and the traditional separation made between private and public spheres no longer makes sense. In this new conception, civil society doesn't come out as a hayekian market with a spontaneous order capable of self-regulation, but as an order jointly recreated with the State's participation. The liberal fear of a by nature predatory, authoritarian and bureaucratic state is here faced with the fact that: a) the separation of public from private sphere (corresponding the first to state and the second to civil society) is after all a false question since civil society too has its own public sphere; and b) that vicious separation is only an obstacle to the conception of mutual accountability structures between society and the state. In other words, the standing for a separation of civil society and state as if they were natural enemies equals the standing for a reproduction of the anti-democratic genes that civil society holds, as well as this continuous unaccountability of the state towards the social anti-democratic processes now happening. The state cannot then be dismissed. It must be challenged to change its relation with society, not to cease it for good. It is therefore a question of arguing for de despolitisation of State in its traditional reading, but by means of a repolitisation possible by this new conception.

Recommended publications
  • Investigating Social Capital and Political Action in the Middle East

    Investigating Social Capital and Political Action in the Middle East

    INVESTIGATING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND POLITICAL ACTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST by AMR ABDEL-WAHAB B.A. Rollins College, 2001 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2011 © Amr Abdel-Wahab ii ABSTRACT This study addresses the relationship between social capital and political action in the Middle East. The research uncovers indicators of how social capital correlates with democratic action. Using data from the 2005 World Values Survey, the examination centers on indicators of trust and membership in civic organizations and how they relate to political action in the region. The paper concludes with discussion of how trust-building and reciprocity can be interpreted within the political context of the Middle East, and how the relevance of social capital will be an unavoidable consideration in the transition away from autocracy in the region, especially when considering recent events. iii For Nina. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ vii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND POLITICAL ACTION .................................... 6 Rational Choice Explanations ........................................................................... 8 Psychological Explanations ............................................................................
  • The Third Wave in East Asia: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives

    The Third Wave in East Asia: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives

    An Asian Barometer Conference on The State of Democratic Governance in Asia Session I. A Historical and Theoretical Overview The Third Wave in East Asia: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives By Doh Chull Shin University of Missouri The Third Wave in East Asia: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives* “More than any other region, Asia will determine the global fate of democracy in the next to three decades.” Larry Diamond 2008 “Generalizing the achievement of East Asia for democracy and development promises emancipatory observations and projects hidden by Occidentalism.” Edward Friedman 1995 Asia, the world’s largest continent, is also the most populous continent on Earth. More than 60 percent of the world’s population lives on the mass of land stretching from the Middle East to the South Pacific islands and as many as 60 countries have their homes there. Asia’s cultural contributions include the birth of Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, and Daoism, and it is also home to the largest Muslim population in the world. Economically, Asia encompasses countries of great wealth, including Japan and Singapore, and countries of extreme poverty, including Bangladesh and Myanmar. Politically, as well, it covers a startling range of regimes, from the oldest non-Western democracies of India and Japan to the world’s most oppressive regimes of Myanmar and North Korea. All in all, it is hard to overstate the enormous differences among countries in Asia in terms of their natural resources, cultural and religious heritages, socioeconomic development, and political legacies. Indeed, Asia is so large and so diverse that it is difficult to compare all of its countries and identify even a few general patterns of “Asian democratization.” In an attempt to ascertain such patterns, we follow the customary practice of separating the continent into regions and focus on the region known as East Asia, which covers the Northeastern and Southeastern parts of the continent (Croissant 2004; Gomez 2002; World Bank 2005).
  • After the New Social Democracy Offers a Distinctive Contribution to Political Ideas

    After the New Social Democracy Offers a Distinctive Contribution to Political Ideas

    fitzpatrick cvr 8/8/03 11:10 AM Page 1 Social democracy has made a political comeback in recent years, After thenewsocialdemocracy especially under the influence of the Third Way. However, not everyone is convinced that this ‘new social democracy’ is the best means of reviving the Left’s social project. This book explains why and offers an alternative approach. Bringing together a range of social and political theories After the After the new new social democracy engages with some of the most important contemporary debates regarding the present direction and future of the Left. Drawing upon egalitarian, feminist and environmental social democracy ideas it proposes that the social democratic tradition can be renewed but only if the dominance of conservative ideas is challenged more effectively. It explores a number of issues with this aim in mind, including justice, the state, democracy, welfare reform, new technologies, future generations and the new genetics. Employing a lively and authoritative style After the new social democracy offers a distinctive contribution to political ideas. It will appeal to all of those interested in politics, philosophy, social policy and social studies. Social welfare for the Tony Fitzpatrick is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sociology and Social twenty-first century Policy, University of Nottingham. FITZPATRICK TONY FITZPATRICK TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page i After the new social democracy TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page ii For my parents TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page iii After the new social democracy Social welfare for the twenty-first century TONY FITZPATRICK Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page iv Copyright © Tony Fitzpatrick 2003 The right of Tony Fitzpatrick to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
  • Democratic Culture and Muslim Political Participation in Post-Suharto Indonesia

    Democratic Culture and Muslim Political Participation in Post-Suharto Indonesia

    RELIGIOUS DEMOCRATS: DEMOCRATIC CULTURE AND MUSLIM POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IN POST-SUHARTO INDONESIA DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science at The Ohio State University by Saiful Mujani, MA ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor R. William Liddle, Adviser Professor Bradley M. Richardson Professor Goldie Shabad ___________________________ Adviser Department of Political Science ABSTRACT Most theories about the negative relationship between Islam and democracy rely on an interpretation of the Islamic political tradition. More positive accounts are also anchored in the same tradition, interpreted in a different way. While some scholarship relies on more empirical observation and analysis, there is no single work which systematically demonstrates the relationship between Islam and democracy. This study is an attempt to fill this gap by defining Islam empirically in terms of several components and democracy in terms of the components of democratic culture— social capital, political tolerance, political engagement, political trust, and support for the democratic system—and political participation. The theories which assert that Islam is inimical to democracy are tested by examining the extent to which the Islamic and democratic components are negatively associated. Indonesia was selected for this research as it is the most populous Muslim country in the world, with considerable variation among Muslims in belief and practice. Two national mass surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2002. This study found that Islam defined by two sets of rituals, the networks of Islamic civic engagement, Islamic social identity, and Islamist political orientations (Islamism) does not have a negative association with the components of democracy.
  • Social Capital & the Art of Association

    Social Capital & the Art of Association

    SOCIAL CAPITAL & THE ART OF ASSOCIATION Abstract: When the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 1980s that organizations like Rotary Clubs could not restrict membership on grounds of sex, the Court repudiated a basic principle of organization within the American associational ecology. In this article, I argue that mid-century jurisprudential discussions of the law of association theoretically advanced the “science of association” by developing an implicit concept of social capital and distinguishing between democratic and non-democratic forms. Second, I show that, the type of social capital that anchors Robert Putnam’s account of decline between 1970 and 1990 was largely undemocratic, because discriminatory, and that his failure to take account of the relationship between legal structure and associational life, and the impact of changes in the former on the latter, gives us reason to doubt his tale of decline. Third, I argue that late 20th c. changes in American associational life require us to rethink the types of social capital necessary for a democratic society, instead of worrying about a putative decline. Most importantly, we need to clarify the relationship between the arts of building bonding ties and of building bridging ties, and the role of each in achieving democratic social capital. Sec. 1. Introduction Alexis de Tocqueville praised 19th century Americans for having greatly elevated the science and art of association. They had, he argued, developed to “the highest perfection of the day the art of pursuing in common the object of their common desires” and had “applied this new science to the greatest number of purposes” (Vol.
  • In Socialism Seriously

    In Socialism Seriously

    Taking the Social in Socialism Seriously Erik Olin Wright University of Wisconsin July 2004 Throughout most of the 20th century, socialism constituted the central ideological matrix for thinking about alternatives to capitalism. Even in settings where socialism as such was not an immediately feasible political goal, the idea of socialism helped to give political direction to struggles against capitalism. Things have changed. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, the socialist project no longer has much political credibility. This is not because people have universally come to view capitalism as a benign social order within which humanity would flourish. Rather, it is because the particular institutional arrangements that have come to be associated with socialism are seen as incapable of delivering on their promises. Triumphant Capitalism declares “There is No Alternative”. Denouncing capitalism seems to many people a bit like criticizing the weather. Perhaps we can patch the roof to keep out the rain, but there is not much point in railing against the rain itself. Instead of being viewed as a threat to capitalism, talk of socialism now seems more like archaic utopian dreaming, or perhaps even worse: a distraction from the dealing with tractable problems in the real world. Yet, ironically, we also live in a period in which many of the traditional Socialist criticisms of capitalism seem more appropriate than ever: inequality, economic polarization and job insecurity in many developed societies has been deepening; capital has become increasingly footloose, moving across the globe and deeply constraining the activities of states and communities; giant corporations dominate the media and cultural production; the market appears like a law of nature uncontrollable by human device; politics in many capitalist democracies are ever-more dominated by money and unresponsive to the concerns and worries of ordinary people.
  • Thesis Argues for a Radical Change in the Way Multinational Corporations Prepare Their Decisions, Both on a Strategic Level and on a Day-To-Day Operational Level

    Thesis Argues for a Radical Change in the Way Multinational Corporations Prepare Their Decisions, Both on a Strategic Level and on a Day-To-Day Operational Level

    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Associative corporate governance: the steel industry case Joustra, P.K. Publication date 2011 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Joustra, P. K. (2011). Associative corporate governance: the steel industry case. Vossiuspers - Amsterdam University Press. http://nl.aup.nl/books/9789056296964-associative-corporate- governance.html General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:26 Sep 2021 AUP-Joustra:AUP/Voorbij 06-10-2011 11:08 Pagina 1 UvA Dissertation Associative CorporateGovernance Associative Faculty of Economics and Business Corporate Governance This thesis argues for a radical change in the way multinational corporations prepare their decisions, both on a strategic level and on a day-to-day operational level.
  • Social Democracy Neo-Liberalism Productive Democracy Economic

    Social Democracy Neo-Liberalism Productive Democracy Economic

    THREE PUBLIC PHILOSOPHIES Social Democracy Neo-Liberalism Productive Democracy Economic strategy Effective demand Inequality/incentives Effective supply (high-road productive infrastructure) Lifecycle redistributive peak Late None Early Equality of opportunity Thick Thin Deep (infancy, household, politics) Social contribution Enabled but not required Required but not enabled Strongly encouraged and enabled State/civil society relation Active/distinct Passive/distinct Active/integrated (via problem-solving) Citizen engagement Medium/structured Low/structured High/open Privileged branch Executive Judiciary Legislature & problem-solving public National/state relation Affirmative national Limiting national Progressive federalism/subsidiarity Public Administration Executive delegation/rules Incentives, privatization “New governance,” democratic experimentalism, deliberative polyarchy Asset redistribution No No Yes Property distribution/ownership Concentrated, private and Concentrated, private Dispersed, diverse (private, government government cooperative/communal) Insurance On labor income, health None Extended to assets & (via services) non-actuarial risk Tax strategy Progressive on private Regressive/flat on Tax universalism, progressive on consumption, income/profits private income/profits pollution, non-reinvested profits Intl Economic Strategy Strategic protection Forced integration Managed diversity, global public goods, ended tax avoidance, curbed financial speculation And so on … high real freedom, opportunity, and responsibility &
  • DEGREES of DEMOCRACY Some Comparative Lessons from India

    DEGREES of DEMOCRACY Some Comparative Lessons from India

    DEGREES OF DEMOCRACY Some Comparative Lessons from India By PATRICK HELLER* INTRODUCTION NE of the most remarkable developments of the late twentieth Ocentury has been the number of countries that have made the transition from authoritarian to democratic rule. Even if, following Linz and Stepan,1 one employs an exacting definition of democratic consolidation, there are far more countries today in which democracy is the only game in town than was the case just fifteen years ago. This development has in turn produced an empirically and theoretically rich literature on democratic transitions and consolidation. But if we have learned much about the conditions and processes under which the tran- sition to democracy takes place, we have only just begun to scratch the surface of the equally challenging question of the effectiveness of democ- racy in the posttransition period. As Linz and Stepan note, beyond the consolidation of democracies there is room to improve their quality by raising the minimum economic plateau upon which all citizens stand and by deepening political and social participation in the life of the country. Within the category of consolidated democracies there is a contin- uum from low to high quality democracy; an urgent political and intellectual task is to think about how to improve the quality of most consolidated democracies.2 This paper takes up this challenge by drawing on the case of India, which is of particular significance for theories of democratic deepening on two counts. First, the general picture of Indian democracy stands as a reminder that there is no linear progression to democracy.
  • Islam and Democracy: What Is the Real Question? Bayat

    Islam and Democracy: What Is the Real Question? Bayat

    Islam and Democracy: What is the Real Question? Bayat, Citation Bayat,. (2007). Islam and Democracy: What is the Real Question? Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12452 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12452 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). Islam and Democracy: What is the Real Question? The ISIM Papers represent individual lectures delivered at the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM). The aim of this series is both to allow the papers, initially presented before limited audi- ences, to be shared by the entire academic community and to contribute to the further development of the study of Islam in the modern world. isim papers: 1. James Piscatori Islam, Islamists, and the Electoral Principle in the Middle East 2. Talal Asad Thinking about Secularism and Law in Egypt 3. John Bowen Shari’a, State, and Social Norms in France and Indonesia 4. Barbara D. Metcalf ‘Traditionalist’ Islamic Activism: Deoband, Tablighis, and Talibs 5. Abdulaziz Sachedina The Role of Islam in the Public Square: Guidance or Governance? 6. Lila Abu-Lughod Local Contexts of Islamism in Popular Media 7. Juan R.I. Cole The Ayatollahs and Democracy in Iraq 8. Asef Bayat Islam and Democracy: What is the Real Question? ISLAM AND DEMOCRACY WHAT IS THE REAL QUESTION? Asef Bayat isim paper 8 amsterdam university press isim / leiden Cover design and lay-out: De Kreeft, Amsterdam isbn 978 90 5356 983 2 issn 1568-8313 nur 717 © Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam 2007 All rights reserved.
  • Performance, Performativity and the Negotiation of Autonomy in A

    Performance, Performativity and the Negotiation of Autonomy in A

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-prints Repository Please always cite the final published version of this paper: C. Skelcher, E-H Klijn, D. Kübler, E. Sørensen and H. Sullivan (2011) “Explaining the democratic anchorage of governance networks: Evidence from four European countries” Administrative Theory and Praxis 33 (1), pp 7-38, ISSN 1084-1806 http://www.patheory.org/volume-33 Explaining the democratic anchorage of governance networks: evidence from four European countries Chris Skelcher, Erik-Hans Klijn, Daniel Kübler, Eva Sørensen and Helen Sullivan Contact for correspondence: Professor Chris Skelcher School of Government and Society JG Smith Building The University of Birmingham Birmingham UK [email protected] ++ 44 (0)121 414 4962 1 Explaining the democratic anchorage of governance networks: evidence from four European countries ABSTRACT Advances in understanding the democratic anchorage of governance networks require carefully designed and contextually grounded empirical analysis that take into account contextual factors. The article uses a conjectural framework to study the impact of the national ‘democratic milieu’ on the relationship between network governance and representative institutions in four European countries - the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark. The article shows that the distinction between majoritarian and consensus democracy, as well as the varying strength of voluntary associations are important contextual factors that help understand cross-national differences in the relationship between governance networks and representative institutions. We conclude that a context of weak associationalism in majoritarian democracies facilitates the instrumentalization of networks by governmental actors (United Kingdom), whereas while in consensus democracies a more complementary role of governance networks prevails (Switzerland).
  • Associational Governance of Religious Diversity Bader, Veit

    Associational Governance of Religious Diversity Bader, Veit

    www.ssoar.info Secularism or democracy? Associational governance of religious diversity Bader, Veit Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Monographie / monograph Zur Verfügung gestellt in Kooperation mit / provided in cooperation with: OAPEN (Open Access Publishing in European Networks) Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Bader, V. (2007). Secularism or democracy? Associational governance of religious diversity. (IMISCoe Research). Amsterdam: Amsterdam Univ. Press. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-271061 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-ND Lizenz This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-ND Licence (Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Keine Bearbeitung) zur (Attribution-Non Comercial-NoDerivatives). For more Information Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.de Secularism or Democracy? IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion) IMISCOE is a European Commission-funded Network of Excellence of more than 350 scientists from various research institutes that specialise in migration and integration issues in Europe. These researchers, who come from all branches of the economic and social sciences, the huma- nities and law, implement an integrated, multidisciplinary and interna- tionally comparative research programme that focuses on Europe’s mi- gration and integration challenges. Within the programme, existing research is integrated and new re- search lines are developed to address issues crucial to European-level policymaking and provide a theory-based design to implement new re- search. The publication programme of IMISCOE is based on five distinct publica- tion profiles, designed to make its research and results available to scientists, policymakers and the public at large.