DOCSLIB.ORG

Political Sociology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Political Sociology STREAMS 9 Political Sociology New ways of deeping democracy: the deliberative democracy. An approach to the models of j. Cohen and j. Habermas Carmen Sancho 1 NEW WAYS OF DEEPING DEMOCRACY: THE DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY. AN APPROACH TO THE MODELS OF J. COHEN AND J. HABERMAS CARMEN SANCHO This paper deals with Deliberative Democracy. A new conception of democracy which is based on debate and public reasoning among free and equal citizens. In deliberative democracy, collective decision-making requires the parties to give one another mutually acceptable reasons. Thus, it aims to overcome an individualistic view focused on personal interests and preferences and to encourage the public interest and the common good. I will begin with the main features of this new paradigm (I). Then I will examine in greater detail two different approaches of deliberative democracy: J. Cohen’s model (II) and J. Habermas’ model (III). Both authors have played a key role in developing deliberative theory. The analysis of both perspectives will allow us to establish, first, the main ideas of the debate and, second, the questions in dispute and the elements which should be developed more thoroughly. All this shapes the framework of this deliberative model whose aim is to comply with the growing demands of democratic progress. I. WHAT IS DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY? During the last decades, democracy has suffered a double paradoxical process: on the one hand, the collapse of communism involves the conclusive triumph of democratic system; on the other hand, while democratic ideal spreads becoming a widely accepted goal, critics about its application arise from many and different fields. Democracy holds the legitimacy of being the best possible regime, but suspicions are being raised on the Establishment and institutional performance, as well as the indifference towards political parties. Liberal-representative democracy appears now as an imperfect democracy which needs to be enhanced and deepened; it is demanded an increased participation of citizenship as well as a different way of doing and understanding politics. It is in this context where the model of deliberative democracy fits. Its origin can be traced to the article by J. M. Bessette Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government, published in 1980, where the concept of deliberative democracy first appears.1 It is a way of understanding 1 J. M. Bessette: “Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government”, in R. A. Goldwin and W. A. Schambra (eds.): How Democratic Is The Constitution, Washington, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1980. However, the idea of deliberation is not entirely new. Back in Athens, the debate and the reflection previous to the political action were essential. Much later, with the emergence of modern democracy, the idea of deliberation will be highlighted as the guarantee of correction in political actions, since it allows to take decisions having in mind the common good of a country and it is subjected neither to personal nor partial interests. (Burke, Speech to the Electors of Bristol). But since Bessette’s article, it is no longer a question of attaching importance to the idea of deliberation inside politics but a question of the deliberative democracy appearing as a model of democracy with its own identity. 2 democracy based on dialogue, debate and discussion as the fundamental elements of the political process. During these last 20 years many authors have gradually taken an interest in this view of democracy and their proposals differ in numerous aspects.2 In any case, it is possible to outline a common framework in which all of them have their place and which was useful for identifying the key ideas present in deliberation. The deliberative conception if democracy is expressly built versus a way of understanding democracy labelled strategic perspective and which is associated with the predominant forms of democracy; that is, the liberal-representative model. Since one of the distinctive features of contemporary society is the coexistence of numerous and varied interests, values and beliefs, of different opinions on what to do and how to do it, we must ask ourselves: what is the most appropriate way of making political decisions in this context?; how is it possible to reconcile all these differences while ensuring citizens’ liberty and equality? According to the strategic perspective, there are two mechanisms which make it possible to answer these questions. The first is the aggregation of preferences, that is, the sum of different interests so that the majority interest will prevail over the rest. This is the standard procedure in elections. The second is the bargaining among conflicting interests. The final result will depend on the power and resources of each party. When making a political decision and when there are preferences in conflict, the parties negotiate until they reach an agreement. From this strategic view, the purpose of democracy is to generate collective decisions that respect individual preferences.. However, it cannot be said that the strategic perspective rules out public debate. But the goal of this debate is to persuade the other party to accept the proposals which favour one’s benefit. In other words, it is a question of evaluating the alternatives according to their coherence with one’s personal interests. On the other hand, the deliberative approach is focused on the collective search for the proposal that is best for all. It is true that there are different political preferences, but the process of political decision-making must be based on the exchange of reasons and arguments until reaching an agreement all the parties involved can accept. This way, it would not be a question of preserving personal preferences, but rather of producing political decisions favourable for the common good. Open and public 2 Some of the most important proponents of deliberation (besides those who will be studied on this paper) are: S. Benhabib: “Deliberative rationality and models of democratic legitimacy”, Constellations, nº1 (1), 1994, pp. 26-53; Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1996. J. Bohman: Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 1996; “The coming of ages of deliberative democracy”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, nº6 (4), 1998, pp. 400-425. J. S. Dryzek: Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Science, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990; Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberal, critics, contestation, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000. J. Fishkin: Democracia y deliberación. Nuevas perspectivas para la reforma democrática. Barcelona, Ariel, 1995. A. Gutmann and D. Thompson: Democracy and disagreement, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996; “Why deliberative democracy is different?”, Social Philosophy and Policy, nº17 (1), 2000, pp.161-180. S. Macedo: (ed.) Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999. C. Nino: La constitución de la democracia deliberativa, Barcelona, Gedisa, 1997. 3 debate aimed towards this purpose allows to increase information, to improve the quality of the decisions and also making it possible a better disposition towards co-operation and a more political legitimacy. 3 At once I will come back to these questions since they are the main arguments in favour of deliberative democracy. But first it is necessary to make a brief excursus. As I have stated, the deliberative model is, at first, opposed to the liberal-representative model, although this does not mean that proponents of deliberation defend a system of direct democracy; only a minority actually does. Therefore, direct participation of citizens and deliberation do not always come together and, in fact, the degree of citizen participation varies from one theory to another.4 A proposal combining deliberation and representation is offered by John Rawls. Rousseau would represent the opposite extreme, that is, direct participation of citizens but without deliberation. To summarise, deliberative democracy implies a process of making political decisions based on the exchange of reasons and arguments. In this process all citizens participate (either directly or through their representatives) by going beyond their own personal interests and viewpoints in order to reflect on the common good. From this approach, virtues of deliberation improve democracy in five basic aspects. First, it enhances the legitimacy of political decisions.5 If the democratic exercise of political power is only legitimate when it is the outcome of the people’s will, then citizen participation in deliberation (understood as a formation process of the general will) seems to perfectly fit that demand for legitimacy. It is a will which is shaped during the deliberation process: it does not go before to political debate and it is not merely the sum of the different individual wills. In this process, citizens exchange ideas and opinions about what they consider to be the best political proposal. But -and this is essential in deliberative democracy- they must give reasons in favour or against these proposals in order to reach an agreement. However, these reasons cannot be considered true or false; at the most they can be considered strong or weak, whether they can get more or less support. This is why deliberation is particularly well-suited to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Electronic Democracy the World of Political Science— the Development of the Discipline
    Electronic Democracy The World of Political Science— The development of the discipline Book series edited by Michael Stein and John Trent Professors Michael B. Stein and John E. Trent are the co-editors of the book series “The World of Political Science”. The former is visiting professor of Political Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Emeritus Professor, McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The latter is a Fellow in the Center of Governance of the University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and a former professor in its Department of Political Science. Norbert Kersting (ed.) Electronic Democracy Barbara Budrich Publishers Opladen • Berlin • Toronto 2012 An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libraries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access for the public good. The Open Access ISBN for this book is 978-3-86649-546-3. More information about the initiative and links to the Open Access version can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org © 2012 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0. (CC- BY-SA 4.0) It permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you share under the same license, give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ © 2012 Dieses Werk ist beim Verlag Barbara Budrich GmbH erschienen und steht unter der Creative Commons Lizenz Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0): https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ Diese Lizenz erlaubt die Verbreitung, Speicherung, Vervielfältigung und Bearbeitung bei Verwendung der gleichen CC-BY-SA 4.0-Lizenz und unter Angabe der UrheberInnen, Rechte, Änderungen und verwendeten Lizenz.
    [Show full text]
  • Pedagogy and Deliberative Democracy: Insights from Recent Experiments in the United Kingdom
    PEDAGOGY AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: INSIGHTS FROM RECENT EXPERIMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM Brenton Prosser, Matthew Flinders, Will Jennings, Alan Renwick, Paolo Spada, Gerry Stoker, and Katie Ghose A growing body of research and data suggests the existence of a disconnection between citizens, politicians and representative politics in advanced industrial democracies. This has led to a literature on the emergence of post-democratic or post-representative politics that connects to a parallel seam of scholarship on the capacity of deliberative democratic innovations to ‘close the gap’. This latter body of work has delivered major insights in terms of democratic design in ways that traverse ‘politics as theory’ and ‘politics as practice’. And yet the main argument of this article is that this seam of scholarship has generally failed to emphasise or explore the nature of learning, or comprehend the existence of numerous pedagogical relationships that exist within the very fibre of deliberative processes. As such, the core contribution of this article focuses around the explication and application of a ‘pedagogical pyramid’ that applies a micro-political lens to deliberative processes. This theoretical contribution is empirically dissected and assessed with reference to a recent project in the United Kingdom that sought to test different citizen assembly designs in the context of plans for English regional devolution. The proposition being tested is that a better understanding of relational pedagogy within innovations is vital for democratic reconnection, not just to increase levels of knowledge and mutual understanding, but also to build the capacity, confidence and contribution of democratically active citizens. KEYWORDS Pedagogy; Micro-Politics; Democratic Innovations; Citizen’s Assemblies; Deliberation; Learning Relationships A key feature of mechanisms of democratic innovation is that they are designed to increase and deepen citizen participation in the political decision-making process (Smith, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Deliberative Democracy for Better Urban Decision-Making Through Integrative Thinking
    Article Using Deliberative Democracy for Better Urban Decision-Making through Integrative Thinking Janette Hartz-Karp and Dora Marinova * Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6845, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This article expands the evidence about integrative thinking by analyzing two case studies that applied the collaborative decision-making method of deliberative democracy which encourages representative, deliberative and influential public participation. The four-year case studies took place in Western Australia, (1) in the capital city Perth and surrounds, and (2) in the city-region of Greater Geraldton. Both aimed at resolving complex and wicked urban sustainability challenges as they arose. The analysis suggests that a new way of thinking, namely integrative thinking, emerged during the deliberations to produce operative outcomes for decision-makers. Building on theory and research demonstrating that deliberative designs lead to improved reasoning about complex issues, the two case studies show that through discourse based on deliberative norms, participants developed different mindsets, remaining open-minded, intuitive and representative of ordinary people’s basic common sense. This spontaneous appearance of integrative thinking enabled sound decision-making about complex and wicked sustainability-related urban issues. In both case studies, the participants exhibited all characteristics of integrative thinking to produce outcomes for decision-makers: salience—grasping the problems’ multiple aspects; causality—identifying multiple sources of impacts; sequencing—keeping the whole in view while focusing on specific aspects; and resolution—discovering novel ways that avoided bad choice trade-offs. Keywords: sustainability; deliberative democracy; mini-publics; integrative thinking; participatory Citation: Hartz-Karp, J.; Marinova, D.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens' Assemblies
    Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/40 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling Citizens’ Assemblies: a potential transformative method for addressing the wicked problem of climate change A case study of the 2016 Irish Citizens’ Assembly. Tomasz Forsberg ¨ DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES INSTITUTIONEN FÖR GEOVETENSKAPER Master thesis in Sustainable Development 2020/40 Examensarbete i Hållbar utveckling Citizens’ Assemblies: a potential transformative method for addressing the wicked problem of climate change A case study of the 2016 Irish Citizens’ Assembly. Tomasz Forsberg Supervisor: Frans Lenglet Subject Reviewer: Lars Rudebeck Copyright © Tomasz Forsberg and the Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University Published at Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University (www.geo.uu.se), Uppsala, 2020 Content Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ IV Summary ................................................................................................................................................ V Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................................... VI 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Aim and research questions: ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rapid Review: the Feasibility of an Online Citizens' Assembly to Support Devon's Transition to Net Zero
    Rapid Review: The Feasibility of an Online Citizens’ Assembly to support Devon’s Transition to Net Zero A Rapid Review of Evidence and Best Practice Prepared for the Devon Climate Emergency Response Group and the Devon Net Zero Task Force Written by: Dr Rebecca Sandover1, Dr Alice Moseley2, Professor Patrick Devine-Wright3 University of Exeter November 2020 As a Contribution to the: 1 Department of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences 2 Department of Politics, College of Social Sciences and International Studies 3 Department of Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences 1 1. Executive Summary Following the declaration of a Climate Emergency by Devon County Council in 2019, a Devon Net Zero Citizens’ Assembly was planned for 2020 to discuss and generate recommendations to feed into the Devon Carbon Plan which will set the course of action across Devon for reducing carbon emissions to net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest. The process began in late 2019/ 2020, with a Public Call for Evidence and a series of Expert Hearings having taken place to help generate evidence to put before a Citizens’ Assembly. However, restrictions imposed during 2020 owing to Covid-19 meant that the face-to-face Assembly had to be re-thought if it was not too be delayed too far into the future. Devon County Council and the Devon Climate Emergency Response Group began to consider the feasibility of an online Citizens’ Assembly as an alternative. This review of evidence has been commissioned by those parties to help feed into decision-making around this.
    [Show full text]
  • Deliberative and Participatory Democracy Stephen Elstub Participatory Democracy and Deliberative Democracy Are Often Confused, E
    Deliberative and Participatory Democracy Stephen Elstub Participatory democracy and deliberative democracy are often confused, equated, or at the very least treated as strongly related theories of democracy (Floridia 2014). It is easy to see why as both theories offer powerful normative critiques of liberal democracy, with protagonists from both arguing it suffers from an avoidable democratic malaise and legitimation crisis, advocating overarching democratic reform and rejuvenation to supplement and improve representative institutions, rather than replace them. In addition, both participatory and deliberative democracy developed in response to the dominance of empirical democratic theory (Schumpeter 1942; Berelson 1952; Downs 1957; Converse 1964), critiquing the negative conclusions drawn about the capacity of citizens (Vitale 2006; Böker and Elstub 2015). Despite these similarities the relationship between the two is highly contested. There seems to be agreement that deliberative democracy developed from participatory democracy (Bohman 1996; Hauptmann 2001; Vitale 2006; Pateman 2012; della Porta 2013; Floridia 2014; Böker and Elstub 2015). On a methodological level it has been argued that they are indistinguishable (Coppedge et al. 2014) and on a practical one that they suffer from the same flaws (Hardin 2009), including the failure to achieve consequential input into central decision-making processes (Goodin 2012: 806). Some see deliberative democracy as a continuation of participatory democracy (Bohman 1996; Vitale 2006; della Porta 2013) and others a departure (Hauptmann 2001; Goodin 2012; Pateman 2012; Floridia 2014). Deliberative democracy is perceived to be the defence and saviour of the core of participatory democracy by some camps (Bohman 1996: 238; della Porta 2013: 7), and blamed for its subsumption by others (Hauptmann 2001; Pateman 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Shut up and Vote: a Critique of Deliberative Democracy and the Life of Talk
    University at Buffalo School of Law Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship Winter 1996 Shut Up and Vote: A Critique of Deliberative Democracy and the Life of Talk James A. Gardner University at Buffalo School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles Part of the American Politics Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation James A. Gardner, Shut Up and Vote: A Critique of Deliberative Democracy and the Life of Talk, 63 Tenn. L. Rev. 421 (1996). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/208 This article was published originally at 63 Tenn. L. Rev. 421 (1996) and is reproduced here by permission of the Tennessee Law Review Association, Inc. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SHUT UP AND VOTE: A CRITIQUE OF DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE LIFE OF TALK JAMES A. GARDNER* I. INTRODUCTION In the last few years, the subject of "discourse" has received enormous attention in the legal academy. It is virtually impossible to open a legal journal without coming across articles devoted to the dynamics of legal and political discourse, the power relations among the participants, or the significance of the dialogic process. Much of this work has been devoted to establishing the desirability-and in some cases the ethical necessity-of social dialogue, especially patient and respectful listening.' However, until recently, few serious attempts had been made to fold the insights of dialogic theory into any kind of political theory that might provide concrete guidance to real people about how they ought to live their lives.2 * ProfessorofLaw, Western New England College School of Law; B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Participatory Or Deliberative Democracy?
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers Faculty of Social Sciences 2015 Participatory or deliberative democracy? Exploring the mediation effects of perceived online deliberation and online interactive activities on social outcomes Kyung Han You Pennsylvania State University Jeong Kyu Lee University of Wollongong, [email protected] Hyunjin Kang Pennsylvania State University Eun Go Pennsylvania State University Publication Details You, K., Lee, J., Kang, H. & Go, E. (2015). Participatory or deliberative democracy? Exploring the mediation effects of perceived online deliberation and online interactive activities on social outcomes. Telematics and Informatics, 32 (2), 205-214. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Participatory or deliberative democracy? Exploring the mediation effects of perceived online deliberation and online interactive activities on social outcomes Abstract Using the structural equation modeling method (N = 811), this study explores the structural relationships among online news consumption, political participation and social trust, with a focus on the mediating effects of online users' deliberative perceptions and news-related online interactive activities. The na alysis confirms that users' perceptions of online deliberation exert a significant mediating effect on users' levels of news consumption, political participation, and social trust. Users' interactive civic messaging behaviors, on the other hand, solely enhance participatory intentions. The findings also show that the consumption of political news and the consumption of entertainment news have different effects on users' perceptions of online deliberation, social trust, and political participation. Specifically, while political news has a direct and relatively strong influence on participation, entertainment news has a limited and indirect effect on participation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Critique of Deliberative Discussion. a Response to •Œeducation for Deliberative Democracy: a Typology of Classroom Disc
    The Critique of Deliberative Discussion David I. Backer (West Chester University of Pennsylvania) Abstract My response to Samuelsson’s (2016) recent essay offers a different paradigm with which to think about education, deliberative discussion and democracy. I call this paradigm the critique of deliber- ative discussion. Following Ruitenberg’s application of Mouffe’s critiques of deliberative democracy to education, the critique of deliberative discussion focuses on what Jameson called the “political unconscious” of deliberative discussions like those presented by Samuelsson. There is literature that critique traditionally moderate- liberal notions of deliberative discussion, which Samuelsson defines his typology: reason, willingness to listen, and consensus. While others, like Ruitenberg, have devel- oped this critique of deliberative-democratic citizenship education, the critique of deliberative dis- cussion takes a left- of- liberal view of each of Samuelsson’s requirements for deliberative discussion listed above and describes practical-pedagogical techniques, which teachers and facilitators can use to practice critical discussions. This response’s contribution to the debate is therefore not only to cri- tique deliberative discussion but also—following Samuelsson— to offer techniques that translate the critique into classroom practice. This article is in response to: Samuelsson, M. (2016). Education for deliberative democracy: A typology of classroom discussions. Democracy & Education, 24(1), Article 5. Retrieved from http://democracyeducationjournal.org/ home/vol24/iss1/5 amuelsson’s (2016) “Education for Deliberative new information becomes convincing; and (c) the striving for Democracy: A Typology of Classroom Discussions” is consensus requirement, where participants attempt to formulate a neat essay. First, the author mapped out criteria for compromises given existing disagreements, from which a una- what counts as deliberative democracy in theory, surveying an nimity may emerge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy
    on the horizon: Dædalus Civil Wars & Global Disorder: Threats & Opportunities edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner with James D. Fearon, Bruce Jones & Stephen John Stedman, Stewart Patrick, Martha Crenshaw, Paul H. Wise & Michele Barry, Sarah Kenyon Lischer, Vanda Felbab-Brown, Hendrik Spruyt, Stephen Biddle, Will Reno, Aila M. Matanock & Miguel García-Sánchez, and Barry Posen Ending Civil Wars: Constraints & Possibilities Democracy Summer 2017 The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Dædalus edited by Karl Eikenberry & Stephen Krasner Francis Fukuyama, Tanisha M. Fazal, Stathis N. Kalyvas, Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Steven Heydemann, Chuck Call & Susanna Campbell, Sumit Ganguly, Clare Lockhart, Thomas Risse & Summer 2017 Eric Stollenwerk, Tanja A. Börzel & Sonja Grimm, Seyoum Mesfi n & Abdeta Beyene, Nancy Lindborg & Joseph Hewitt, Richard Gowan & Stephen John Stedman, The Prospects & Limits of Lyse Doucet, and Jean-Marie Guéhenno Deliberative Democracy Native Americans & Academia edited by Ned Blackhawk, K. Tsianina Lomawaima, James S. Fishkin & Jane Mansbridge, guest editors Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Philip J. Deloria, Loren Ghiglione, Douglas Medin, and Mark Trahant with Claus Offe · Nicole Curato John S. Dryzek · Selen A. Ercan Carolyn M. Hendriks · Simon Niemeyer Bernard Manin · Hélène Landemore Representing the intellectual community in its breadth Arthur Lupia · Anne Norton · Ian Shapiro and diversity, Dædalus explores the frontiers of Cristina Lafont · André Bächtiger · Simon Beste knowledge and issues of public importance. Alice Siu · Cass R. Sunstein · Roy William Mayega Lynn Atuyambe · Nathan Tumuhamye Julius Ssentongo · William Bazeyo Baogang He · Mark E. Warren U.S. $15; www.amacad.org; @americanacad Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences “The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy” Volume 146, Number 3; Summer 2017 James S.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Report
    EUtopia’s Democracy Cities www.boschalumni.net 1 EUtopia’s Democracy Cities Having a say in political matters constitutes the basis of democracy and also makes up for a huge part of one’s attachment to the community. But not being entitled to vote is a classic dilemma in today’s European member states — especially in urban areas with increasingly international populations. The project EUtopia’s Democracy Cities discussed visions of a transnational European urban democracy: What can cities learn from each other? How can they cooperate in providing more and better democratic tools? Starting from Vienna, EUtopia’s Democracy Cities has been launched to stimulate a dialogue between European cities. The Bosch Alumni Network is a cooperation between: This booklet is based on visions and tools for urban democracy in Europe that were developed in the project EUtopia’s Democracy Cities and during a workshop in Vienna in August 2020. The workshop took place within the Bosch Alumni Network. 1 Ideas for a more inclusive Utopian Democracy as democracy political thinking Having a say in political matters constitutes the basis of democracy 500 years ago Thomas Morus wrote Utopia, a story about an ideal and also makes up for a huge part of one’s attachment to the society that does not exist yet. He introduced the term utopia community. But not being entitled to vote is a classic dilemma in into philosophical thinking. “Utopia” comes from Greek οὐ (not) today’s European member states – especially in urban areas with and τόπος (place) which translates as “no–place” or “nowhere”.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Habermas on Democracy
    Ratio Juris. Vol. 12 No. 4 December 1999 (385-416) I~,i ,~ NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL MAY BE float PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW ason (TITLE 17 US CODE) irgu- y be they aent: aps· Reflections on Habermas on 'rsity Democracy 'Law &e40 ,Kiel JOSHUA COHEN* nany Abstract. Jiirgen Habermas is a radical democrat. The source of that self-designation is that his conception of democracy-what he calls "discursive democracy"-is and founded on the ideal of "a self-organizing community of free and equal citizens," co- ordinating their collective affairs through their common reason. The author discusses ris 2: three large challenges to this radical-democratic ideal of collective self-regulation: 1) What is the role of private autonomy in a radical-democratic view? 2) What role does reason play in collective self-regulation? 3) What relevance might a radical- 1-92. democratic outlook have for contemporary democracies? The author addresses these questions by considering Habermas' answers, and then presenting alternative dIain: responses to them. The alternatives are also radical-democratic in inspiration, but they draw on a richer set of normative-political ideas than Habermas wants to rely eview on, and are more ambitious in their hopes for democratic practice. :haft. I. Radical Democracy ris 5: Jirgen Habermas is a radical democrat (Habermas 1996a, xlii-iii). The source of that self-designation is that his conception of democracy-what he calls -sis." "discursive democracy"-is founded on the abstract ideal of "a self-organ- izing community of free and equal citizens," coordinating their collective affairs through their common reason (Habermas 1996a, 7).
    [Show full text]