1 the D(PLICLTI(NS for EJCLTI(I of Dirrrwzit CONCEPTIONS OF

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

1 the D(PLICLTI(NS for EJCLTI(I of Dirrrwzit CONCEPTIONS OF 1 ThE D(PLICLTI(NS FOR EJCLTI(I OF DIrrrwziT CONCEPTIONS OF Dfl(OCRACY A Theia subsitted to the University of London for the degree of Ph.D. by JaMes Michael Tarrant 10th February 1981 Instite of Education 2 TABLE OF CONT]NTS Abstract 'A Acknowledgements 6 apter I S.1 Education, polities and. democracy 7 S.2 (bi defining democracy 18 8.3 Liberalism and democracy 22 S.4 Boundaries, Institutions, and values 57 S.5 Towards a new analysis of democracy and 'Al education Qiapter II S.1 Introduction 49 S.2(a) Schwnpeter and value-free democracy 51 8.2(b) Education, training and socialization 61 S., Dahi and polyarchy 67 Downs and economic democracy 81 S.5 llock, Biker and the disposal of social 89 responsibility S.6 Knowledge, infoimatiom and the new democrats 100 S.7 Conclusion 107 Qiapter III S.1 Introduction 118 S.2 Locke and the Levellera 125 S.) Rousseau, consent and education 141 S. Kant 160 8.5 Green 173 s.6 J.S. Mill 178 S.7 Conclusion 181 aiapter Iv S. 1. Introduction 190 S.2. Market Democracy and Utilitarianism 191 S. 3. Citizenship, Market Democracy and Education 198 S. Ji. Market Democracy and the aims of Education 205 S. 5. Market Democracy and the Curriculum 21i s.6. Concluding Remarks 223 3 TABLE OF C(?TNTS (Cont 'd) chapter V S. 1 Introduction 229 S.2(a) What should the moral democrat know? 230 S.2(b) Moral democracy and Political Education 2'&l S.3(a) Is Moral Democracy possible? 2& S.3(b) The Moral Democrat and work 21&9 S. The higma of Liberal Democracy 253 Concluding remarks on themes which have emerged in tbis essay 259 4 ABSTRACT An initial attempt is made to draw connections between politics and education. A paradox exists in finding education ultimately dependent upon social and political values. The paradox i. that as a result of a drastic revision of the concept of liberal èemocracy much more can be said about education than was previously possible in its treatment as a self—contained concept. Liberal democracy is essentially a hybrid of two rival value constellations, market and moral democracy. In the second chapter different varieties of market democracy are considered as diverse as elitism and economic democracy. No variant of market democracy entails the intention to educate critical citizens, merely an acquiescence in socialization and training. The third chapter expounds the moral conception of democracy. Thinkers from the Levellere to Green are exiiined in the cause of elucidating this concept. The latter entails the educational aim of a critical citizen. The educational implications of market democracy are developed in chapter four. For the majority of the population material for reflecting upon the values and institutions of society, and diverse forms of life, will be absent from the formal curriculum, either because such material is the province of an elite, or because short—run individual utility i. considered the only u.erthvhile goal. In chapter five a connection is established between moral democracy and the disciplines traditionally thought to be 'intrinsically' worthwhile, on the basis of the opportunities and encouragement the latter provide for reflection upon different forms of life and the critical assessment of institutions and values in society. Adlitionally the drastic curriculum changes 5 which foll.ir frog a participatory democracy are also era.ined, Finally the fundamental Importance .f the moral conception of democracy for the justification and continuation of liberal democracy is noted. This suggests the moral aim must have priority in relation to educational aims and curricula content in a liberal democracy. 6 AIO1T1DGEMENTS I should like to express unreserved appreciation to my supervisor, Pat Mute, for the conscientious efforts made in reading, discussing, and coieuting upon my work. To my wife &isan I am indebted for prodigious support and encouragement such that I was able to complete what would alnost certainly have remained unfinished. 7 haj,ter I - Introduction i. Education, politics, and democracy The traditional divide between liberal and totalitarian democracy has resulted largely in a state of acquiescence in the philosophy of education, in a paradigm of liberal democracy now dangerously redundant. Just as totalitarianism outdates Aristotelian classification of government, so it is also true that the notion of liberal democracy is itself outdated. This is not to say that a contrast still cannot be drawn between liberal democracy and totalitarianism. It is rather that developnents within liberal democracy, occurring to some extent as a result of alarm at the phenomenon of totalitarianism, have produced divisions so great as to amount to rival conceptions of democracy. If, however, philosophers writing about education continue to defer only to the traditional liberal democratic paradigm then the implications of these rival conceptions of democracy for education are entirely missed. As long as liberal democracy is expounded in the light of a contrast with totalitarianism, it appears a coherent whole, and of considerable significance. In such a frame of reference the existence of multi—party systems, secret ballots, independent judiciaries, and quinquennial parliaments appears to be quintessential of liberal democracy. If however one abandons this polarisation of liberal democracy and instead focuses attention upon constellations of values within liberal democracy, a marked rivalry between these sets becomes apparent. The most concrete manifestation of these competing models of democracy is to be found in the preoccupation with controlling the political activity and behavioi r of the vast majority of the population. These rival constellations have been endemic in 8 political philosophy and ethics for a long period of time, (1) but have developed both momentum and sOphi8ticatiOn in recent years. I shall seek to argue in particular for two conceptions of democracy, which I label moral and market theories of democracy. The distinction is novel insofar as it has not been acknowledged previously by philosophers of education, (2) To the extent that the concept of democracy has figured at all in education, and arguably it has not figured very much, the discussion proceeds for the most part as if democracy was an unproblematic concept. (3) Now if one does concentrate on the institutions and procedural principles of liberal denocracy and compares them with totalitarianism, then indeed liberal democracy appears unproblematic. For the rival schemes of democracy I shall identify would all want to endorse regular and supervised elections, independent judiciaries, and an uncensored press. Yet only in the case of what I term moral democracy, do the values actually provide a firm measure of support to such institutions. If these rival conceptions of democracy exist, as I contend they do, then liberal democracy is essentially a hybrid, tenable as long as it is contrasted with totalitariansim, and because of the underpinning provided by the moral conception of democracy. I shall discuss the different strands within the market and moral conceptions of democracy and their implications for education. It will be argued that moral democracy is a preferable conception to market democracy, and its implications for education will be established. My preliminary considerations in this introductory chapter relate to problems in defining democracy, and also to making general points about the link between democracy and education. This enables my positive thesis to be developed in subsequent chapters. 9 Any attempt at an analysis of the concept of democracy faces formidable problems, particularly if it is conducted with an eye to its relationship to education. That there are empirical connections between democracy and education is true, but for philosophy unremarkable. In particular, such connections are found, on examination, to be in the nature of a functional relationship, such that the higher the general level of education within a society, the greater the probability that it will be a democratic society. ('i) The social scientific problems immanent in such an analysis, such as the matter of the direction of causality, are not my immediate concern. 1hat I do wish to point out is that however strong the probability of the above hypothesis, its primary interest is in the conditions for the existence and. continuance of democracy, and not in the meaning of democracy. I regard it as the business of philosophers in this sphere to be essentially concerned in elucidating conceptual connections, leaving empirical issues to sociologists and psychologists; that for example empirical issues are not as value free as the latter claim. This activity is of good philosophical vintage. Nonetheless in elucidating the concepts of democracy and education, philosophers are bound to pay some attention to institutional and empirical features. Some statements may arise which though normative, are also sensitive to empirical considerations. For example political equality might be deemed a necessary condition of democracy. Beyond political equality as a value there is the further consideration of what institutional arrangements are empirically necessary and what arrangements might be merely contingent in realizing that value. (5) An empirically necessary arrangement for realizing that value might be universal adult suffrage. Now 10 the statement about political equality is sensitive to empirical considerations to this extent, that if it were the case that a legislative change occurred whereby only some adults were able to vote instead of all adults, the latter would, ceterus parabus, tell against the value, political equality, and indicate that the term 'democracy' was being incorrectly applied in this case. Iuiother celebrated example of this problem is that of the rational, informed citizen, operating through a sovereign legislature, and postulated to a varied extent in Locke, Rousseau, J.S. Mill, and Green. Research by political sociologists, together with advances in psychology, has made the concept of the rational chooser, the democratic man, and the sovereign legislature, highly disputable concepts.
Recommended publications
  • The United States and Latin America: Shaping an Elusive Future
    THE UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA: SHAPING AN ELUSIVE FUTURE Donald E. Schulz March 2000 ***** The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited . ***** Special thanks are due Colonel Joseph Nuñez, General (ret.) Fred Woerner, Douglas Lovelace, Gabriel Marcella, Max Manwaring, and Richard Millett for their constructive comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. Needless to say, any errors of comission or omission are entirely the responsibility of the author. ***** Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave., Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by calling commercial (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at [email protected] ***** Most 1993, 1994, and all later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSI Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI’s Homepage address is: http://carlisle-www.army .mil/usassi/welcome.htm ***** The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling (717) 245-3133.
    [Show full text]
  • Forms of Government (World General Knowledge)
    Forms of Government (World General Knowledge) Anarchism A system that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical or free associations. Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and/or harmful. Anarchy A society without a publicly enforced government or political authority. Sometimes said to be non-governance; it is a structure which strives for non-hierarchical, voluntary associations among agents. Anarchy is a situation where there is no state. Autocracy Autocracy is a system of government in which supreme power (social and political) is concentrated in the hands of one person or polity, whose decisions are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control Aristocracy Rule by the nobility; a system of governance where political power is in the hands of a small class of privileged individuals who claim a higher birth than the rest of society. Anocracy A regime type where power is not vested in public institutions (as in a normal democracy) but spread amongst elite groups who are constantly competing with each other for power. Adhocracy Rule by a government based on relatively disorganised principles and institutions as compared to a bureaucracy, its exact opposite. Absolute monarchy A traditional and historical system where the monarch exercises ultimate governing Downloaded from www.csstimes.pk | 1 Forms of Government (World General Knowledge) authority as head of state and head of government. Many nations of Europe during the Middle Ages were absolute monarchies.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Election Advocacy: Implications of Recent Supreme Court Analysis
    3andre (Do Not Delete)3/30/2014 8:26 AM GOVERNMENT ELECTION ADVOCACY: IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS STEVEN J. ANDRÉ* TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................... 837 I. The Minority Perspective on Government Efforts to Influence Election Results ............................................................................... 843 A. Political Theory Underlying the Approach ............................. 843 B. Constitutional Bases for Government Efforts to Influence the Electorate: First Amendment Protection for Government Speech ................................................................ 845 II. The Majority View: Government Neutrality and the Compelled Speech Analysis ............................................................ 846 A. The Political Theory Underpinning the Majority Approach ................................................................................. 846 B. Isolating a Constitutional Basis for Restricting Government Involvement in the Process of Governance by the People ....... 847 1. Common Lower Court Acknowledgement of a Fundamental Mandate of Government Neutrality in the Election Setting ............................................................ 850 2. Navigating and Discovering Coherence and Consistency in the Court’s Forum Analysis, Government Speech Doctrine, and Compelled Speech Cases .................................................................................. 853 a. Forum Analysis and Government Neutrality
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in International Law and Islamic Law
    Democracy in Islamic and Interntional Law: A Case Study of Saudi Arabia. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Ibrahim Sulaiman Al-Harbi, LL.B (Hons), LL.M with distinction (Imam University) School of Law, Brunel University I Table of Contents: Table of Contents: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II Acknowledgements ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V Abstract --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VI Abbreviations: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------VII 1. Part One: Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2. Part Two: Evolution of Democracy---------------------------------------------------------------- 6 2.1. Chapter One: Athenian Democracy ---------------------------------------------------------- 6 2.1.1. The Status in Greece at the Beginning -------------------------------------------------- 7 2.1.2. The Beginnings of the Classical Athenian Democracy ----------------------------- 10 2.1.3. The New Age of Democracy ------------------------------------------------------------ 15 2.1.4. Athenian Institutions --------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 2.1.5. A Critical Analysis of Athenian Democracy ----------------------------------------- 23 2.2. Chapter Two: Origin of Liberal Democracy: ----------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Sample File Heavily on Patriotism and National Identity
    Empire Builder Kit Preface ............................................................ 2 Government Type Credits & Legal ................................................ 2 An empire has it rulers. The type of ruler can How to Use ..................................................... 2 often determine the character of a nation. Are Government Types ......................................... 3 they a democratic society that follows the will Simple Ruler Type ....................................... 3 of the people, or are they ruled by a harsh dictator who demand everyone caters to their Expanded Ruler Type .................................. 4 every whim. They could even be ruled by a Also Available ................................................ 10 group of industrialists whose main goal is the acquisition of wealth. Coming Soon ................................................. 10 This part of the Empire Builder kit outlines some of the more common, and not so common, types of ruler or government your empire or country may possess. Although designed with fantasy settings in mind, most of the entries can be used in a sci-fi or other genre of story or game. There are two tables in this publication. One for simple and quick governments and A small disclaimer – A random generator will another that is expanded. Use the first table never be as good as your imagination. Use for when you want a common government this to jump start your own ideas or when you type or a broad description, such as need to fill in the blank. democracy or monarchy. Use the second/expanded table for when you want something that is rare or you want more Sample details,file such as what type of democracy etc. If you need to randomly decide between the two tables, then roll a d20. If you get 1 – 18 then use the simple table, otherwise use the expanded one.
    [Show full text]
  • Totalitarianism 1 Totalitarianism
    Totalitarianism 1 Totalitarianism Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever necessary.[1] The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920's by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.[2][3][4][5][6] Aside from fascist and Stalinist movements, there have been other movements that are totalitarian. The leader of the historic Spanish reactionary conservative movement called the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian polity..." and went on to say "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. Moloch of Totalitarianism – memorial of victims of repressions exercised by totalitarian regimes, When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate at Levashovo, Saint Petersburg. it."[7] Etymology The notion of "totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[8] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state.
    [Show full text]
  • BANGLADESH: from AUTOCRACY to DEMOCRACY (A Study of the Transition of Political Norms and Values)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by KDI School Archives BANGLADESH: FROM AUTOCRACY TO DEMOCRACY (A Study of the Transition of Political Norms and Values) By Golam Shafiuddin THESIS Submitted to School of Public Policy and Global Management, KDI in partial fulfillment of the requirements the degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY 2002 BANGLADESH: FROM AUTOCRACY TO DEMOCRACY (A Study of the Transition of Political Norms and Values) By Golam Shafiuddin THESIS Submitted to School of Public Policy and Global Management, KDI in partial fulfillment of the requirements the degree of MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY 2002 Professor PARK, Hun-Joo (David) ABSTRACT BANGLADESH: FROM AUTOCRACY TO DEMOCRACY By Golam Shafiuddin The political history of independent Bangladesh is the history of authoritarianism, argument of force, seizure of power, rigged elections, and legitimacy crisis. It is also a history of sustained campaigns for democracy that claimed hundreds of lives. Extremely repressive measures taken by the authoritarian rulers could seldom suppress, or even weaken, the movement for the restoration of constitutionalism. At times the means adopted by the rulers to split the opposition, create a democratic facade, and confuse the people seemingly served the rulers’ purpose. But these definitely caused disenchantment among the politically conscious people and strengthened their commitment to resistance. The main problems of Bangladesh are now the lack of national consensus, violence in the politics, hartal (strike) culture, crimes sponsored with political ends etc. which contribute to the negation of democracy. Besides, abject poverty and illiteracy also does not make it easy for the democracy to flourish.
    [Show full text]
  • Totalitarian Democracy and the Future of the International Order
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 9 Issue 1 Fall 2014 Article 2 January 2014 Totalitarian Democracy and the Future of the International Order Robert J. Araujo S.J. Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert J. Araujo S.J., Totalitarian Democracy and the Future of the International Order, 9 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 35 (2014). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol9/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. TOTALITARIAN DEMOCRACY AND THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER ROBERT J. ARAUJO, S.J. JOHN COURTNEY MURRAY, S.J. UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, EMERITUS LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO I. INTRODUCTION Sovereignty has been and remains a vital issue in the realm of the international order and the law of nations, as well as in national and domestic law. In the context of republican democracy such as exists in the United States, citizens often take pride in the recitation that sovereignty resides with them and is inextricably tied to democratic institutions and the preservation of the rights of persons. In the international sphere, as Michael Ignatieff notes, under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (hereinafter the "UDHR"), "state sovereignty remains the main pillar of the international system.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Liberal Democracy Societies As the Sources of Resentment
    Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, volume 128 International Scientific Conference "Far East Con" (ISCFEC 2020) Non-Liberal Democracy Societies as the Sources of Resentment N Isachenko1 1Industrial University of Tyumen, Tyumen, Russia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. In the socio-philosophical discourse, there was an opinion that ressentiment is formed in totalitarian societies, which are characterized by total control over their citizens, the formation of the image of the enemy, the use of methods of intimidation, violence, and terror. Such methods create conditions for mistrust, suspicion, fear, alienation. Fear, coercion, violence create the prerequisites for the formation of such negative feelings as anger, hatred, which are sources of ressentiment. At the present stage of development, most societies position themselves as democratic, proclaiming the rule of law, ideas of freedom and equality of all members of society, and in fact tendencies characteristic of many societies are revealed: violation of constitutional rights and freedoms, concentration of power in the executive branch, corruption, presence of authoritarian practices, censorship. Such societies are called totalitarian or non-liberal democracy societies. For these societies is characteristic manifestation of destructiveness, ressentiment. Within the framework of the actual article we identify the factors that contribute to the formation of ressentiment in non-liberal democracy societies and propose methods that reduce the level of aggression and ressentiment. 1. Introduction The crisis of humanism is observed at this stage of civilization development in the conditions of cardinal sociocultural transformations. It is reflected in the reorientation of the creative principle of man to destructive. The proof are local wars, terrorist acts, destructiveness, ressentiment.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Article French Democracy Between Totalitarianism and Solidarity: Pierre Rosanvallon and Revisionist Historiography*
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Columbia University Academic Commons Review Article French Democracy between Totalitarianism and Solidarity: Pierre Rosanvallon and Revisionist Historiography* Andrew Jainchill and Samuel Moyn University of California, Berkeley, and Columbia University INTRODUCTION No book has affected the study of modern French history in the last twenty-five years more than Franc¸ois Furet’s Penser la Re´volution franc¸aise (translated as Interpreting the French Revolution).1 Furet’s interpretation of the French Revolu- tion and French history more generally, and the revisionism it inspired, are by now well known. This essay interprets the intellectual career of Pierre Rosanvallon— one of Furet’s most interesting students, recently honored by election to the Col- le`ge de France, his nation’s most prestigious academic institution—as an attempt to test the flexibility of Furet’s paradigm for understanding French history and its amenability to new ends. Rosanvallon’s work responds to the most obvious limi- tation of Furet’s project, both interpretive and political: its ambivalence about the democratic project itself. The question Rosanvallon’s exercise prompts, however, is just how fundamental a break with Furet’s model is required to write a history of democracy that corrects for what seems to be an uncertainty about the viability of democracy, especially about its extension. This essay argues that Rosanvallon’s very attempt to operate within Furet’s framework in the name of a more democratic
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Soviet Democracy Popular Participation in Family Law Reform After Stalin
    japanese political science review 2 (2014), 111–133 (doi: 10.15545/2.111) © 2014 Japanese Political Science Association Kazuko Kawamoto Rethinking Soviet Democracy Popular Participation in Family Law Reform after Stalin The purpose of this article is to reveal which elements of the ideas of Soviet democracy legitimized the direct participation of the people, how these ideas shaped the legislative process, how people participated in the law-making process of the new family law of the union, and finally how the Communist Party and draft makers, including state officials and specialists, worked with popular participation. It took about 20 years to adopt the law, and the reason why it took so long was deeply rooted in the ideas of Soviet democracy. The Soviet regime was democratic in its own sense of the word and this article gives it a more democratic face than what is usually imagined, especially among Western people. However, the regime’s unique democratic character seemed to make it rather difficult to function adequately. keywords: Soviet Union, democracy, socialism, policy making, family law Kazuko Kawamoto is Visiting Associate Professor at Doshisha University ([email protected]). Her interest lies in Russian and Soviet history. The author wishes to thank an anonymous commentator for his or her helpful suggestions. 111 112 | japanese political science review 2 (2014) The words “Soviet democracy” may sound odd to many, especially in the younger generation, while to others in the older generation they may bring back memories of the “good old” Cold War years, when they supported liberal democracy against Soviet socialist democracy, or vice versa.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Judgment in Democratic Representation
    Continuity and Rupture: Political Judgment in Democratic Representation Nadia Urbinati Columbia University Representation in Democratic Theory and Practice Studies of electoral processes and public opinion surveys have improved and become remarkably sophisticated in recent decades. In that it is both an aspect of electoral behavior and a mechanism for determining government responsiveness to the public, representation has acquired the status of a democratic institution in political science, and particularly in studies of American politics. This despite the fact that representation is not associated exclusively with democracy (since it historically pre-dates democratic states and can also exist in non-democratic states) and its relationship to democracy is permanently subject to debate. In H.L.A. Hart's words, "a definition which tells us that something is a member of a family cannot help us if we have only a vague or confused idea as to the character of the family." Democratic representation is vague in this sort of way. Institutionally speaking, the term refers to politics within the state itself, rather than to a form of democratic participation, since it owes its democratic credentials to electoral authorization and accountability, events that tell us how representation starts and ends, not what it is. "Democratic theory has little to gain from talking the language of representation, since everything necessary to the theory may be put in terms of (a) legislators (or decision-makers) who are (b) legitimated or authorized to enact public policies, and who are (c) subject or responsible to public control and free elections." In other words, the main concern of democratic theory should be the citizens' "opportunity" "to practice direct democracy" in a representative system, rather than representation.
    [Show full text]