DOCSLIB.ORG

Programme Booklet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programme Booklet #DEMOCRACYLAB #INNOCRACY18 #INNOCRACY18 PROGRAMME BOOKLET FUNDED BY AS PART OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMME CONTENTS Welcome Note 4 Marketplace of Ideas 5 Programme Overview 6 IN COOPERATION WITH Session Descriptions 8 Framework Programme 8 Morning Sessions Young Leaders Panel: “What future for Democracy? Visions from Young Leaders” (Session in German) 8 Co-Create: “Civil Society: Partner for Transformative Change or a thorn in the side of the Government?” 9 Co-Create: “Systemic Transformation by, with and for Government - Integrative Policy Making in the Political Administration” 10 Co-Create: “Personal Values and System Transformation” 10 Co-Create: “Reviving Representative Democracy: Ideas for an Era of Transformation” 11 FURTHER PARTNERS Midday Sessions Debate: “The Consultative: Opportunity and Limits for Transformations to Sustainability, Social Justice and the Survival of Democracy” 11 Inspire: “Mind Politics! - Civil Society won’t do it!” 12 Co-Create: “Overcoming Social Division - Where to Start” 12 Co-Create: “Breaking our Bubbles: Comparing Strategies from Poland and the UK” 13 Co-Create: “Sociocracy, Democracy As It Might Be” 13 Co-Create: “Deliberative Participation: Can it Revitalise Democracy? Real Cases from Europe” 14 Afternoon Sessions Inspire: “The European Republic is Under Construction” 15 Inspire: “The Nordic Secret: How to Use Inner Development to Build Strong Democracies” 15 Co-Create: “Out of Burn-Out: Crisis as Opportunity for Eastern Europe’s Civil Society” 16 Co-Create: “Digital Dialogue, Analogue Politics? How to Revitalise the Connection between Citizens and Politics thanks to the Digital Transformation” 16 Co-Create: “Big Data for Local Democracy?” 17 Debate: “Diversity as a Transformational Resource” 17 Keynote Speech: “Is politics changing? We change politics!” (in German with translation) 17 Speakers and Session Hosts: Biographies 18 The Team behind Innocracy 29 The Democracy Lab & Das Progressive Zentrum 30 Partners 31 MEDIA PARTNER 3 #INNOCRACY18 PROGRAMME BOOKLET WELCOME TO INNOCRACY 2018! MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS (930 - 1630) Dear participants, PARTICIPANTS In the coming years, politics will be forced to rediscover its transformative potential. Traditionally, Western democracies aim to provide the framework for citizens to lead “good lives”, with a strong focus on material prosperity. Today, systemic challenges such as climate change, global inequality and structural changes driven by digitisation are shifting the political ground we stand on. To meet these challenges, incremental reform will not suffice. It will take radical reform to change the current political and economic parameters that have led to a number of “system errors”. These reforms are the prerequisite for preserving the main achievements of liberal democracy, such as the rule of law, human rights or the protection of minorities. Most impor- tantly, such system transformation will help us to reintegrate society, politics and the econo- my into the boundaries of the ecosystem. To achieve such reform, we will have to unlearn some of the fundamental paradigms on which the post-war political order is built upon, as well as rethink the institutional parameters of our democracy. The political task of the coming decades will also be to transform the current economic system, aiming for a system that puts environmental and social well-being first. In other words, politics will have to rediscover its transformative potential. With talks, debates and workshops in four different thematic clusters – Digital Democracy, Sustainable Democracy, Community and Belonging as well as Systemic Reform – we will discuss the pressing issues we face, and how to build a stronger and more resilient democracy in the future. We hope that by tonight, you will have caught a glimpse of a political future beyond the status quo. We would like to thank all our institutional partners that made this conference possible, with a special thanks to the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth and the programme “Demokratie leben!”. Thank you for joining our conference! Sophie Pornschlegel Hanno Burmester Project Manager Strategic Lead 4 5 #INNOCRACY18 PROGRAMME BOOKLET OVERVIEW *All Inspire-Talks and Debates in the Gallery are moderated by Nicola Forster, Director of foraus (Switzerland) DOWN- TIME GALLERY ROOM 1 ROOM 2 ROOM 3 ROOM 4 STAIRS 930 - 1000 Arrival & Registration 1000 - 1045 “The next Democracy - Setting the Scene for Innocracy 2018” (Hanno Burmester & Sophie Pornschlegel, Das Progressive Zentrum) 1045 - 1100 Coffee Break & Transfer to Workshops (SESSION IN GERMAN)* “Civil Society: Partner for Trans- “Welche Zukunft hat die Demokratie?” formative Change or a thorn in the side Ria Schröder, Young Liberals of the Government?” “Systemic Transformation by, with “Reviving Representative Democracy: and for Government - Integrative Policy “Personal Values and Ideas for an Era of Transformation” 00 30 Jamila Schäfer, Alliance 90 / The Greens Sabrina Schulz, Das Progressive Zentrum (Germany) System Transformation” 11 - 12 Making in the Political Administration” Maik Bohne, Das Progressive Zentrum (Germany) Marja-Liisa Völlers, German Federal Parliament, Sascha Müller-Kraenner, Klara Sucher, Unlearn (Germany) Social Democratic Party (SPD) Environmental Action Germany (Germany) Jörg Mayer-Ries, IASS Potsdam (Germany) Peter Siller, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Germany) (9 Ideas of Marketplace Ronja Kemmer, German Federal Parliament, Thomas Kühn, International Psychoanalytic University forsee more p.5 information Christian Democratic Union (CDU) (Germany) 1230 - 1330 Lunch Break (45 MINS) “The Consultative” “Breaking our Bubbles: Patrizia Nanz, IASS Potsdam (Germany) “Overcoming Social Division – Comparing Strategies from “Sociocracy, Democracy As It Might Be” “Deliberative Participation: Can it Revitalise 30 45 Claus Leggewie, Centre for Global Research Duisburg Where to Start” Democracy? Real Cases from Europe“ 13 - 14 (Germany) Poland and the UK” Nele Stuke & Johannes Sattler Anatol Itten, Luuc Brans & Larissa Versloot Kelly McBride, The Democratic Society (Belgium) 30 Indra Adnan, The Alternative UK (UK) Subject:RESOUL (Germany) - 16 Disrupted Societies Institute (The Netherlands) Rodolfo Lewanski, University of Bologna (Italy) “Mind Politics! – Civil society won't do it!” Piotr Trzaskowski, Freelance Activist (Poland) Louis Klein, European School of Governance 30 (Germany) ) 1445 - 1530 Sharing Insights & Reflecting in break-out groups( Hanno Burmester, Das Progressive Zentrum) 1530 - 1600 Coffee Break “The European Republic is Under Construction” “Digital Dialogue, Analogue Politics? “Diversity as a “Out of Burn-Out: Crisis as Opportunity How to Revitalise the Connection Transformational Resource” Ulrike Guérot, European Democracy Lab (Germany) for Eastern Europe's Civil Society” “Big Data for Local Democracy?” 00 00 between Citizens and Politics thanks to Laszlo-Zoltan Kovats & Holger Haberstock, Kübra Gümüşay, Author and activist (Germany) 16 - 17 Anca Oprisor Florian , European Dialogue Forum EUROSOC#DIGITAL (Germany) Emilia Roig, Center for Intersectional Justice (Germany) “The Nordic secret: How to Use Inner (Germany) the Digital Transformation” Development to Build Strong Democracies” Guillaume Liegey, Liegey Muller Pons (France) Alice Grindhammer, Circular Economy House (Germany) Tomas Björkman, Ekskäret Foundation (Sweden) 1700 - 1730 Wrap-Up (Das Progressive Zentrum & Cooperation Partners) 1730 - 1800 Keynote Speech "Is politics changing? We change politics!" (Franziska Giffey, Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women & Youth) 1800 - 1830 Transition to Summer Night of Das Progressive Zentrum 1830 - 1930 Panel Discussion (Franziska Giffey, Federal Minister for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women & Youth & Robert Habeck, Federal Chairman of Alliance 90 / The Greens 1930 - 100 Summer Night of Das Progressive Zentrum FORMATS THEMATIC CLUSTERS INSPIRE A short, catchy stage presentation followed by a Q&A session with the audience. SYSTEMIC REFORM SUSTAINABLE DEMOCRACY DIGITAL DEMOCRACY COMMUNITY & BELONGING How must democratic institu- How can we re-integrate political Which kind of governance does How can we create individual CO-CREATE A facilitated workshop to work in a collaborative environment tions and structures change to and economic systems (i.e. de- it take to make technological and collective identities that and develop practical ideas. be resilient in times of transfor- mocracy and capitalism) into the progress compatible with the serve as drivers to build the mation? boundaries of our ecosystem? "social contract"? next democracy? DEBATE An open dialogue format aimed at exchanging and dicussing ideas. 6 7 #INNOCRACY18 PROGRAMME BOOKLET Junge Menschen in Deutschland sind eine Minderheit in der Wählerschaft; das Durchschnittsal- FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME ter in den großen Parteien liegt bei 60 Jahren. Die mangelnde Repräsentation von jungen Men- schen in der Politik führt zu rückwärtsgewandten politischen Debatten, die sich darauf kon- “THE NEXT DEMOCRACY - SETTING THE SCENE FOR INNOCRACY 2018” zentrieren, den Status Quo zu erhalten. Die meisten Parteien bieten zudem keine Konzepte 00 45 10 - 10 an, um die großen systemischen Herausforderungen unserer Zeit anzugehen. Wie können wir In this kick-off session, we will set the scene for Innocracy 2018. Hanno Burmester will kick the unsere Produktionsweise und unser Konsumverhalten verändern um den Klimawandel zu stop- day off with a talk on „The next democracy“. What
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Framing Through Names and Titles in German
    Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020), pages 4924–4932 Marseille, 11–16 May 2020 c European Language Resources Association (ELRA), licensed under CC-BY-NC Doctor Who? Framing Through Names and Titles in German Esther van den Berg∗z, Katharina Korfhagey, Josef Ruppenhofer∗z, Michael Wiegand∗ and Katja Markert∗y ∗Leibniz ScienceCampus, Heidelberg/Mannheim, Germany yInstitute of Computational Linguistics, Heidelberg University, Germany zInstitute for German Language, Mannheim, Germany fvdberg|korfhage|[email protected] fruppenhofer|[email protected] Abstract Entity framing is the selection of aspects of an entity to promote a particular viewpoint towards that entity. We investigate entity framing of political figures through the use of names and titles in German online discourse, enhancing current research in entity framing through titling and naming that concentrates on English only. We collect tweets that mention prominent German politicians and annotate them for stance. We find that the formality of naming in these tweets correlates positively with their stance. This confirms sociolinguistic observations that naming and titling can have a status-indicating function and suggests that this function is dominant in German tweets mentioning political figures. We also find that this status-indicating function is much weaker in tweets from users that are politically left-leaning than in tweets by right-leaning users. This is in line with observations from moral psychology that left-leaning and right-leaning users assign different importance to maintaining social hierarchies. Keywords: framing, naming, Twitter, German, stance, sentiment, social media 1. Introduction An interesting language to contrast with English in terms of naming and titling is German.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in the United States
    Democracy in the United States The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy. Voting booth in Atascadero, California, in 2008. Photo by Ace Armstrong. Courtesy of the Polling Place Photo Project. Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship 1 Becoming a U.S. Citizen Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony in Washington, D.C. Courtesy of USCIS. The process required to become a citizen is called naturalization. To become a U.S. citizen, you must meet legal requirements. You must complete an interview with a USCIS officer. You must also pass an English and Civics test. Then, you take the Oath of Allegiance. This means that you promise loyalty to the United States. When you become a U.S. citizen, you also make these promises: ★ give up loyalty to other countries ★ defend the Constitution and laws of the United States ★ obey the laws of the United States ★ serve in the U.S. military (if needed) ★ do important work for the nation (if needed) After you take the Oath of Allegiance, you are a U.S. citizen. 2 Your Government and You H www.uscis.gov/citizenship Rights and Responsibilities of Citizens Voting is one important right and responsibility of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Participation: a Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends
    DESA Working Paper No. 163 ST/ESA/2020/DWP/163 JANUARY 2020 E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends Author: David Le Blanc ABSTRACT This paper briefly takes stock of two decades of e-participation initiatives based on a limited review of the academic literature. The purpose of the paper is to complement the results of the e-government Survey 2020. As such, the emphasis is on aspects that the e-government survey (based on analysis of e-government portals and on quantitative indicators) does not capture directly. Among those are the challenges faced by e-participation initiatives and key areas of attention for governments. The paper maps the field of e-par- ticipation and related activities, as well as its relationships with other governance concepts. Areas of recent development in terms of e-participation applications are briefly reviewed. The paper selectively highlights conclusions from the literature on different participation tools, as well as a list of key problematic areas for policy makers. The paper concludes that while e-participation platforms using new technologies have spread rapidly in developed countries in the first decade of the 2000s and in developing countries during the last 10 years, it is not clear that their multiplication has translated into broader or deeper citizen participation. Be- yond reasons related to technology access and digital skills, factors such as lack of understanding of citizens’ motivations to participate and the reluctance of public institutions to genuinely share agenda setting and decision-making power seem to play an important role in the observed limited progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Papers
    RESEARCH PAPERS FACTORS AFFECTING PARTICIPATION OF PRESERVICE TEACHERS IN E-DEMOCRACY By SERKAN ŞENDAĞ * SACIP TOKER ** * Associate Professor, Computer Education and Instructional Technology, School of Education, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey. ** Ph.D holder, Instructional Technology, Department of Administrative and Organizational Studies, College of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA. ABSTRACT This study aimed to reveal the factors associated with the participation of preservice teachers in e-democracy. It was designed as a correlational study and 1,519 preservice teachers from a teacher preparation program in Turkey participated in it by completing a 54-item questionnaire. As a result, three major factors for involvement in e-democracy emerged: knowledge and environment, ethics, and anxiety. In addition, two types of participation were revealed: anonymous and onymous. The results of the study showed that anonymous participation correlates positively with Political Knowledge, and negatively with Current State of Politics and Digital Integrity. Those who have mobile technologies with internet connection are more likely to participate anonymously in e-democracy. On the other hand, Onymous participation, correlates positively with Fear of Self-expression, and negatively with Political Knowledge and Digital Citizenship. Males were shown to be more prone to both types of participation than females. Internet usage frequency was a common variable triggering both types of participation. The paper ends with recommendations for further research. Keywords: E-Democracy, E-Participation, Preservice Teachers, Explanatory Higher-Order Factor Analysis, Multiple and Quantile Regression. INTRODUCTION be supported by the Internet, which will alter representation Now-a-days, several factors are urging higher education as well as politicians’ attitudes toward the public (Cardoso, institutions to change, such as internalization, massification, Cunha & Nascimento, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • Argentina's Delegative Democracy: a Case Study
    ARGENTINA’S DELEGATIVE DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY A dissertation presented by Florencia Inés Gabriele to The Department of Political Science In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Political Science Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts December 2013 1 ARGENTINA’S DELEGATIVE DEMOCRACY: A CASE STUDY by Florencia Ines Gabriele ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the College of Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University December, 2013 2 ABSTRACT This study analyses why Argentina remained an immature and underdeveloped delegative democracy rather than a fully-liberal democratic polity. Following the work of Guillermo O’Donnell this work explores the quality of, and serious deficiencies in, Argentina’s democracy. This work pays special attention to presidential use and misuse of Decrees of Necessity and Urgency by as a means to govern alone, thus bypassing Congress and how there is no existing check and balances in the government in this regard. Observing delegative democracies, this work also examines the following: the use of economic restrictions, use of policies such as nationalizations, privatizations, management of the federal budget, international relations of the country, restriction on the media, behavior of the judiciary branch, changes in the national constitution, and decreasing role of the Vice President. This work analyzes the relationship between democracy, decrees of necessity and urgency, laws sanctioned by Congress and inflation using transfer function models. Democracy is measured using the Polity IV dataset. There is a causal relationship among the explanatory variables (inputs) —the numbers of laws passed by Congress, inflation, and number of DNU — and Democracy (output).
    [Show full text]
  • Plenarprotokoll 19/85
    Plenarprotokoll 19/85 Deutscher Bundestag Stenografischer Bericht 85. Sitzung Berlin, Mittwoch, den 13. März 2019 Inhalt: Tagesordnungspunkt 1: Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin BMFSFJ ........................... 9977 B Befragung der Bundesregierung Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Norbert Müller (Potsdam) (DIE LINKE) .... 9977 C BMFSFJ ........................... 9973 C Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Johannes Huber (AfD) .................. 9974 B BMFSFJ ........................... 9977 D Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Paul Lehrieder (CDU/CSU) .............. 9978 A BMFSFJ ........................... 9974 B Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Johannes Huber (AfD) .................. 9974 C BMFSFJ ........................... 9978 B Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Stefan Schwartze (SPD) ................. 9978 C BMFSFJ ........................... 9974 D Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Dr. Silke Launert (CDU/CSU) ............ 9974 D BMFSFJ ........................... 9978 D Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Stefan Schwartze (SPD) ................. 9979 A BMFSFJ ........................... 9975 A Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Katja Suding (FDP). 9975 B BMFSFJ ........................... 9979 A Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Leni Breymaier (SPD) .................. 9979 B BMFSFJ ........................... 9975 B Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Katja Suding (FDP). 9975 C BMFSFJ ........................... 9979 C Dr. Franziska Giffey, Bundesministerin Sabine Zimmermann (Zwickau)
    [Show full text]
  • From Participatory Democracy to Digital Democracy
    Fast Capitalism ISSN 1930-014X Volume 1 • Issue 2 • 2005 doi:10.32855/fcapital.200502.003 From Participatory Democracy to Digital Democracy Mark Kann Tom Hayden posted on his website, http://www.tomhayden.com, an article he coauthored with Dick Flacks to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the Port Huron Statement. The two SDS founders concluded, “Perhaps the most important legacy of the Port Huron Statement is the fact that it introduced the concept of participatory democracy to popular discourse and practice.” The concept of participatory democracy encompassed values such as equality, decentralization, and consensus decision-making. It provided direction for “all those trying to create a world where each person has a voice in the decisions affecting his or her life.” [1] In this article, I suggest that Port Huron’s concept of participatory democracy included some ideas that were potentially antithetical to democracy and that potential, unfortunately, is being fulfilled in contemporary theories of digital democracy. The Port Huron Statement Revisited The Port Huron Statement contained two underlying themes that potentially subverted democratic equality. One was the notion that the American people were fundamentally flawed, most apparently, by their apathy. The other was that the best means to eliminate this flaw was to follow the lead of rational, deliberative activists. Both themes could be (and would be) used to justify political inequalities. Port Huron’s student-authors expressed a dim view of American citizens. The American people had closed minds. They exhibited a foolish confidence that the nation could muddle through its problems. They harbored a false sense of contentment, “a glaze above deeply felt anxieties,” arising out of loneliness, isolation, and estrangement.
    [Show full text]
  • No Profit, No Hierarchy. a Comparative Study of the Lower Left (Version 3
    No profit, no hierarchy: A comparative study of the 'lower left' Dr. Edurne Scott Loinaz Version 3: November 2019. With thanks for feedback and suggestions from ​ Mayel de Borniol, Ruth Kinna, James Lewis, Horatio Trobinson and Michele Kipiel. 1 What is the lower left? The lower left is defined by anarchist writer Margaret Killjoy (2016) as “any society that does not ​ ​ desire a state and does desire economic cooperation … [which] is unique in its potential for internal solidarity.” All organisations included in this study (and from hereon defined as lower left) met the following criteria: ● Autonomous (do not rely on state funding for operations); ● Use horizontal organisation for planning and decision making (non-hierarchical, eg., AK Press’ ‘No boss, no managers, no bullshit’ policy); ● Not for profit; ● Anti-capitalist (organisations run as worker-owned cooperatives, by volunteers, by crowdfunding etc., and which have no aims for ‘job creation’ a.k.a. the perpetuation of ‘bullshit jobs’); ​ ​ ● Are actively forming new social institutions and transforming oppressive ones (as opposed to lower left groups set up to resist and dismantle the current establishment, which though indispensable to the former group, are beyond the scope of this study). What makes organisations in the lower left different to every other organisation? This study, conducted between March and September 2018, aimed to answer this question using a comparative design which works best when the organisations studied are maximally different: hence how lower left organisations are different to groups organised by capitalists and authoritarians. 66 lower left organisations were included in the study (more details to follow).
    [Show full text]
  • Patrizia Nanz, Europolis. Constitutional Patriotism Beyond the Nation-State
    Il Mulino - Rivisteweb Jorg Friedrichs Patrizia Nanz, Europolis. Constitutional Pa- triotism beyond the Nation-State. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006, 206 pp; Ital- ian transl. Europolis: Un’idea controcorrente di integrazione politica. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2009, 266 pp. (doi: 10.2383/31386) Sociologica (ISSN 1971-8853) Fascicolo 2-3, maggio-dicembre 2009 Ente di afferenza: () Copyright c by Societ`aeditrice il Mulino, Bologna. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Per altre informazioni si veda https://www.rivisteweb.it Licenza d’uso L’articolo `emesso a disposizione dell’utente in licenza per uso esclusivamente privato e personale, senza scopo di lucro e senza fini direttamente o indirettamente commerciali. Salvo quanto espressamente previsto dalla licenza d’uso Rivisteweb, `efatto divieto di riprodurre, trasmettere, distribuire o altrimenti utilizzare l’articolo, per qualsiasi scopo o fine. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Book reviews Patrizia Nanz, Europolis. Constitutional Patriotism beyond the Nation-State. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006, 206 pp; Italian transl. Europolis: Un’idea controcorrente di integrazione politica. Milano: Feltrinelli, 2009, 266 pp. doi: 10.2383/31386 The claims of this book can be summarized as follows: Empathy leads to sympathy. The exploration of difference creates solidarity. Insofar as solidarity constitutes society, it can be called a society’s constitution. Europe is a case in point. It is a place where strangers explore their mutual differences. Europeans are endowed with reflexive iden- tities that are the result of myriad intercultural encounters. This is particularly true about migrants, whose intercultural literacy makes them prototypical Europeans. But it is true about Europeans in general. By virtue of their real or virtual intercultural encounters, Europeans are potentially equipped with the solidarity necessary for a constitutional patriotism beyond the nation-state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Parliamentary Democracy: Transition and Challenge in European Governance”
    EUROPEAN COMMISSION SECRETARIAT GENERAL European Governance Team Brussels, 9 November 2000 AS/ D(2000) PAPER REVIEW “The Future of Parliamentary Democracy: Transition and Challenge in European Governance” Green Paper prepared for the Conference of the European Union Speakers of Parliament, September 2000 Background of Green Paper In 1997, the Conference of the European Union Speakers of Parliament established a working group to consider the theme of ‘quality of legislation’. This group was chaired by Luciano Violante, President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies. In 1999, the working group presented its findings to the conference in a document entitled “The Complexity of Legislation and the Role of Parliaments in an Era of Globalization.” During 1999-2000 an expert group serving the EU Speakers’ working group prepared this Green Paper, which was presented to the Conference in September 2000. This group was chaired by Tom R. Burns, and included Carlo Jaeger, Angela Liberatore, Yves Meny, and Patrizia Nanz.1 The Paper highlights changes in modern society and recommends a new role for parliaments. It is interesting to note how the group’s emphasis shifted away from its original mandate to study quality legislation to a focus on how globalization has affected the political process. The Green Paper raises key issues that relate closely to several work areas of the Commission’s “White Paper on Governance.” These include the effects of globalization and scientific expertise on the democratic process, the development of a public space that involves civic actors in political debates, and the role of agencies in designing and implementing policy. The Green Paper could stimulate the thinking of multiple working groups, as it not only highlights the challenges facing policy-makers today but also offers initial solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]