DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 3 Cross-Country Comparison of Political Systems in Australia and in South Korea

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 3 Cross-Country Comparison of Political Systems in Australia and in South Korea A Comparative Study of E-democracy Practices in Australia and in South Korea Kang, Hye-Jung December 2012 This thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Government at the University of Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia ABSTRACT It is arguable that the invention of ICTs has renovated contemporary democracy. ICTs characterized by timelessness, spacelessness, and cost effectiveness have largely changed the way of providing, storing, processing, and communicating information. ICTs have been expected to make up for the deficits of representative democracy which can be defined as: a lack of legitimacy of political institutions, a lack of political interest by the public, and a decline in public participation. The use of ICTs to improve the contemporary political system is called e-democracy. However, the way that ICTs have been applied in politics (e-democracy practice) has been affected by the socio-political contexts of their particular environment. This study explores how e-democracy practices vary in different national contexts, and how different e-democracy practices have originated. This study compares e-democracy practices in Australia and in South Korea. It is based on a multi- case study of e-democracy practices including three Australian cases (GetInvolved, Future Melbourne Wiki, and GetUp!) and three South Korean cases (Epeople, Seoul Metropolitan Government Online, and the 2008 Candlelight Protest against US Beef Imports). It uses multiple methods of data collection: documentation, website analysis, interviews, and participant observation, and applies a ‘social construction of technology’ approach as a research framework that allows a holistic comparison of e-democracy practices between Australia and South Korea. Three dimensions of social construction of technology - interpretive flexibility, relevant social groups, and technological frame - are used to compare six e-democracy practices. E-democracy practices in the two countries are also compared on the three categories: high levels of participatory e-government practices, local levels of participatory e-government practices, and e-civil participation practices. This study identifies several similarities and differences of e-democracy practices in Australia and in South Korea; it also discusses the factors that shape different e-democracy practices in the two countries. The analysis of the two cases showed similarities in high levels of participatory e- government practices (GetInvolved and Epeople), and in the strong leadership of the relevant government (the Queensland State Government for GetInvolved, and the South Korean National Government for Epeople). However, GetInvolved was an online consultation to receive feedback from citizens on public issues, while Epeople was an e-decision making tool to enable citizens to participate in a range of decision-making processes. Also, GetInvolved online consultation aimed to improve the relationship between the Queensland State Government and Queensland citizens, while Epeople e-decision making focused on increasing a climate of constructive discussion. These iii differences of e-democracy practices in the two countries were influenced by the existing political environment: the long-term practice of public consultation in Australia formulated the form of online citizen participation; while the limited citizen participation in policy-making processes in South Korea meant that ICTs were actively employed to increase the opportunity for citizens to participate online. The analysis of the two local levels of participatory e-government practices (the Future Melbourne Wiki and the Chunmansangsang OASIS of SMG Online) showed that both cases were developed by strong management (or leadership) from local governments (the Melbourne City Council, and the SMG) in response to policies of higher level governments (the Victorian State Government, and the Roh Government). However, the Future Melbourne Wiki was an online consultation, but OASIS was a collaborative e-decision making tool. Also, the Melbourne City Council was responsible for finalizing the Future Melbourne Plan, but both the SMG and Seoul citizens were responsible for making final policies or decisions on what public business to conduct. In addition, the Melbourne community was invited to participate in the online consultation, but Seoul residents were able to participate in all aspects of decision-making process including deciding issues to be discussed. These differences between the two countries in e-democracy practices at local levels were influenced by complex interactions between the pre-existing political conditions for engaging citizen participation, the existing political directions for using ICTs, demographic features in each society, and by the popularity of using ICTs in each society: the well-routinized form of public consultation in Australia, and the median age (28) in Melbourne City influenced the Melbourne City Council to build an online consultation wiki; the existing form of e-government and popular use of ICTs by Seoul residents led the SMG to use a collaborative e-decision making. The comparison of the two e-civil participation practices (GetUp!, and the 2008 candlelight protest against US beef imports) showed that both cases changed the position of citizens in the political arena, from information consumer to information finder (and information producer). Also, these cases did not reduce political activities in the election period, but expanded the political activities to everyday issues, everyday life. However, GetUp! maintained the traditional structure of political participation, including the governance structure of a civil society organization and of organizing citizen participation and conventional modes of political actions such as petitions, off-line rallies and planning advertisement in the mainstream press. By contrast, the 2008 candlelight protest against US beef imports introduced a new structure of political participation such as the swarm - a voluntary horizontal mobilization of networked individuals, and the simultaneous public action using online and offline worlds. In addition, GetUp! was seen to convert existing political participation from offline iv into online, but the 2008 candlelight protest was largely enacted by groups which had previously been politically apathetic (teenagers and housewives). These differences between the two e-civil participation practices in Australia and in South Korea evolved from the existing environment of civil society, coupled with the impact of ICTs: the long-term experience of governance structure in Australian civil society and the expensive cost of access to internet led to online citizen participation based on conventional practice; the fast uptake of ICTs in South Korean civil society encouraged the introduction of new forms of citizen participation. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The milestones in this thesis have been achieved with intellectual contributions, kind assistance and magnificent support from a number of persons and institutions. First of all, I owe utmost gratitude to my supervisory panel, Dr Anni Dugdale for her thought-provoking comments, invaluable advice and intellectual guidance throughout the thesis years; Professor John Halligan for a range of useful advice on my research. I also wish to gratefully acknowledge Professor Yun Seong-Yi, the supervisor of my Master Thesis, for his critical assistance and the valuable time spent on reviewing my proposal and papers and providing insightful comments and guidance. I owe special acknowledgement for the assistance given by Mr Kang Myung-Gu and Ms Kim Hye- Ran in arranging meetings with key figures of South Korean e-democracy practices. I am indebted to all research participants in Australia and in South Korea, for sharing their ideas and insights. This thesis would not have been possible without their assistance and generous time commitment. I acknowledge with gratitude a scholarship provided by the University of Canberra and the support of the Research Student Centre of University of Canberra in furthering my doctoral studies. I am thankful for the assistance of staff at the Faculty of Business and Government. My most sincere thanks go to Professor Deborah Blackman for her support and assistance, and Ms Ros Byrne for assistance with professional editing of this thesis. I wish to express my sincere thanks to a number of friends both in Australia and in South Korea for their friendship and support. I thank Ms Seo Kyoung-Hwa, Dr Yun Choong-Gu, Mr Jeong Ki-Hong, Ms Kim Mi-Sun, Ms Kim In-Hye and Mr Kim Gun-Woo for their encouragement throughout the thesis milestones. I thank Ms Han Joo-Yeon for her kind assistance and continuous support to conduct research events in Melbourne. I especially thank Mr Warut Satayatheum, Dr Fiona Buick, Ms Synthia Atas Sari, and Ms Mai Thu Nguyen and her husband, Mr Quan Nguyen, for intellectual sharing and accompanying me along this learning journey. I would also like to express my utmost appreciation to Dr Wunwimon Peungpradit for her intellectual sharing, kind assistance and direct and indirect support throughout the thesis years. Finally, I owe enormous gratitude to my family and relatives. My greatest gratitude goes to my father Mr Kang Gun-Woo, my mother Ms Choi Duk-Ja, my sister Ms Kang Eun-Jung, my brother-in-law Mr Choi Han-Choon, my brother Mr Kang Tae-Wook, and my two nephews (Choi Dong-Hyuk and Choi vii Dong-Ha) for their endless support
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democracy on the Precipice Council of Europe Democracy 2011-12 Council of Europe Publishing Debates
    Democracy on the Precipice Democracy Democracy is well-established and soundly practiced in most European countries. But despite unprecedented progress, there is growing dissatisfaction with the state of democracy and deepening mistrust of democratic institutions; a situation exacer- Democracy on the Precipice bated by the economic crisis. Are Europe’s democracies really under threat? Has the traditional model of European democracy exhausted its potential? A broad consensus is forming as to the urgent need to examine the origins of the crisis and to explore Council of Europe visions and strategies which could contribute to rebuilding confidence in democracy. Democracy Debates 2011-12 As Europe’s guardian of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Council of Europe is committed to exploring the state and practice of European democracy, as Debates of Europe Publishing 2011-12 Council Council of Europe Democracy well as identifying new challenges and anticipating future trends. In order to facilitate Preface by Thorbjørn Jagland this reflection, the Council of Europe held a series of Democracy Debates with the participation of renowned specialists working in a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. This publication presents the eight Democracy Debate lectures. Each presentation Zygmunt Bauman analyses a specific aspect of democracy today, placing the issues not only in their political context but also addressing the historical, technological and communication Ulrich Beck dimensions. The authors make proposals on ways to improve democratic governance Ayşe Kadıoğlu and offer their predictions on how democracy in Europe may evolve. Together, the presentations contribute to improving our understanding of democracy today and to John Keane recognising the ways it could be protected and strengthened.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Society: Monitory Democracy and Media in John Keane
    University Jaume I of Castellon (Spain) CIVIL SOCIETY: MONITORY DEMOCRACY AND MEDIA IN JOHN KEANE PhD ENGLISH ABSTRACT Written by: Ramón A. Feenstra PhD supervisor: Dr. Domingo García Marzá Professor in philosophy Castellon, January 2010 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Index ......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 16 References................................................................................................................. 27 2 Index INDEX Index ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 7 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Section I: The resurgence of civil society .......................................................................................... 19 1. Democracy and civil society ........................................................................................................... 21 1.1. The importance of civil society today...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monitory Democracy?*
    Monitory Democracy?* John Keane * Paper prepared for the ESRC Seminar Series, ‘Emergent Publics’, The Open University, Milton Keynes, 13th-14th March 2008 This seminar paper proposes a fundamental revision of the way we think about democracy in our times. It pinpoints an epochal transformation that has been taking place in the contours and dynamics of representative democracy; it tables the claim that from roughly the mid-twentieth century representative democracy has begun to morph into a new historical form of ‘post-representative’ democracy; and the paper explores the fundamental implications of this change for democracy in the coming years. The overall thesis supposes that ‘end of history’ perspectives and maritime metaphors (Huntington’s ‘third wave’ of the sea simile has been the most influential) are too limited to grasp the epochal change - too bound to the surface of things, too preoccupied with continuities and aggregate data to notice that political tides have begun to run in entirely new directions. My claim is that our world is now living through an historic sea change, one that is taking us away from the old world of representative democracy towards a form of democracy with entirely different contours and dynamics. It is hard to find an elegant name for this emergent form of democracy, let alone to describe and explain in a few words its workings and political implications. I choose to call it monitory democracy. It is a strange- sounding term, but the most exact for describing the great transformation that has been experienced by democracy since the end of World War Two, in countries otherwise as different as the United States and India, France and New Zealand.1 My conjecture is that monitory democracy is a 1 The adjective ‘monitory’ derived from the mediaeval monitoria [from monere, to warn].
    [Show full text]
  • Book Proposal Digital Democracy in a Globalised World
    Book Proposal Digital Democracy in a Globalised World Table of content PART I: INTRODUCING GLOBALISATION, LAW AND DIGITAL DEMOCRACY 1. Corien Prins, Setting the stage for analysing digital democracy through the lens of globalisation and global law 2. Maurice Adams, Democracy and the Democracy Debate: From City State to a Globalising Society? PART II: COUNTRY SPECIFIC INITIATIVES 3. Karsten Meijer, Dutch digital manifestations of representative and monitory democracy. 4. Koen van Aeken, Digital manifestations of representative and monitory democracy in Belgium. 5. Mônica Steffen Guise Rosina and Alexandre Pacheco da Silva, Digital Democracy in Brazil: how open is the government to change? 6. Arpan Banerjee, Internet Censorship in India 7. Anne Meuwese, Popular Constitution-Making. The Case of Iceland. PART III: SPHERES, ACTORS AND REGULATORY INSTRUMENTS 8. Emre Bayamlıoğlu, A Critical Theory of Social Media As Public Sphere 9. Rivka Weill, Digital Democracy: Do We Want Electronic Elections and Are They Constitutional? 10. Marie-José Garot, European citizens‘ initiative 11. Nicolo Zingales & Roxana Radu, In search of the holy grail: democratic multistakeholder governance in internet policy-making 12. Stefan Soeparman, Civic driven open data initiatives: transparantizing the workings and performance of the State? 13. Colette Cuijpers, Edemocracy; reconciling the interests of open data and data protection 14. Pedro Letai, Why can’t we be friends? Copyright and Freedom of Expression at the Crossroads of Digital Democracy PART IV: AN AGENDA FOR REFLECTIONS ON GLOBALIZATION, LAW AND DIGITAL DEMOCRACY PART I: INTRODUCING GLOBALISATION, LAW AND DIGITAL DEMOCRACY Setting the stage for analysing digital democracy through the lens of globalisation and global law Corien Prins Tilburg Law School Introduction The contributions in this volume deal with the profound effect that digitalization and online tools are having on the relationship between citizens and states, and particular national and global democratic affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Age of Monitory Democracy and the Greening of Politics
    Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 15, No. 1: 35-58 The Age of Monitory Democracy and the Greening of Politics John Keane Abstract The unprecedented greening of democracy during the past half-century runs far beyond spreading public talk of sustainability and climate justice and is more consequential than disputes about species extinction and the details of carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes, Keane argues. Proposing a new way of understanding the relationship among bio-environments, energy regimes, and democracy, he asks why people with green sympathies might be expected in our times to embrace democracy for more than tactical reasons, whether democracy (an anthropocentric norm that has always supposed self- governing humans are masters and possessors of “nature”) and democratic principles can be “greened,” and what that redefinition might imply for the way people imagine to be the “essence” or “spirit” of popular self-government in the age of monitory democracy. Keywords: Bio-regional assemblies, democracy, energy regimes, green politics, Heidegger, monitory democracy, representation, representative democracy. Use your head, can’t you, use your head, you’re on Earth, there’s no cure for that! -Samuel Beckett, Endgame (1957) As the human despoliation of our planet gathers pace, the subject of green politics presses ever harder on corporations, governments, mainstream media platforms, elected representatives, and citizens. The challenges and changes, and the arguments and antagonisms, are not confined to the democratic world, but they are striking, and without precedent in the history of modern societies. The greening of democracy runs far beyond spreading public talk of sustainability and climate justice and more consequential than disputes about John Keane is Professor of Politics at the University of Sydney and the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB).
    [Show full text]
  • Flinders & Wood When Democracy Fails
    Flinders & Wood When Democracy Fails WHEN POLITICS FAILS: HYPER-DEMOCRACY AND HYPER-DEPOLITICIZATION Matthew Flinders and Matthew Wood Written for the Policy & Politics conference ‘Transforming Policy and Politics: The Future of the State’ Bristol 17/18 September 2013 Matthew Flinders is Professor of Politics and Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. He is the co-author of the international journal Policy & Politics as is Visiting Distinguished Professor in the Sir Walter Murdoch School of Public Policy and International Affairs at Murdoch University, Western Australia. His books include Multi-Level Governance (co-edited, 2004), Democratic Drift (2008), Walking Without Order (2009), The Oxford Handbook of British Politics (co-edited, 201) and Defending Politics (2012) (all Oxford University Press). Matthew Wood is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Politics. He has been a Visiting Fellow at the Australia and New Zealand School of Government Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra. KEYWORDS DEPOLITICIZATION; DEMOCRATIZATION; DISCIPLINE; TECHNOCRACY; ANTI-POLITICS; JUDICIALIZATION WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION ‘Democracy is perhaps the most promiscuous word in the world of public affairs’ Bernard Crick suggested in his Defence of Politics (1962) ‘She is everybody’s mistress and yet somehow retains her magic even when a lover sees that her favors are being, in his light, illicitly shared by many another… Indeed, even amid our pain at being denied her exclusive fidelity, we are proud of her adaptability to all sorts of circumstances, to all sorts of company.’ Almost exactly fifty years later it is possible to question whether democracy ‘retains her magic’ and to suggest that the concept’s malleability – its ‘adaptability to all sorts of circumstances’ – may have been exhausted.
    [Show full text]
  • Aligning Values and Practice: a Comparative Analysis of Management Practices In
    ALIGNING VALUES AND PRACTICE 1 Aligning Values and Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Management Practices in Worker Managed Co-ops Using the Co-operative Index Tool By John Alexander McNamara A Thesis Submitted to Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Ph.D. Business Administration November, 2018, Halifax, Nova Scotia Copyright 2018 John A. McNamara Approved: Larry Haiven Supervisor Approved: Rory Ridley-Duff Examiner Approved: Stephen Dutcher Reader Approved: Sonja Novkovic Reader Approved: Wendy Carroll Reader November 29, 2018 ALIGNING VALUES AND PRACTICE 2 Aligning Values and Practice: A Comparative Analysis of Management Practices in Worker Managed Co-ops Using the Co-operative Index Tool By John Alexander McNamara Abstract November 29, 2018 Co-operative organizations operate as an economic commons and focus on meeting the needs of their members. Co-operatives operate through an identity of values and principles that center the actions of the organization on the well-being of the members, not the return on investment. THe co-operative difference translates into a co- operative advantage in the marketplace through the democratic control of the business by the member-owners that results in a high level of trust in the organization. Management of co-operatives follow three basic formats: a traditional hierarchy similar to most corporate modes of business, a collective model in which all members participate in the key decisions of the organization, and a sociocracy model in which interlinked autonomous teams manage the co-operative by consent. This dissertation considers how the method of managing either facilitates or hinders the expression of the co-operative identity, an internationally agreed-upon definition of the co-operative organizations that includes a set of values and principles.
    [Show full text]
  • AHİ EVRAN Akademi ISSN 2717-784X Cilt 1 / Sayı 2 / Aralık 2020
    AH EVRAN aKaDeMi İ ISSN 2717-784X Cilt 1 / Sayı 2 / Aralık 2020 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/aea THE SECRET ASPECTS OF DEMOCRACY AND THE CASE OF ETHIOPIA DEMOKRASİNİN GİZİL YÖNLERİ VE ETİYOPYA ÖRNEĞİ Ali Hussien YİMER1 Makale Geliş: 17.09.2020 Makale Kabul: 25.09.2020 ABSTRACT This paper includes a collection of accounts from leading scholars who conceptualized democracy. The paper displays various aspects of democracy including its effects on the social, political, economic and cultural progression of developing countries. The paper forwards the already-adapted points of discussion along with the secret aspects of democracy that are not clear for many. It is not possible to restrict the concept of democracy, and it is not fair to impose a democratic model that is enforced by a global system of regimes. As described by Abraham Lincoln, democracy is the government of people for the sake of people and ruled by people themselves. It is a system of governing whose concepts differ from place to place, from time to time and from person to person. Systems of governments, by no means, will be the same in all aspects. From this point of view, the paper sheds light on the ancient and Islamic practices of democracy, as well as the indigenous democracy of Africa through the case of Ethiopia. Keywords: Democracy, Antiquity, Islam, Africa, Ethiopia ÖZ Bu çalışmada, ilk olarak, demokrasi kavramı üzerine fikir serdeden öncü bilim insanlarının argümanları derlenmiştir. İkincil olarak, demokrasinin bütün yönleriyle ele alınması amaçlanmış; özellikle de gelişmekte olan ülkelerin sosyal, siyasal, ekonomik ve kültürel ilerlemeleri üzerinde demokrasinin ne tür etkilerinin olduğu tartışılmıştır.
    [Show full text]
  • Co-Operative Governance Fit to Build Resilience in the Face of Complexity
    International Co-operative Alliance Co-operative Governance Fit to Build Resilience in the Face of Complexity Photo courtesy of The Co-operators Statement on the Co-operative Identity DEFINITION OF A CO-OPERATIVE A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. CO-OPERATIVE VALUES: Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and soli- darity. In the tradition of their founders, co-operative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, open- ness, social responsibility and caring for others. CO-OPERATIVE PRINCIPLES: The co-operative principles are guidelines by which co-operatives put their values into practice. 1. VOLUNTARY AND OPEN MEMBERSHIP Co-operatives are voluntary organisations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. 2. DEMOCRATIC MEMBER CONTROL Co-operatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary co-operatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and co-operatives at other levels are also organised in a democratic manner. 3. MEMBER ECONOMIC PARTICIPATION Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their co-operative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the co-operative. Members usually receive limited compensa- tion, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy in the Age of Negativity, Abundance, and Hybridity
    Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 10, No. 2: 165-182 Book Review Essay on Three Volumes: Andrew Chadwick, The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 256 pages. John Keane, Democracy and Media Decadence (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 255 pages; and Stuart N. Soroka, Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 180 pages. Democracy in the Age of Negativity, Abundance, and Hybridity Jonathan Sullivan Twenty years ago, at the outset of the Internet revolution, much academic literature on the state of media and politics in advanced Western democracies was preoccupied with various forms of negativity. This was especially true of studies on the United States, which frequently framed the state of media and politics in crisis terms, with central elements of the democratic process apparently on the brink of failure. Typical narratives described how the mass media had followed the dictates of commercialism in dumbing down their political coverage and fixating over strategy and human interest storylines. The media’s obsession with the “horse race” features of political competition had become so entrenched that they were unable or unwilling to distinguish between routine governance and upcoming, often far off, elections.1 Politicians were equally culpable, their campaigns having become excessively long and divisive, with candidates trying to out-spend each other in a race to sling the most mud.2 The underlying logics of media coverage and the imperative of political point-scoring under the tyranny of public opinion were such that politicians were said to be “permanently” in campaign mode.
    [Show full text]
  • Become a Part of a Book Manuscript Entitled Democracy Beyond Elections: Government Accountability in the Media Age
    This paper should (after many revisions) become a part of a book manuscript entitled Democracy Beyond Elections: Government Accountability in the Media Age. There are actually three mini chapters included here: Democracy: Crisis or Transformation? (p.2) The Crisis of Democracy, Elitism and Diversity (p. 20) The Transformation of Democracy and Connectivity (p.40) I would be most grateful for any advice you can give me about any part that you might have read. Thank you again, Gergana Jeremy Haworth Research Fellow in Political Science University of Cambridge Email: [email protected] 1 Democracy: Crisis or Transformation? Is democracy today in crisis or not? The growing body of literature on the state of democracy testifies to the renewed urgency of that question. In this chapter only, I extrapolate more than 100 references to the most recent manifestations of democracy (see table 1 in the appendix). The majority of these studies are published in the last five years and almost all of them are published after 1997. The advances in conceptual innovation, however, sometimes mask the wealth of new insights into the nature of modern democracy. It is not entirely clear what the major dividing lines between the different conceptions of democracy are and where their commonalities, if any, lie. The conceptual ambiguities exceed the confines of conceptual clarity. Do we live in a “post-democracy” (Crouch 2004) or a “counter-democracy” (Rosanvallon 2008)?; “Audience” (Manin 1997), “spectator” (Lippman 1922) or “ocular” (Green 2011) democracy? Unrepresentative
    [Show full text]
  • The Age of Monitory Democracy and the Greening of Politics
    Taiwan Journal of Democracy, Volume 15, No. 1: 1-24 The Age of Monitory Democracy and the Greening of Politics John Keane Abstract The unprecedented greening of democracy during the past half-century runs far beyond spreading public talk of sustainability and climate justice and is more consequential than disputes about species extinction and the details of carbon pricing and emissions trading schemes, Keane argues. Proposing a new way of understanding the relationship among bio-environments, energy regimes, and democracy, he asks why people with green sympathies might be expected in our times to embrace democracy for more than tactical reasons, whether democracy (an anthropocentric norm that has always supposed self- governing humans are masters and possessors of “nature”) and democratic principles can be “greened,” and what that redefinition might imply for the way people imagine to be the “essence” or “spirit” of popular self-government in the age of monitory democracy. Keywords: Bio-regional assemblies, democracy, energy regimes, green politics, Heidegger, monitory democracy, representation, representative democracy. Use your head, can’t you, use your head, you’re on Earth, there’s no cure for that! -Samuel Beckett, Endgame (1957) As the human despoliation of our planet gathers pace, the subject of green politics presses ever harder on corporations, governments, mainstream media platforms, elected representatives, and citizens. The challenges and changes, and the arguments and antagonisms, are not confined to the democratic world, but they are striking, and without precedent in the history of modern societies. The greening of democracy runs far beyond spreading public talk of sustainability and climate justice and more consequential than disputes about John Keane is Professor of Politics at the University of Sydney and the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB).
    [Show full text]