Modern democratic polities regularly operate at several political levels. In the case of the EU at the level of the member-states and the EU itself, and in addition at federal, regional, and municipal levels. Is there any democratic rule to determine which level is more legitimate than the others? The article argues that from a majoritarian perspective there is none. Individual citizens may have quite different preferences with regard to the level that is of particular political importance for them. The (...) article critically analyses different concepts, from sovereignty to demos, subsidiarity, and the judicial review of competences, and tries to show that none of them can provide a solution to the dilemma. Instead, democratic theory has to assume that in the co-evolutionary process of institutions and societies at different political levels, the question of the final say has to be left open. (shrink)

Modern democratic polities regularly operate at several political levels. In the case of the EU at the level of the member‐states and the EU itself, and in addition at federal, regional, and municipal levels. Is there any democratic rule to determine which level is more legitimate than the others? The article argues that from a majoritarian perspective there is none. Individual citizens may have quite different preferences with regard to the level that is of particular political importance for them. The (...) article critically analyses different concepts, from sovereignty to demos, subsidiarity, and the judicial review of competences, and tries to show that none of them can provide a solution to the dilemma. Instead, democratic theory has to assume that in the co‐evolutionary process of institutions and societies at different political levels, the question of the final say has to be left open. (shrink)

Against the common view that a European identity is a functional precondition for legitimate EU governance, this article argues that conceptual weaknesses of the term ‘collective identity’ have led to a confusion of several analytic dimensions of ‘identity’ and to an overestimation of strong forms of collective identity. Insights provided by analytic philosophy will be introduced in order to redefine and differentiate ‘collective identity’. The ways in which people refer to themselves as members of we-groups will be outlined and illustrated (...) in order to contribute to an innovative model of the problem and therefore the policy-related formation of collective identities. The article concludes that a strong European identity is not a functional precondition for legitimate everyday democratic governance in the EU. Only in extraordinary situations and in order to institutionalize integration in ethically sensitive policy fields is it necessary that EU citizens discursively agree on an ethical self-understanding of their way of life. (shrink)

Kirche wird zahlenmäßig immer kleiner, ihre gesellschaftliche Relevanz scheint dramatisch zur schwinden. Die Situation einer Minderheitenkirche stellt die bestehende Institution vor schwerwiegende Veränderungsprozesse und Transformationsnotwendigkeiten. In manchen Bereichen kann sie sich vielleicht nur noch exemplarisch engagieren, vielen Menschen ist sie und ihre Botschaft fremd geworden bzw. nie vermittelt worden. Ob Kirche noch mehrheitlich anschlussfähig ist, wird zunehmend skeptisch beurteilt. Auch die Polizeiseelsorge erlebt in mehrfacher Hinsicht einen vergleichbaren Sonderstatus. Sowohl innerhalb der Organisation Polizei wie in Kirche und Gesellschaft erfüllt sie (...) eine Außenseiterrolle. Bei allen Schwierigkeiten, die dies mit sich bringt, wird sie zugleich oft hochgeschätzt und immer wieder als sinnvolles und entlastendes Element in Anspruch genommen und dabei pars pro toto als Kirche wahrgenommen. In der kritischen Solidarität der Polizeiseelsorge gegenüber den Beschäftigten der Polizei, bleibt sie selbst stets etwas im positiven Sinne Fremdes im fremden Umfeld der Organisation/der Welt. Für die Gesamtkirche könnte dieses Strukturmerkmal ein zukunftsträchtiges Modell in einer säkulareren Gesellschaft darstellen. (shrink)

This paper is a critical analysis of some controversial questions concerning the principle of the ethical neutrality of the state, which is one way modern political and legal orders can respond to the challenges and unresolved problems associated with the fact that members of modern ethical pluralistic societies hold different and sometimes mutually inconsistent axiological beliefs and conceptions about the good and ways of life. The principle of the ethical neutrality of the state requires the state to withdraw from a (...) politics of mutually competitive axiological beliefs and ways of the good life and occupy ethically neutral ground and seek solutions to the issues of righteousness and rights which concern all members of a pluralistic society. In particular, the author of the paper analyses a particular kind of relativization of this principle, which arises when the state identifies with a particular prevailing morality or truths of a dominant religion and then, from this normative position only “tolerates” to a certain extent the different values and ways of life pursued by others. The author also attempts to clarify some aspects of this issue by considering how the morally controversial issue of the rights of homosexual couples is understood in Slovakia. (shrink)

In this essay; I explore the ambiguity of the competition’s title “Constitutions as Chains”; and distinguish between two intergenerational challenges in constitution-making: the challenge of intergenerationally just constitutional provisions; and the challenge of creating a stable institution which is accepted by successive generations. I prioritise the latter. After contrasting classic ideas of Burke and Paine; I discuss different ways of addressing the challenge; such as the amendability of a constitution; eternity clauses or recurring constitutional assemblies. A flexible approach towards existing (...) constitutional provisions; which is open to future developments; gets the nod. However; a need for empirical research remains. (shrink)

Carl Schmitt's Political Theology, recycled into The Concept of the Political, was meant to be to political theory what the Book of Job has been to Judaism, and through Judaism to Christianity. It was intended/designed/ hoped to answer one of the most notoriously haunting of the born-in-Jerusalem questions: a sort of question with which the most famous of the born-in-Jerusalem ideas, the idea of the one and only God, omnipresent and omnipotent creator, judge and saviour of the whole Earth and (...) the whole humanity, could not but be pregnant. The question, however, had to be born once the Hebrew Prophet Jesus declared the omnipotent God to be in addition the God of Love, and when his disciple, St Paul, brought the good tidings to Athens — a place where questions, once asked, were expected to be answered, and answered in tune with the rules of logic. Taking absolute power, the God of monotheistic religion took absolute responsibility for the blessings and blows of fate. The Book of Job recasts the frightening randomness of Nature as the frightening arbitrariness of its ruler: God speaks and gives commands. But just like numb Nature, he is not bound by what humans think or do. He can make exceptions. Indeed, the rule of norm is by definition irreconcilable with a true sovereignty — with the absolute power to decide. To be absolute, power must include the right to neglect/suspend/ abolish the norm. Schmitt's idea of sovereignty would engrave the preformed vision of divine order onto the ground of legislative order. Power to exempt founds simultaneously God's absolute power and the human's continuing, incurable fear born of insecurity. This is exactly what happens, according to Schmitt, in case of the human sovereign no longer handcuffed by norms. Thanks to that power of exemption, humans are, as they were in the pre-Law times, vulnerable and uncertain. (shrink)