This article seeks to contribute to the debate on how political representation can promote democracy by analysing the Chamber in the Square, which is a component of legislative theatre. A set of techniques devised to democratise representative governments, legislative theatre was created by Augusto Boal when he was elected a political representative in 1993. After briefly reviewing Nadia Urbinati’s understanding of democratic representation as a diarchy of will and judgement, I partially endorse Hélène Landemore’s criticism and contend (...) that if representation is to be democratic, citizens’ exchange of opinions in the public sphere should be invested with the power not only to judge, but also to decide political affairs. By opening up a space where the represented can judge, decide, and contest the general terms of the bills representatives present in the assembly, the Chamber in the Square harnesses political representation to democracy. (shrink)

In this article I discuss the advantages of a theory of political representation for a prag- matist theory of (global) democracy. I first outline Dewey’s disregard for political rep- resentation by analyzing the political, epistemological and aesthetic underpinnings of his criticism of the Enlightenment ideal of democracy and its trust in the power of the detached gaze. I then show that a theory of political representation is not only com- patible with a pragmatist Deweyan-pragmatist perspective on democratic (...) politics but also that Dewey’s concept of “publics”, if applied to contemporary circumstances of globalized politics, requires such a theory. I suggest a pragmatic theory of political rep- resentation that combines elements of Dewey’s aesthetics, particularly his own theory of vision, with Michael Saward’s conception of representative claim-making into the notion of aesthetic democratic representation. (shrink)

In the light of a study of the di erence between political actors and ordinary citizens as language users, and based on three moral arguments (consequence-based, recognition-based, and complicity-based), we propose that democratic representatives have an imperfect duty to use gender-fair-language in their public communication. In the case of members of the executive, such as ministries, prime ministries, and presidents, such an imperfect duty could also be justi ed on democratic grounds. Their choice of using a gender-unfair language, (...) we argue, can cast doubts on the fundamental democratic commitment to respect the agency of all present and future citizens as potential participants in the law-making process. (shrink)

This essay develops a model of democratic representation from the standpoint of epistemic theories of democracy. Such theories justify democracy in terms of its tendency to yield decisions that “track the truth” by integrating asymmetrically dispersed knowledge. From an epistemic point of view, I suggest, democratic representatives are best modeled as epistemic intermediaries who facilitate the vertical integration of knowledge between policy experts and non-experts, and the horizontal integration of knowledge among diverse non-experts. The primary analytical payoff (...) of this model is that it provides a clear rationale for variation in the norms and institutionalization of representative behavior. Sometimes a delegate-like approach is the right one, and sometimes a trustee-like approach is better. The key determinant is the effect of these models on the epistemic quality of outcomes under different circumstances. Towards the end of the essay, I apply the model to the present revival of populism and consider its implications in that context. (shrink)

"Populism" has long been a dirty word. To some, it suggests the tyranny of the mob, to others, a xenophobic nativism. It is sometimes considered conducive to (if not simply identical to) fascism. In this timely book, Walter Horn acquits populism by "distilling" it, in order to finally give the people the power to govern themselves, free from constraints imposed either by conservatives (or libertarians) on the right or liberals (or Marxists) on the left. Beginning with explanations of what it (...) means to vote and what makes one society better off than another, Horn progresses to issues involving what makes for fair aggregation and appropriate, deliberative representation. From suggesting solutions to contemporary problems like gerrymandering, immigration control, and campaign finance, to offering answers to age-old questions like why dissenters should want to obey the majority and who should have the right to vote in various elections, Horn, using his new theory of "CHOICE Voluntarism," provides solutions to some of the most perplexing problems in the history of democratic theory. -/- The Introduction and first chapter can now be read free at Amazon. (shrink)

The democratic criteria for representation in the European Union are complex since its representation involves several delegation mechanisms and institutions. This paper develops institutional design principles for the representation of peoples and individuals and suggests reform options of the European Union on the basis of the theory of multilateral democracy. In particular, it addresses how the equality of individuals can be realised in EU representation while guaranteeing the mutual recognition of peoples. Unlike strict intergovernmental institutions, (...) the EU requires an additional and independent legislative chamber in which individuals are directly represented. However, strict equality of individuals cannot be the guiding principle for this chamber. In order to avoid the overruling of peoples through supranational majorities, it is necessary to bind the chamber's composition by a principle of degressive proportionality. The representation of peoples, on the other hand, needs to be connected to their domestic democratic institutions. (shrink)

In this essay, I address several questions and challenges brought about by the contributors to the special issue on my book Democracy without Shortcuts. In particular, I address some implications of my critique of deep pluralism; distinguish between three senses of ‘blind deference’: political, reflective, and informational; draw a critical parallelism between the populist conception of representation as embodiment and the conception of ‘citizen-representatives’ often ascribed to participants in deliberative minipublics; defend the democratic attractiveness of participatory uses over (...) empowered uses of deliberative minipublics; clarify why accepting public reason constraints does not imply limiting deliberation to questions about constitutional rights, and argue that overcoming a state-centric conception of democracy does not require replacing the ‘all subjected’ principle with the ‘all affected’ principle. (shrink)

Many commentators lament that American democracy is in crisis. It is becoming a system of minority rule, wherein a party with a minority of the nationwide vote can control the national government. Partisan gerrymandering in the House of Representatives fuels this crisis, as does the equal representation of small and large states in the Senate. But altering these features of the legislature would not end minority rule. Indeed, it has long been held that majority rule cannot be guaranteed within (...) any district system, as a minority of voters nationwide can be efficiently distributed such that a minority party wins a majority of districts by narrow margins. -/- This Article offers a way to save majority rule. Since the way a party can gain control of the legislature with a minority of the vote is to win a majority of districts by narrow margins of victory and lose a minority of districts by large margins of victory, the solution is to make margins matter. Hence, this Article proposes that we preserve electoral districts in which the candidate with the most votes wins, while making the weight of their vote in the legislature (a representative’s “legislative power”) a function of margins of victory. The first goal of this Article is to outline how this proposal, which I call “weighted voting by margin of victory” (WVMV), retains the democratic virtues of district systems while ending minority rule. This is the first basis for the democratic imperative to make margins matter. -/- There is, however, a second basis for that same imperative, which turns on the political equality of voters. The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the democratic equality should be understood in terms of equal voting power (one person, one vote). But when margins of victory don’t matter, the power of a vote lies exclusively in its potential decisiveness. A vote that changes the margin of victory without changing the victor is “wasted”. But it is an electoral reality that votes in competitive districts are more likely to be decisive, and votes in uncompetitive districts are more likely to be wasted; as a result, candidates and parties are more responsive to some voters than others. So voters are not political equals. They do not have equal voting power, except in an empty formalistic sense. By contrast, WVMV gives votes a second type of power. The power of a vote is to potentially decide who wins and to actually change the legislative power of the victor. Each vote, in effect, transfers a unit of political power to a democratic representative. This “transference” power can be meaningfully equalized between voters. A voter in an uncompetitive district is far less likely to change who wins, but is equally able to change the margin of victory, such that their vote is no longer wasted. This gives candidates and parties a strong reason to be more equally responsive to all voters who can change the margins. Hence, there is a democratic imperative to make margins matter, in order to give voters a meaningfully equal form of voting power. -/- The final goal of this Article is to explain how we can implement WMVM in modern democracies, focusing on three particularly challenging cases: the U.S. Senate, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and the U.S. House of Representatives. These cases are challenging for several reasons, the most pertinent of which turn on the ways we should understand margins of victory when electorates are of unequal sizes (as in the U.S. Senate) or are contested by more than two parties (as in the U.K.) or are conducted under different voting procedures (as in many districts in the U.S. House). I argue that WVMV should be considered feasible in such contexts, and hence offers a practical, rather than purely theoretical, alternative to the status quo. (shrink)

Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different aspects of decision-making: voting and deliberation, or ‘votes’ and ‘talk.’ The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms votes, and the Hong-Page “Diversity Trumps Ability” result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation. Both of these, however, are most plausibly construed as models of direct democracy, with full and direct participation across the population. In this paper, we explore how these results (...) hold up if we vary the model so as to reflect the more familiar democratic structure of a representative hierarchy. We first recount extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, but we question the ability of that result to shine light on real representative systems. We then show that, when we move from votes to talk, as modeled in Hong-Page, representation holds its own and even has a slight edge. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to discuss some possible connections between philosophical proposals about the social organisation of science and developments towards a greater democratisation of science policy. I suggest that there are important similarities between one approach to objectivity in philosophy of science—Helen Longino’s account of objectivity as freedom from individual biases achieved through interaction of a variety of perspectives—and some ideas about the epistemic benefits of wider representation of various groups’ perspectives in science policy, as analysed (...) by Mark Brown. Given these similarities, I suggest that they allow one to approach developments in science policy as if one of their aims were epistemic improvement that can be recommended on the basis of the philosophical account; analyses of political developments inspired by these ideas about the benefits of inclusive dialogue can then be used for understanding the possibility to implement a philosophical proposal for improving the objectivity of science in practice. Outlining this suggestion, I also discuss the possibility of important differences between the developments in the two spheres and show how the concern about the possible divergence of politically motivated and epistemically motivated changes may be mitigated. In order to substantiate further the suggestion I make, I discuss one example of a development where politically motivated and epistemically motivated changes converge in practice—the development of professional ethics in American archaeology as analysed by Alison Wylie. I suggest that analysing such specific developments and getting involved with them can be one of the tasks for philosophy of science. In the concluding part of the paper I discuss how this approach to philosophy of science is related to a number of arguments about a more politically relevant philosophy of science. (shrink)

Democratic theorists are usually dismissive about the idea that citizens act “through” their representatives and often hold persons to exercise true political agency only at intervals in elections. Yet, if we want to understand representative government as a proper form of democracy and not just a periodical selection of elites, continuous popular agency must be a feature of representation. This article explores the Kantian attempt to justify that people can act “through” representatives. I call this the “exercise view” (...) of representation and defend its superiority to the “opportunity view,” which I attribute to Locke. It is superior because it has a robust conception of rationality and collective action, allowing us to understand how representation can mediate public reason. (shrink)

Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are interactive online tools designed to assist voters by improving the basis on which they decide how to vote. In recent years, they have been widely adopted, but their design is the subject of ongoing and often heated criticism. Most of these debates focus on whether VAAs accurately measure the standpoints of political parties and the preferences of users and on whether they report valid results while avoiding political bias. It is generally assumed that if their (...) methodology is sound, then VAAs can be seen as strengthening the democratic process. But as we argue in this chapter, the setup of VAAs raises basic questions of normative democratic theory as well. Insofar as VAAs are supposed to improve the functioning of the democratic process, it must be clarified in what sense they aim to make a contribution, before it even makes sense to discuss their effectiveness at doing so. -/- VAAs are often intended to enhance the democratic process by one or all of the following: (I) informing voters about the policy standpoints of political parties (or individual candidates), (2) increasing voter turnout, and (3) ensuring that the composition of parliaments more accurately reflects the political attitudes of the electorate. In the next three sections, we discuss three central bones of contention in current democratic theory that are crucial to these ways in which VAAs typically take themselves to contribute to strengthening the democratic process: -/- 1. Questions about citizen competence: What forms of competence do citizens need to have, and to what extent, for a democracy to function properly? -/- 2. Questions about political participation: What forms and extent of participation are vital to democracy? -/- 3. Questions about democratic representation: How should the relation between the elected and the electorate be understood? -/- For each issue we aim to show, first, how the design and setup of mainstream VAAs are tacitly structured by a specific conception of the democratic aim at issue and, second, what some alternative positions on these questions are within contemporary political theory. In the final section, we will discuss some of the implications of this analysis for the responsibilities of VAA developers, and particularly for the procedural neutrality to which they are typically committed. Our conclusion will be that once these issues are identified, developers of VAAs should either argue in favour of their views on democratic competence, participation and representation, or they should rethink the design of VA As in ways that move beyond their current assumptions, or both. (shrink)

In this commentary, I explore the ongoing debate surrounding Bangladesh’s electoral reform as the interim government has launched a commission to examine alternatives to the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system. Proponents of Proportional Representation (PR) argue it could lead to fairer, more inclusive representation by better reflecting each party’s share of the vote. However, the reality is more complex: PR risks unintended consequences like weakened governance, legitimacy issues that may challenge democratic principles, and technical problems such as the “rounding (...) problem,” where minor vote fractions can affect seat allocation. While the PR system sounds promising, especially to address concerns about the over-centralization of power, it’s essential to critically assess how this model might impact Bangladesh’s unique political landscape. (shrink)

Democratization process has become the global demand of the present century. The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) gave credence to this development. Nigeria and South Africa have had checkered history of dictatorship under military rule and obnoxious apartheid policy respectively. Both countries embraced the current wave in the 1990s. The exploration of this development is our central focus. To do this, the paper examined the following: the relationship between type of electoral system and the conduct of elections in Nigeria and South (...) Africa; and the efficacy of majoritarian and proportional representation systems as applied in both countries. Our findings indicated that majoritarian system accounted for electoral irregularities while proportional representation contributed to wide acceptance of polls. The data were generated from the secondary source. We recommended the adoption of the proportional electoral system as practiced in South Africa and absolute constitutionalism for both countries so as to engender the principles of rule of law. (shrink)

In Democratic Authority, David Estlund argues that decision-procedures are to be judged solely by their tendency to generate morally superior decisions, but that because any relationship of authority must be acceptable to all qualified moral points of view, the epistemic benefits of less equal procedures must be evident beyond qualified objection. If all doctrines involved in political justification must be qualifiedly acceptable, however, the qualified acceptability requirement must itself be acceptable to qualified points of view. This article provides reasons (...) for doubting that this ‘insularity’ can be achieved, and explores ways of reformulating the principle so that it does not exclude itself. (shrink)

This contribution develops two objections to Hans Lindahl’s legal philosophy, as exhibited in his Authority and the Globalization of Inclusion and Exclusion. First, his conception of constituent power overstates the necessity of violence in initiating collective action. Second, his rejection of the distinction between participatory and representative democracy on the grounds that participation is representation is misleading, and compromises our ability to differentiate qualitatively among various forms of (purportedly) democratic involvement. Both problems stem from the same root. They (...) result from conflating two distinct senses of ‘representation’: acting-for-someone (or representative agency) and portraying-something-as-something (or representation-as). (shrink)

Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different aspects of decision-making: voting and deliberation, or 'votes' and 'talk.' The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms of votes, and the Hong-Page "Diversity Trumps Ability" result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation. Both of these, however, are most plausibly construed as models of direct democracy, with full and direct participation across the population. In this paper, we explore how these (...) results hold up if we vary the model so as to reflect the more familiar democratic structure of a representative hierarchy. We first recount extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem, but we question the ability of the result to shine light on real representative systems. We then show that, when we move from votes to talk, as modeled in Hong-Page, representation holds its own and even has a slight edge. (shrink)

In recent decades, theories of representation have undergone a constructivist turn, as many theorists no longer view the represented subject as prior to but rather as an effect of representation. Whereas some critics have claimed that lacking an ontologically pre-given subject undermines the theory of representation, many democratic theorists have sought to reconceptualize representation and its democratic possibilities by turning away from ontological questions altogether. By focusing instead on how representatives come to know the (...) public interest, many scholars now contend that an epistemological account best explains how political representation can foster democratic participation. Yet, theorists of representation have not assessed whether this turn to epistemology has overcome the ontological problems that initially motivated it. This article tracks epistemological defenses of representation to outline two models of political representation that attempt to tackle the epistemological problem of constituent interest without positing a foundational ontology of the subject. I argue that both theoretical tendencies ultimately remain caught in the problems of ontology, thereby undercutting their normative aspirations to foster political participation. Turning to Hannah Arendt’s comments on public interest and her writings on council democracy, the article retheorizes the concept of political representation to avoid the ontological problems that beset current accounts. (shrink)

Political parties have been the subject of a recent resurgent interest among political philosophers, with prominent contributions spanning liberal to socialist literatures arguing for a more positive appraisal of the role of parties in the operation of democratic representation and public deliberation. In this article, I argue for a similar re-evaluation of the role of political parties within contemporary republicanism. Contemporary republicanism displays a wariness of political parties. In Philip Pettit’s paradigmatic account of republican democracy, rare mentions of (...) political parties often stress their tendency to lead to factionalism or corruption. Others working in the republican tradition such as Richard Bellamy and Ian Shapiro provide more extended discussion of the role of parties, but limit their theoretical function to enabling electoral competition. I argue that political parties play a far more significant role in promoting non-domination than this. In addition to enabling electoral competition, I show that political parties are also essential to the effective operation of two other components of republican democracy: contestation and interest-formation. I further argue that understanding political parties in these terms is compatible with republican democracy more generally, addressing the worry that parties will produce factional rather than common-good oriented public decisions. (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to suggest a theoretical approach to modern democracy and its implicit contradiction between the idea of public sovereignty and the model of political representation. The apparent practical problem arising from this contradiction is the lack of legitimacy in democratically elected officials and parliament in general. The article argues that the issue with democratic representation cannot be explained sociologically, but must include a theoretical analysis of the normative contradiction between the egalitarian principle (...) of sovereignty of the people and the hierarchical model of political representation. -/- The article develops its argument from the conceptual framework laid down in the political theory of Montesquieu. Montesquieu’s thoughts on political regimes offer important insights about modern representative democracy, highlighting the structural relationship between what he called the “nature of democracy” (the rule of the people) and the “generating principle of democracy” (love for equality). Three contemporary interpretations of Montesquieu’s theory (by Fred Dallmayr, Michael Mosher and Sharon Krause) are introduced and critically evaluated. -/- The article concludes that: -/- Representative democracy suffers from a structural tension between the democratic idea of the rule of the people and its practical implementation through the model of representation, which was inherited from predemocratic monarchic regimes. The problem is not sociological but structural. -/- Montesquieu’s theory offers a conceptual framework for analyzing the inner tension of representative democracy between the ideas of egalitarianism and political hierarchy. Contemporary authors suggest different interpretations of Montesquieu’s thought and offer several strategies for the possible improvement of democratic rule, such as (1) redrawing the notion of representation, (2) creating a more empowered civic society and (3) introducing a meritocratic educational system for individuals. Yet, they all miss the original idea posed by the Enlightenment philosopher regarding the balance between the democratic principle (passion for equality) and its natural claim to represent the people with “intermediary institutions” that mitigate the adverse tendencies of the democratic form of government. -/- Philosophical discussions about democratic legitimacy should consider one Montesquieu’s statement that is rarely theoretically acknowledged: that democratic political representation needs non-egalitarian social ideas. This means that democracy must tolerate certain non-democratic social ideas (such as honor) for its own benefit, because they provide the necessary balancing institutions. Such an idea would benefit the ongoing debates about democracy by providing a more structural outlook on the fundamental source of the problem (which is a structural collision of contradictory ideas: “equality” vs. “hierarchy”) than those offered by the sociological strategies of democratization or civic empowerment. (shrink)

Hans Kelsens Critique of Eric Voegelins "New Science of Politics" has for a long time been very difficult to access, because Kelsen has published only parts of it in his life time and left other parts unpublished. This allowed Voegelin to spread the myth that Kelsen had refrained from publishing his criticism, because he had understood that he was wrong. This is nonsense. The reasons why Kelsen left part of his criticism unpublished are mostly accidental. At the same time Kelsens (...) criticism itself is a very sound rejection of Voegelin's hopelessly flawed theory of modernity as an age of Gnosticism. In this Nachwort to the Edition of Kelsen's Voegelin-criticism I summarize and comment the most important points of Kelsens criticism: 1. Kelsen's take on Voegelin's criticism of positivism. 2. Kelsen's rejection of Voegelin's "theory of representation" which is in fact a rejection of democratic representation in favor of an authoritarian and theocratic model of politics and 3. Kelsen's refuation of Voegelin's explanation of political disorder in the 20th century as a result of Gnostic heresy. My conclusion is that Kelen's criticism is successful (with only very minor qualifications) in all of these points and that thus it is an important contribution to the discussion of Voegelin's scholarship which has until recently been almost entirely apologetic. (shrink)

Many contemporary democratic theorists are democratic egalitarians. They think that the distinctive value of democracy lies in equality. Yet this position faces a serious problem. All contemporary democracies are representative democracies. Such democracies are highly unequal: representatives have much more power than do ordinary citizens. So, it seems that democratic egalitarians must condemn representative democracies. In this paper, I present a solution to this problem. My solution invokes popular control. If representatives are under popular control, then their (...) extra power is not objectionable. Unfortunately, so I argue, in the United States representatives are under loose popular control. (shrink)

In his pithy indictments of democracy, Churchill captured a feeling prevalent among intellectuals in the first half of the twentieth century; a feeling that government-by-the-people warranted, at best, a limited or half-hearted faith; a feeling that might be described as the “majoritarian creed.” This creed can be characterized by the following propositions. A believer-inthe-democratic-faith defends majoritarian methods—such as popular votes, polls and representation—as the best available means to signal the people’s collective political preferences.

When we participate in political debate or protests, we are judged by how we look, which clothes we wear, by our skin colour, gender and body language. This results in exclusions and limits our freedom of expression. The Politics of Becoming explores radical democratic acts of disidentification to counter this problem. Anonymity in masked protest, graffiti, and online de-bate interrupts our everyday identities. This allows us to live our multiple selves. In the digital age, anonymity becomes an inherent part (...) of everyday communication. Through our smart devices we express our selves differently. As cyborgs, our identities are disrupted and reassembled. We curate self-representations on social media, create avatars, share selfies and choose the skin colour of our emojis. The Politics of Becoming encourages us to engage in a revolution of the self. Democratic pluralism is not only a matter of institutional design but also about how we express our identities. Inner revolutions change our personal realities and plant a seed for democratic futures. (shrink)

In this article, Deleuze & Guattari (D+G)’s conception of democracy will be approached with regard to art’s envisagement of “becoming-democratic” as a mode of thinking through percepts and affects. For D+G, democracy is, by no means, a desirable political goal or the name of a type of governance appropriate for the world. On the contrary, as long as it is a representation mechanism, democracy has negative connotations since it promotes the dominance of majority. For this reason, the only (...) way of affirming democracy is to cleanse and subtract the governmental layers which fix it as a system of social measurement, and re-associate it with “multiplicity” & “becoming”. In this respect, democracy can only be affirmed if it is paired with the notions of becoming-democratic, becoming-revolutionary and becoming-minor. Nevertheless, it is not the case that mainstream political philosophy or professional politics are the only methods for formulating opinions on democracy. “Politics of art” would provide means of thinking upon becoming democratic since art—being a mode of thinking by itself—may place many issues about which one could talk only theoretically (or which would hardly become a part of daily life) on a living plane, even though that plane would solely exist in the world of the work of art. In brief, on the condition that it is not an apparatus of representation, art may turn into a medium of thinking upon becoming-democratic, in addition to all the other becomings that it is related to. (shrink)

This chapter explores the influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on digital democracy, focusing on four main areas: citizenship, participation, representation, and the public sphere. It traces the evolution from electronic to virtual and network democracy, underscoring how each stage has broadened democratic engagement through technology. Focusing on digital citizenship, the chapter examines how AI can improve online engagement while posing privacy risks and fostering identity stereotyping. Regarding political participation, it highlights AI's dual role in mobilising civic actions and (...) spreading misinformation. Regarding representation, AI's involvement in electoral processes can enhance voter registration, e-voting, and the efficiency of result tabulation but raises concerns regarding privacy and public trust. Also, AI's predictive capabilities shift the dynamics of political competition, posing ethical questions about manipulation and the legitimacy of democracy. Finally, the chapter examines how integrating AI and digital technologies can facilitate democratic political advocacy and personalised communication. However, this also comes with higher risks of misinformation and targeted propaganda. (shrink)

Political actions by Fridays for Future, Extinction Rebellion, and other climate activists often involve violations of legal regulations – such as compulsory education requirements or traffic laws – and have been criticized for this in the public sphere. In this essay, I defend the view that these violations of the law constitute a form of morally justified civil disobedience against climate policies. I first show that these actions satisfy the criteria of civil disobedience even on relatively strict conceptions of civil (...) disobedience. I then argue that they meet plausible justification conditions for civil disobedience because they are directed against serious and clear injustices, which legal means of influence have failed to remedy for decades. Finally, I reject the objection that civil disobedience against climate policy violates basic democratic principles because it claims authority to override democratically enacted agreements. When addressed to Fridays for Future activists, the objection misfires for the reason alone that these activists are largely minors that are excluded from democratic participation. Moreover, disobedience even by adult activists is justified by the existence of serious democratic deficits in our climate policies, especially since it can help to correct them. Such deficits include the lack of representation of the interests of people affected by climate change in the future and globally. (shrink)

Identity politics is subject to similar critiques in contemporary public debate and political theory. A central topos of this critique is that identity politics is essentializing: it fixes subjects to their social position and resorts to a politics of particularity that leads to divisions in national citizenship and democratic discourse (the communitarian and liberal position) and to divisions within social movements (the critical position). Contrary to this one-sided critique, we propose a different interpretation with the concept of “constructivist identity (...) politics.” We show that political identities are not essentialistically given, but emerge from processes of social and political construction; that they are actively produced, learned, and practiced by political (sub)cultures and movements. In these processes of construction, political articulation and agency are produced, enabling subjects to critique relations of domination and discrimination. Following radical democratic theory, we argue that the particular political perspectives of identity politics thus enabled do not endanger democracy or solidarity in social movements, but contribute to their further democratization by actualizing the universal principles of democracy in particular disputes. While the construction processes of identity politics tend to essentialize and produce exclusions, critical reflection on such tendencies is also inherent to identity politics. This understanding also enables a critique of such identity politics that is not oriented towards the democratic values of equality and freedom and blocks critical self-reflection. After an overview of contemporary identity politics critique, we elaborate this constructivist understanding following debates in feminist and postcolonial theory since the 1980s. Building on this, we systematically develop the notion of constructivist identity politics by differentiating three aspects of it: subjectification, articulation, and representation. We refer to approaches by Foucault, Rancière, Laclau/Mouffe, and Hall and illustrate the respective aspects through examples of migrant self-organizations as well as gay culture and queer critique. (shrink)

The main claim of this chapter is that planetary defense against asteroids cannot be implemented under a decentralized model of democratic global governance, as espoused elsewhere in this book. All relevant indices point to the necessity of establishing a centralized global political authority with legitimate coercive powers. It remains to be seen, however, whether such a political system can be in any recognizable sense democratic. It seems unconvincing that planetary-wide physical-threat, all-comprehensive macrosecuritization, coupled with deep transformations of international (...) law, global centralization of core decision-making powers, de-stigmatization of nuclear weapons and the like can proceed, succeed, and be implemented in a non-hierarchical international system where planetary defense constitutes only one regime among many, and where states basically remain the decisive actors. Although rationally and scientifically robust, the project suffers from oversimplification, as well as naivety with respect to how both international and domestic politics works. Among other topics, this chapter discusses problems associated with the rule of law and constituent powers, political representation and sources of legitimacy, conditions of multilevel collective action, or limits of theoretical idealization. The general message is that the planetary defense community needs to be more aware of the social and political context of its own enterprise. (shrink)

Democracy is the central political issue of our age, yet debates over its nature and goals rarely engage with feminist concerns. Now that women have the right to vote, they are thought to present no special problems of their own. But despite the seemingly gender-neutral categories of individual or citizen, democratic theory and practice continues to privilege the male. This book reconsiders dominant strands in democratic thinking - focusing on liberal democracy, participatory democracy, and twentieth century versions of (...) civic republicanism - and approaches these from a feminist perspective. Anne Phillips explores the under-representation of women in politics, the crucial relationship between public and private spheres, and the lessons of the contemporary women's movement as an experience in participatory democracy. (shrink)

Although I believe that Gardiner and Fragnière are right to claim that geoengineering governance demands participatory structures, I think more caution is needed. First, the public to be considered because it is affected must be differentiated depending on the geoengineering technique at issue and on the severity of its impact. Second, to avoid undermining democratic legitimacy, ethical conditions of legitimacy must be carefully assessed. Even though future generations and nature are very likely to be affected by geoengineering, their (...) class='Hi'>representation is not as unproblematic as it might seem at first sight. (shrink)

‘One person, one vote’ (OPOV) is an important slogan in democratic movements, a principle that undergirds a landmark series of cases in US constitutional law, and a widely accepted axiom of democratic theory in philosophy and political science. It is taken to be sacrosanct; some even state that OPOV “is, like the injustice of chattel slavery, a ‘fixed point’” (Kolodny 2023: 291). This is a rare distinction for an ideal. For all the ink spilt on Rawls’ Difference Principle, (...) no one printed it on the pamphlets and placards of trade unionist, decolonial, and anti-Apartheid protests; it never appears in US Supreme Court decisions; and none of its defenders would say that denying it is akin to accepting slavery. But despite this, OPOV has proved remarkably hard to pin down. It is not meant to be a mere slogan. It is meant to explain why practices of plural voting and vote dilution are inegalitarian. But there is no consensus and little debate about what it means. Many leave the principle undefined. Others say OPOV means anonymity, or equal voting weight, or equal representation, or equal voting power. These accounts differ significantly. But little is said about one should be preferred to its rival. -/- My goal is to convince you that the meaning of OPOV poses a deep, urgent problem, for which we have no adequate solution. I will argue that all current accounts of OPOV should be rejected. The key upshot will be that we need, but lack, a good explanation of the datum that practices of plural voting and vote dilution robustly fail a minimal condition for political equality. In closing, I’ll explain why my arguments also push us towards embracing what has often been considered a radical and overly demanding implication: namely, that all district-based systems—including those used in the US House of Representatives, Senate, and Electoral College—violate OPOV. (shrink)

Your belief that Obama is a Democrat would not be the belief that it is if it did not represent Obama, nor would the pain in your ankle be the state that it is if, say, it felt like an itch. Accordingly, it is tempting to hold that phenomenal and representational properties are essential to the mental states that have them. But, as several theorists have forcefully argued (including Kripke (1980) and Burge (1979, 1982)) this attractive idea is seemingly in (...) tension with another equally attractive thesis, namely, the token-identity thesis; the thesis according to which every mental state token is identical with some or other token physical state. In this paper, we show that these seemingly incontrovertible essentialist intuitions are in fact compatible with “token physicalism” regarding the mental. Given a suitably plentitudinous ontology of objects, we argue that there are physical things with which our token mental states can be identified. This is preferable to existing views that give up the essentiality claims or simply reject the token-identity thesis. (shrink)

The purpose of this symposium is to explore the ways in which literature, broadly construed to include poetry and narrative in a variety of modes of representation, can change the world by providing interventions in justice. Our approach foregrounds the relationship between the activity demanded by some individual literary works and some categories of literary work on the one hand and the way in which those works can make a tangible difference to social reality on the other. We consider (...) three types of active literary engagement: doing philosophy, ideological critique, and necessary rather than contingent performance. Kate Kirkpatrick opens with Kamel Daoud’s The Meursault Investigation (2013), reading the narrator as not only a critic of colonial and postcolonial discourse but also a literary exemplar of the search for justice when it is difficult to know to what level of explanation to attribute its absence. Rafe McGregor demonstrates how the final season of Prime Video’s The Man in the High Castle (2015–19) makes a radical break from the previous three, exposing the misanthropy at the core of right-wing populism and calling for a fundamentally democratic response from the left. Finally, Karen Simecek argues that poetry in performance has a potentially reparative function for the ethically lonely – the vulnerable, the oppressed, and the persecuted – in society. (shrink)

The paper is focused on the criticisms that theorists of political constitutionalism raise against legal constitutionalism, especially with regard to the idea of representation and political sovereignty. At the same time, the intention is to reconstruct the debate between legal and political constitutionalism in contemporary liberalism, starting from the so-called counter-majoritarian difficulty. This debate concerns two different approaches: the political one rejects the idea of judicial review by the Supreme Court because it may establish a possible rule of the (...) judges (Michelman; Dworkin). It defends the role of Parliament in constitutional matters, in contrast with the role of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as – according to them – it is not open to political participation. Parliament is considered the only place in which we can exercise our constitutional power and in which our rights could be adequately protected (Bellamy; Waldron; Tushnet; Goldoni). On the other hand, legal constitutionalism upholds the idea of judicial review, defending the role of the Supreme Court as “exemplar of public reason” (Rawls 1993). This article tries to answer to three fundamental questions about constitutional democracy under the banner of political liberalism: 1. What do we mean by counter-majoritarian difficulty? 2. What is the answer that legal and political model of constitutionalism give to this question? 3. What is the role of constitutional courts in democratic regimes and what is their authority within the State? (shrink)

Cosmopolis A Review of Cosmopolitics -/- 2015/3-4 -/- Editorial Dominique de Courcelles & Paul Ghils -/- This issue addresses the general concept of “spirituality” as it appears in various cultural contexts and timeframes, through contrasting ideological views. Without necessarily going back to artistic and religious remains of primitive men, which unquestionably show pursuits beyond the biophysical dimension and illustrate practices seeking to unveil the hidden significance of life and death, the following papers deal with a number of interpretations covering a (...) wide field extending from belief to theory, from emotions to concepts, from the wisdom of personal experience to the most sophisticated doctrines. Spirit and spirituality are indeed many-faceted notions. They may refer to the intricate world of the interacting spirits which inhabit living beings in animistic traditions, without excluding a “grand force” linking human beings within a dynamic whole on which their very existence rely . They also bear upon more atomistic and either/or approaches of Western philosophy, which have become embodied in Cartesian dualism against a monotheist background, to the point of freezing the essence of individuals and culminating in the extreme individualism that characterizes our contemporaries. However, this equally refers to the opposite conception of materialism, across times and cultures, from ancient India and Greece (Cārvāka, originally known as Lokāyata, or some Buddhist doctrines for the former, Democritus or Lucretius for the latter) to more contemporary materialistic schools, whether modern or postmodern. -/- The following papers look at the contrasting forms of the philosophy and spirit of the human factor set into a whole, with no artificial disjoint between the psychical and the physical levels, as Wittgenstein put it: “And how can a body have a soul?”. This approach is not unrelated to the notion of anthropocene examined in a recent issue of Cosmopolis, with provides another comprehensive framework open to a spiritual life emerging from the very environment that generated it. -/- *** The first section of this issue was edited by Dominique de Courcelles, director at the National French Research Centre (CNRS), whom we wish to thank for collecting relevant studies relating to the religious and political questions, with a view to focusing on the war of ideas inevitably waged behind images, concepts and perceptions, taking an asymmetrical approach. To the extent that they are mindful of global/local interactions and include representations, opinions and beliefs, such disciplines as philosophy, philology, history and social sciences can provide useful studies accounting for new practices in geopolitics and a fair diplomacy. -/- In her introduction, Dominique de Courcelles first poses the question of how the religious and political spheres interrelate, with their corresponding religious demands and humanistic values. She then suggests that the right question today may be breaking with the philosophy of human rights concerned with the defense of human beings against the hazards of arbitrary politics or the instrumental use of religion, in favour of a fair philosophy of humankind, a new humanism. This would consist in recognizing a common loyalty of all towards one interhuman, not only interstate community, to protect it from both the autonomy demanded by individuals and the instrumental use of minorities. -/- Considering the fact of diversity, so important today in terms of both politics and religion, Abdelhai Azarkan looks at the conditions under which tolerance could obtain the double status of right and duty. He revisits to two philosophers, John Locke and Voltaire, who thought about it from the historical reality of religious wars. The former made tolerance into a right, basing his analysis on the political-legal level, while the latter saw tolerance as a duty, from an analysis based on ethical-political criteria. -/- Mathieu Guidère examines what he calls semantic denominationalism, a term which implies religious attributes and identities, whichever national loyalties or personal belonging they may have at the same time. Since the early 2000s, thie phenomenon has expanded tremendously, compounded by the “war on terror” and the over media-oriented terrorist actions. Denominational expressions act as formal names for ordinary and high-profile players in domestic and foreign policies of democratic states. These systems reveal a receding secularization, while the powerful comeback of religious identities signals the failure of nation-states and the weakening of the humanist spirit. -/- Barbara De Poli retraces the history of a contemporary jihadism claiming its Islamic essence and asserting the truth of genuine coranic principles via the war on infidels, with a view to restoring the Caliphate. After defining the term jihad, she shows that even if this contemporary jiadism is spreading in the Muslim world, it radically departs from Islamic law and the received use of the term jihad, in so far as it is rooted in the early radical thinking of Islamic ideologues in the 20th century, starting with with Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. This current has been fueled by by international conflicts since the outbreak of the war in Afghanistan, in which the so-called Western countries bear a major responsibility. -/- Abderrazak Sayadi starts from the Tunisian experience to ask the question of humanist values and democracy within the relationships between the religious and political spheres. As a historian of religion, he is brought to demystify certain islamic principles and to paying attention to the reform of law, seeing the separation of religion and politics as a precondition to a successful democratic gamble and the establishment of a renewed humanism. -/- Dominique de Courcelles reminds us that getting a better knowledge of narrations and words makes it possible to better understand how logical and rhetorical thinking works for those who wage an asymetriccal war, re-enchanting and mystifying the world to better take control. As soon as 1932, an exchange of letters between Einstein and Freud made it clear that, in order to free man from fatality and war, education understood as culture was fundamental. Such illustrations as the exécution of Oussama ben Laden and the Caliph’s speech in Mossoul show that a premiminary analysis of images and words is essential to a fair diplomacy conducted by people from civil society, whose culture and wisdom allow justice and force to speak together and better resist war. -/- Marcel Boisard thinks that on the day the guns fall silent, exhausted by war, we will not return to the state borders that have prevailed for a century as an outcome of the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916. It is time to prepare the “day after”, which will be a huge challenge. To this end, a summit of Middle-East nations is urgently needed to globally decide the fate of those peoples. On the condition that we know who the enemy is and accept to name it, to understand the history of the countries, groups and alliances, and to question any false or self-interested sense of certainty. -/- *** In the second section, Paul Schafer provides the author’s experiences to explain how culture, from the artistic to the biological, has the power to to open the doors to spirituality, from the inner self to the global environment. He asks himself whether a relative permanence of spirituality can arise from the specific moments that characterize it. Laurent Ledoux synthesizes the conclusion of a symposium held on 22 January 2015 on the links between philosophy and management, on the basis of the spiritual dimension conceived as “natural” and the answers it may suggest to the issues that face the organizations in a “contemporaniversal” world. Jacques Rifflet makes that question in a secular perspective, based on the wellsprings of personal commitment before it can be caught by any religious creed or scientific theory. In this sense spirituality, in alliance with reason, both inspires human consciousness and illuminates its destiny. Sami Aldeeb asks himself whether Islam can be reconciled with human rights. Caught between the belief in an absolute and final Word descended from the sky, and evidence showing that any religion is the creation of a given culture and a society situated in time and space, the Makkan and … contexts et médinois call for differentiated, if not opposite answers and exegeses. Bernard Carmona provides the outline of a dialogical framework, which is known to be a feature of debates between the various philosophical schools of classical India, exemplified here by the transdisciplinary perspective of debates within a Buddhist context. *** The articles not focused on the previous topic include a study by Landry Signé on China’s strategy, competing with the United States to control African resources. The author deals with the specific case of China’s rapprochement with Southern Sudan since Sudan was broken up. In the last paper, Goran Fejić and Rada Iveković, return to the essential role that women should play, and comments upon the role of some international legal instruments related in particular to the elimination of all forms of discrimination. The perspective is transnational and transethnic and is based on secular criteria, as regards nation-building and more generally society-building. Considering the persistence of widespread violence, whether in times of armed conflict or in times of peace, the question remains whether it is possible to fully implement rights and justice instruments. (shrink)

Starting with one of the last writings by Norberto Bobbio I discuss the origins of the idea of a political “Left”. I trace them back to historical circumstances of the French Revolution and, behind them, to ways of symbolical representation to be located within the wider framework of forms of symbolic spatial organization of the social space. It turns out that “Left” is, more than a concept, a symbol or a metaphor. That Left is connected in its very roots (...) with the idea of equality. That the very idea of democracy is connected in a similar way to both ideas of Equality and Left,. A further implication is that the universally shared normative ideal of democracy and the (to a point) universally shared normative ideal of equality are carried as a matter of course by the very framework of democracy as a set of institutions. Thus it is virtually impossible to defend a consistent rhetoric of a political Right within the framework of a democratic society. The final discussion is whether the concept-metaphor “Left” is still useful, whether it highlights relevant features of society more than obscuring them, and the answer is, not unlike Bobbio’s – is that it is will still be useful, at least for a relevant number of purposes, until human societies will be marked by strong inequalities. (shrink)

Spinoza's political thought has been subject to a significant revival of interest in recent years. As a response to difficult times, students and scholars have returned to this founding figure of modern philosophy as a means to help reinterpret and rethink the political present. Spinoza's Authority Volume I: Resistance and Power in Ethics makes a significant contribution to this ongoing reception and utilization of Spinoza's political thought by focusing on his Ethics. By taking the concept of authority as an original (...) framework, this books asks: How is authority related to ethics, ontology, and epistemology? What are the social, historical and representational processes that produce authority and resistance? And what are the conditions of effective resistance? -/- Spinoza's Authority features a roster of internationally established theorists of Spinoza's work, and covers key elements of Spinoza's political philosophy, including: questions of authority, the resistance to authority, sovereign power, democratic control, and the role of Spinoza's "multitudes". (shrink)

The Relationship Between Oligarchy and Forms of Government -/- Introduction -/- Oligarchy, a system where a small group of individuals holds power, is a persistent phenomenon that can influence any form of government. While governments may be designed to serve the broader population, history shows that power often becomes concentrated among elites, whether they are political figures, business leaders, religious authorities, or military officials. This essay explores how oligarchy manifests in different forms of government, from democracy to dictatorship, and examines (...) its consequences on governance and society. -/- Oligarchy in Democratic and Republican Systems -/- Democracies and republics are based on principles of popular sovereignty and representative governance. However, these systems are not immune to oligarchic influences. In a democracy, political power should ideally be distributed among the people, with leaders elected through fair and competitive processes. Yet, in many modern democracies, wealthy elites, corporations, and political dynasties dominate elections and policy-making. This results in what some call a plutocracy, where economic power translates into political control. For example, in the United States, campaign financing and lobbying by powerful corporations and interest groups often shape legislative decisions, sometimes against the broader public interest. -/- In a republic, where elected representatives govern on behalf of the people, oligarchic tendencies emerge when a select few continuously hold power. Political families, such as the Bushes, Kennedys, or Gandhis, demonstrate how political influence can become hereditary, reducing competition and limiting diverse representation. Similarly, in some parliamentary systems, elite party members control candidate selection and policymaking, concentrating power within a small ruling class. -/- Oligarchy in Monarchical and Autocratic Systems -/- Monarchies, historically the rule of a single sovereign, often function alongside oligarchic structures. Even in absolute monarchies, the king or queen relies on noble families, military commanders, or religious leaders for governance. This small ruling class holds disproportionate power over economic resources and legal systems. In constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom, elected governments operate within democratic frameworks, but influential aristocratic and financial elites still wield significant influence. -/- Autocratic governments, including dictatorships, may appear as centralized systems where a single ruler holds complete authority. However, in practice, dictators rely on a ruling elite—whether military officers, secret police, or oligarchic business interests—to maintain control. In countries like North Korea, China, or Russia, a small group of elites close to the leader benefit from economic and political privileges, reinforcing an oligarchic structure within what is often perceived as an autocratic or communist regime. -/- Oligarchy in Communism and Theocracy -/- Communism, in theory, seeks to eliminate class divisions and establish a government that represents the working class. However, in many historical examples, communist states have developed into party-based oligarchies, where a small elite controls decision-making. The Soviet Union, for instance, was governed by the Politburo, a select group within the Communist Party that dictated policies, while the general population had little real influence. Similarly, in modern China, the Chinese Communist Party maintains a hierarchical power structure where only a small ruling elite makes key decisions. -/- In theocratic governments, where religious authorities govern based on religious laws, oligarchy emerges when a small group of clerics or religious leaders holds unchecked power. Iran, for example, is officially a theocratic republic, but real political authority is concentrated in the hands of a small group of clerics, particularly the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. Their influence extends over laws, elections, and economic policies, limiting public participation in governance. -/- Consequences of Oligarchy in Governance -/- Regardless of the type of government, oligarchy often leads to similar negative outcomes. These include: -/- 1. Corruption and Self-Interest – When power is concentrated in the hands of a few, decision-making tends to prioritize their personal interests rather than the well-being of the population. -/- 2. Economic Inequality – Oligarchies often result in wealth being concentrated among elites, leaving the majority of the population struggling economically. -/- 3. Suppression of Political Opposition – In oligarchic systems, opposing voices are often silenced through legal restrictions, media control, or even violence. -/- 4. Policy Manipulation – Laws and regulations may be designed to benefit the ruling class, whether through tax policies, land ownership laws, or corporate privileges. -/- Conclusion -/- Oligarchy is a persistent challenge that affects all forms of government. Whether in democracies, monarchies, dictatorships, or theocracies, power tends to become concentrated among a select few, reducing true representation and fairness. Recognizing and addressing oligarchic tendencies is crucial for maintaining balanced governance, ensuring economic fairness, and preserving the integrity of any political system. Societies that remain vigilant against oligarchic control can work towards a more equitable distribution of power and resources, preventing the erosion of democratic ideals and public trust. -/- . (shrink)

Judith Shklar, David Runciman, and others argue against what they see as excessive criticism of political hypocrisy. Such arguments often assume that communicating in an authentic manner is an impossible political ideal. This article challenges the characterization of authenticity as an unrealistic ideal and makes the case that its value can be grounded in a certain political realism sensitive to the threats posed by representative democracy. First, by analyzing authenticity’s demands for political discourse, I show that authenticity has greater flexibility (...) than many assume in accommodating practices common to politics, such as deception, concealment, and persuasion through rhetoric. Second, I argue that a concern for authenticity in political discourse represents a virtue, not a distraction, for representative democracy. Authenticity takes on heightened importance when the public seeks information on how representatives will act in contexts where the public is absent and unable to influence decisions. Furthermore, given the psychological mechanisms behind hypocrisy, public criticism is a sensible response for trying to limit political hypocrisy. From the perspective of democratic theory and psychology, the public has compelling reasons to value authenticity in political discourse. (shrink)

Resisting Political Dynasties Through a Balanced Government System -/- Introduction -/- Political dynasties have long been a challenge to democratic governance. In many countries, elections are dominated by powerful families who pass leadership positions from one generation to the next. This results in imbalances in governance, where public offices are treated as family assets rather than platforms for serving the people. While democracy is meant to provide equal opportunities for leadership, political dynasties often manipulate institutions, control resources, and weaken (...) competition to maintain power. -/- To resist the rise of political dynasties, a government system must have strong institutional safeguards, an informed electorate, and mechanisms that promote meritocracy. The universal law of balance in nature, as proposed by Angelito Malicse, can serve as a guiding principle in designing a fair and just political system. This essay explores different government structures that can effectively prevent dynastic rule and ensure that leadership is based on competence, integrity, and public service rather than family name. -/- 1. The Parliamentary System with Strong Party Discipline -/- A parliamentary system is one of the most effective ways to prevent political dynasties because it shifts power from individual politicians to political parties. In this system, the government is formed by the party (or coalition) that wins the most seats in the legislature, and the head of government (Prime Minister) is chosen from among elected representatives. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Power is distributed among parties rather than families, making it harder for a single family to dominate. -/- Political parties have internal mechanisms to replace leaders based on performance, not inheritance. -/- Elections are party-based rather than personality-based, reducing the influence of political families. -/- Example: In the United Kingdom, despite having influential political families, the party system ensures leadership is based on party performance rather than personal legacy. Leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair rose to power based on their abilities, not family connections. -/- 2. Strict Anti-Dynasty Laws and Constitutional Safeguards -/- Some democracies have explicit laws that prevent political dynasties by restricting family members from holding multiple government positions simultaneously or consecutively. These laws limit the concentration of power within a single family and promote fair competition. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Prevents family monopolies over government positions. -/- Encourages new leaders to emerge from different backgrounds. -/- Example: Indonesia has anti-dynasty laws that restrict close relatives of sitting officials from running in the same region. This has prevented some powerful families from dominating local elections. -/- 3. Meritocratic Bureaucracy: A Technocratic Approach -/- In a meritocratic government, key decision-making roles are filled based on skills, experience, and qualifications, rather than political connections. This prevents political families from placing unqualified relatives in influential positions. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Ensures that government officials are competent and qualified. -/- Reduces nepotism and favoritism in appointments. -/- Example: Singapore’s governance model emphasizes meritocracy, where political leaders and civil servants are selected based on their competence, education, and leadership abilities. As a result, Singapore has one of the most efficient and corruption-free governments in the world. -/- 4. Proportional Representation Electoral System -/- A proportional representation (PR) system ensures that seats in the legislature are distributed based on the percentage of votes a party receives, rather than a winner-takes-all system. This creates a more diverse and representative government. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Limits family control by ensuring that power is shared among multiple political parties. -/- Encourages coalition governments, making it harder for a single family to dominate. -/- Example: Germany and the Netherlands use proportional representation, ensuring that elections are issue-based rather than family-based. This system has prevented the emergence of strong political dynasties in these countries. -/- 5. Direct Democracy and Citizen Participation -/- Some countries implement direct democracy mechanisms, such as referendums, recall elections, and citizen assemblies, allowing the public to influence political decisions directly. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Reduces reliance on political elites and families to make decisions. -/- Allows citizens to remove corrupt or ineffective leaders before their term ends. -/- Example: Switzerland has a strong tradition of direct democracy, where citizens frequently vote on key policies. This prevents long-term family dominance in politics because power remains in the hands of the people. -/- 6. Decentralized Federalism to Distribute Power -/- A federal system divides power between national and regional governments, preventing a central ruling class from controlling the entire country. In a decentralized government, each region has a degree of self-governance, reducing the influence of political families at the national level. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Prevents concentration of power at the national level. -/- Encourages local leadership development, giving new leaders opportunities to emerge. -/- Example: The United States has a federal system where state governments operate independently. While political dynasties exist, their power is limited to certain regions rather than national dominance. -/- 7. Holistic Education Based on the Universal Law of Balance -/- One of the most powerful ways to resist political dynasties is through education. A properly designed holistic educational system can reprogram societal thinking, teaching voters to select leaders based on merit rather than blind loyalty to political families. -/- Why It Resists Dynasties: -/- Encourages voters to choose leaders based on competence rather than family ties. -/- Teaches the importance of balance in governance and why unchecked power leads to corruption. -/- Promotes critical thinking, ensuring that citizens are aware of the manipulation tactics used by dynastic politicians. -/- Example: Finland’s education system emphasizes critical thinking, civic responsibility, and political awareness, producing informed and independent-minded voters who are less likely to be influenced by political dynasties. -/- Conclusion: The Best System to Prevent Political Dynasties -/- The most effective way to resist political dynasties is through a combination of these systems: -/- 1. A parliamentary system that ensures leadership is party-driven rather than family-driven. -/- 2. Strict anti-dynasty laws that legally prevent family monopolies in government. -/- 3. A meritocratic bureaucracy that limits political appointments to qualified individuals. -/- 4. A proportional representation electoral system to ensure political diversity. -/- 5. A decentralized government where local leadership develops independently. -/- 6. A holistic education system based on the universal law of balance, empowering voters to make informed choices. -/- If properly implemented, these mechanisms can break the cycle of political dynasties and ensure that democracy remains fair, just, and balanced. By applying the universal law of balance in nature, governments can create a system where leadership is earned through merit and service, not inherited like a monarchy. The challenge now is for leaders, educators, and reformers to recognize these principles and push for systemic change. -/- . (shrink)

This paper advances normative theorizing about political parties by highlighting concerns arising from recent empirical scholarship on marginal partisanship, affective polarization, and identity convergence. These phenomena challenge the ideal of healthy partisanship as characterized in recent democratic theory, and point toward a new theoretical agenda. I argue that democratic theorists' current focus on the virtues of mature partisanship has obscured essential questions about the scope of partisanship as an ideal and about processes of partisan socialization and mobilization.

What does it mean to treat people as equals when the legacies of feudalism, religious persecution, authoritarian and oligarchic government have shaped the landscape within which we must construct something better? This question has come to dominate much constitutional practice as well as philosophical inquiry in the past 50 years. The combination of Second Wave Feminism with the continuing struggle for racial equality in the 1970s brought into sharp relief the variety of ways in which people can be treated unequally, (...) while respecting the formalities of constitutional government. Most obviously, the content of laws can mistreat them by wrongfully assuming that they are either threats to others, or that, like children, they need to be protected from harm through paternalistic limitations on their freedom of action. Or, as those concerned with class inequality have long noted, formal equality can create legal requirements, permissions, and prohibitions whose burdens fall predictably, and often solely, on groups who are already marginalised, and most in need of state protection. (Kairys, David 1990) Above all, what these two great political movements made plain, is that a concern for group inequality and, specifically, group injustice must figure in the formulation and adjudication of individual rights, if legal protections for equality are adequately to combat the causes of inequality. Getting to grips with that challenge, it became obvious, required going beyond the familiar analyses of inequality inherited from Liberalism and Marxism, given the many different ways in which people can be equal or unequal.(Hackett and Haslanger 2006, 3 - 15) In the first part of this chapter, I will seek to illustrate these claims, by focusing on efforts to reframe the theory and practice of constitutional equality given demands for sexual and racial equality. I will then show that analytic philosophy has also come to recognise the various non-reducible dimensions of equality in ways that reinforce the claims of critical legal theory, even as philosophers highlight their disconcerting consequences. If equality has multiple irreducible dimensions, conflicts between the legitimate demands of equality are unavoidable features of law and politics, even in the best possible world, and are likely to be particularly painful when set against a background of historical injustice. The chapter concludes with the challenges to democratic constitutionalism, and the scope for constructive responses to those challenges, which the rapprochement between critical and analytic thinking on equality suggests. (shrink)

A Raffle-Based Selection System in a Presidential Government: A Feasible Alternative? -/- Introduction -/- Democratic elections are the foundation of modern governance, yet they come with major flaws, such as excessive campaign spending, political corruption, and the influence of wealthy elites. In a presidential system, where the executive (the president) is directly elected and serves as both the head of state and head of government, an alternative method of leadership selection could improve governance. A raffle-based selection system, or sortition, (...) where highly qualified candidates are randomly chosen, offers a radical yet potentially effective solution. -/- To make such a system feasible in a presidential government, it must be carefully designed to ensure competency, democratic legitimacy, and public accountability. This essay explores how a raffle-based selection system could be integrated into a presidential system, its advantages and challenges, and comprehensive solutions to ensure its practicality. -/- Problems with the Traditional Election System in a Presidential Government -/- Before considering alternatives, we must analyze the weaknesses of traditional elections in a presidential system: -/- 1. High Campaign Costs – Running for president requires massive funding, often limiting viable candidates to the wealthy or those backed by large corporations. -/- 2. Corruption and Special Interests – Political donors influence policy decisions, creating governance that serves the elite rather than the public. -/- 3. Manipulative Political Strategies – Elections are often won through emotional appeal, misinformation, and populist rhetoric instead of sound policies. -/- 4. Political Polarization – A two-party or multi-party system can create deep divisions, making governance inefficient and adversarial. -/- Given these issues, a raffle-based system could offer a more fair and meritocratic way of selecting leaders in a presidential system. -/- How a Raffle-Based Selection System Can Work in a Presidential Government -/- A presidential system consists of three main branches: -/- 1. The Executive (President, Vice President, and Cabinet) – The head of government, responsible for national policy and administration. -/- 2. The Legislature (Congress, Parliament, or National Assembly) – Lawmakers who create and regulate policies. -/- 3. The Judiciary – Ensures laws are interpreted fairly and justly. -/- A raffle-based system could apply primarily to the selection of the president, vice president, and key executive officials, using a multi-stage filtering and selection process to ensure that only highly competent leaders are chosen. -/- Proposed Multi-Stage Selection Process: -/- 1. Candidate Qualification Stage: -/- Candidates must apply or be nominated based on strict qualifications: -/- Educational background in governance, law, economics, or public administration. -/- At least 10-15 years of leadership experience in government, business, or civil service. -/- A clean ethical and criminal record, verified through independent investigations. -/- Completion of governance and policy assessments to ensure knowledge and competence. -/- 2. Formation of a National Candidate Pool: -/- All qualified candidates are placed into a national selection pool. -/- Regional quotas may be used to ensure diversity (e.g., candidates from different provinces or ethnic groups). -/- 3. Randomized Selection Process: -/- A publicly monitored raffle system randomly selects the President and Vice President from the pool of highly qualified individuals. -/- 4. Appointment of the Cabinet: -/- The selected President appoints Cabinet members from the same qualified pool, ensuring a government composed of experienced professionals. -/- This approach removes costly elections, prevents political manipulation, and ensures competency-based leadership, while maintaining the core structure of a presidential government. -/- Advantages of a Raffle-Based System in a Presidential Setup -/- 1. Eliminates Expensive and Corrupt Election Campaigns -/- No need for campaign spending, ensuring equal opportunity for all competent individuals. -/- Prevents corporate and special interest control over government decisions. -/- 2. Ensures Equal Representation and Diversity -/- Leaders are chosen from a national pool, preventing domination by political dynasties or elite families. -/- Regional quotas ensure fair representation of different ethnic, economic, and regional groups. -/- 3. Minimizes Political Polarization -/- Leaders are selected based on merit, not party ideology, reducing political divisions. -/- Encourages a focus on national interests rather than party loyalty. -/- 4. Encourages Competency-Based Governance -/- Only highly skilled and experienced individuals can qualify, ensuring meritocratic leadership. -/- Prevents unqualified but popular candidates from winning through emotional appeal or misinformation. -/- 5. Increases Government Stability -/- With no re-election pressures, the President can focus on governance rather than campaigning. -/- Fixed leadership terms ensure stability, reducing the risk of frequent political conflicts. -/- Challenges and Solutions for Implementing Sortition in a Presidential System -/- While promising, this system faces key challenges that must be addressed through comprehensive solutions: -/- 1. Public Trust and Democratic Legitimacy -/- Challenge: People may perceive a raffle-based system as undemocratic because they are not voting for their leaders. Solution: -/- Public education campaigns to explain that only highly qualified individuals will be selected. -/- Introduce a citizen veto option, allowing the public to reject a randomly chosen leader if they fail a public approval process. -/- Make the selection process fully transparent, with live broadcasting and independent oversight. -/- 2. Accountability of Leaders -/- Challenge: Without elections, how can a President be held accountable to the people? Solution: -/- Implement fixed single-term limits (e.g., 6 years) to prevent extended rule. -/- Establish citizen oversight committees to monitor presidential performance. -/- Allow a public impeachment mechanism if a leader violates ethical standards or abuses power. -/- 3. Risk of Unfit Leaders -/- Challenge: Even with filtering, some selected individuals may lack leadership skills. Solution: -/- Provide mandatory governance training before they assume office. -/- Appoint experienced advisors to guide the President and ensure informed decision-making. -/- 4. Ensuring Government Efficiency -/- Challenge: A randomly selected leader may struggle to work with legislators or government agencies. Solution: -/- The President selects a Cabinet from the same qualified pool, ensuring a team of competent officials. -/- Maintain strong legislative checks and balances, allowing Congress to oversee executive actions. -/- 5. Resistance from Political Parties and Traditional Politicians -/- Challenge: Political elites may resist this system as it threatens their power and influence. Solution: -/- Introduce the system gradually, starting at local government levels. -/- Transform political parties into policy advisory groups rather than election machines. -/- Implementation Roadmap for a Presidential System -/- 1. Pilot Testing in Local Governments -/- Implement sortition for mayors and governors before expanding to the national level. -/- 2. Gradual Expansion to Cabinet-Level and National Leadership -/- Apply sortition to ministerial positions before extending it to the presidency. -/- 3. Full National Adoption with Oversight Mechanisms -/- Introduce a fully functional raffle-based presidential system with public monitoring and legislative oversight. -/- Conclusion -/- Replacing elections with a raffle-based selection system in a presidential government presents a bold yet viable alternative to traditional democracy. By eliminating costly campaigns, reducing corruption, and ensuring competent governance, sortition could enhance the efficiency of the executive branch. However, careful public education, transparency, and accountability measures are necessary to ensure legitimacy and success. If properly executed, this model could revolutionize presidential governance and create a fairer, more effective political system. -/- . (shrink)

Integrating a Raffle-Based Selection System into a Federal Parliamentary System: A Feasible Alternative? -/- Introduction -/- Democratic elections have long been the foundation of governance, but they come with challenges such as excessive campaign spending, political corruption, and the influence of wealthy elites. In a federal parliamentary system, where power is divided between federal and regional governments and the executive is accountable to the legislature, an alternative method of selecting leaders could enhance governance. A raffle-based selection system—or sortition—where highly (...) qualified candidates are randomly chosen, offers a radical but potentially effective solution. However, for this system to be feasible, it must be carefully designed to ensure competency, public trust, and democratic legitimacy. -/- This essay explores how a raffle-based system could be integrated into a federal parliamentary system, its advantages and challenges, and comprehensive solutions to ensure its practicality. -/- Problems with the Traditional Election System -/- Before considering alternatives, it is essential to recognize the shortcomings of traditional elections in a federal parliamentary system: -/- 1. High Campaign Costs – Candidates and parties spend enormous sums on election campaigns, favoring the wealthy and elite while excluding equally competent but less-funded individuals. -/- 2. Corruption and Lobbying Influence – Politicians often rely on donors, leading to policies that favor corporations and special interest groups rather than the public. -/- 3. Manipulative Political Strategies – Election campaigns prioritize emotional appeal, populism, and propaganda over policy substance, misleading voters. -/- 4. Divisiveness and Partisan Conflict – Political parties compete aggressively, creating division within society and hindering cooperation in governance. -/- Given these issues, a raffle-based selection process could address these flaws while maintaining the efficiency and structure of a federal parliamentary system. -/- Understanding the Raffle-Based Selection System in a Federal Parliamentary Model -/- In a federal parliamentary system, government structure is divided into: -/- 1. The Executive (Prime Minister and Cabinet) – Chosen by the legislature. -/- 2. The Legislature (Parliament) – Elected representatives who make laws and oversee governance. -/- 3. Regional or State Governments – Semi-autonomous units with their own governance structures. -/- A raffle-based system would apply primarily to the selection of legislators and certain executive positions, using random selection from a pool of highly qualified candidates. To ensure competence, a strict multi-stage selection process would be necessary. -/- Proposed Multi-Stage Selection Process: -/- 1. Candidate Qualification Stage: -/- Individuals must apply or be nominated based on specific criteria (e.g., education, leadership experience, ethical background). -/- Background checks, governance exams, and psychological assessments filter out unqualified candidates. -/- 2. Regional Candidate Pool Formation: -/- Qualified candidates are grouped into regional/state pools to ensure equal representation across different areas. -/- 3. Randomized Selection Process: -/- A transparent, publicly monitored raffle system selects representatives from the regional pools. -/- 4. Legislative Appointment of the Executive: -/- The Prime Minister and Cabinet are selected from among the chosen parliamentary members, ensuring parliamentary accountability remains intact. -/- This approach removes costly elections, prevents political manipulation, and ensures qualified governance while maintaining the parliamentary system’s flexibility. -/- Advantages of a Raffle-Based Selection System in a Federal Parliamentary Setup -/- 1. Eliminates Campaign Costs and Reduces Corruption -/- No need for expensive campaigns, eliminating financial barriers to leadership. -/- Politicians no longer owe favors to donors or corporations. -/- 2. Ensures Equal Representation -/- All qualified individuals, regardless of wealth or status, have an equal chance of being selected. -/- Regional pools ensure fair representation of different states/provinces. -/- 3. Minimizes Political Polarization -/- Leaders are chosen based on competence, not party rivalry or populist tactics. -/- Encourages cooperation in governance rather than partisan division. -/- 4. Encourages Meritocracy -/- Only highly qualified individuals are considered, leading to more competent governance. -/- 5. Prevents Political Dynasties and Elite Domination -/- No individual or family can monopolize leadership positions across generations. -/- Challenges and Solutions for Implementing Sortition in a Federal Parliamentary System -/- While promising, this system faces several key challenges that must be addressed with comprehensive solutions: -/- 1. Public Trust and Democratic Legitimacy -/- Challenge: People may perceive a raffle-based system as undemocratic and may resist change. Solution: -/- Implement public education campaigns to explain how the system works. -/- Introduce a hybrid model: combine sortition with a limited public voting mechanism (e.g., allowing citizens to veto a randomly selected candidate if they do not meet ethical standards). -/- Ensure the selection process is fully transparent, broadcasted, and monitored by independent institutions. -/- 2. Accountability of Leaders -/- Challenge: Without elections, how can leaders be held accountable? Solution: -/- Implement fixed-term limits (e.g., 4-6 years per term). -/- Require performance evaluations through parliamentary oversight committees. -/- Allow citizen-initiated recall mechanisms to remove underperforming officials. -/- 3. Risk of Unfit or Unprepared Leaders -/- Challenge: Even with filtering, some selected individuals may not have strong leadership skills. Solution: -/- Provide mandatory governance training for selected candidates before they assume office. -/- Appoint experienced advisors to support first-time leaders. -/- 4. Ensuring Fair Regional and Sectoral Representation -/- Challenge: The random selection process might not always produce a balanced representation of different social groups. Solution: -/- Establish quota-based pools to ensure selection reflects gender, economic background, and regional diversity. -/- Use weighted lottery methods, where underrepresented groups have a higher chance of selection. -/- 5. Resistance from Political Parties and Traditional Politicians -/- Challenge: Existing political elites may resist this system as it threatens their power. Solution: -/- Introduce the system gradually, starting at the local government level before expanding to the national stage. -/- Allow political parties to function as advisory bodies rather than election machines. -/- Implementation Roadmap for a Federal Parliamentary System -/- 1. Pilot Testing in Local Government Units -/- Implement sortition for municipal councils and regional parliaments before national expansion. -/- 2. Gradual Expansion to State and National Legislatures -/- Monitor results and refine the selection process based on initial feedback. -/- 3. Full National Adoption with Oversight Mechanisms -/- Introduce sortition for parliamentary representatives while retaining some elements of democratic oversight. -/- 4. Prime Ministerial Selection by Parliament -/- The Prime Minister is chosen from among the selected members of parliament, ensuring continuity with parliamentary accountability. -/- Conclusion -/- Replacing elections with a raffle-based selection system in a federal parliamentary system presents a bold yet viable alternative to modern electoral democracy. By eliminating costly campaigns, reducing corruption, and ensuring competent governance, sortition could enhance the efficiency of federal and parliamentary structures. However, careful public education, transparent oversight, and accountability measures are necessary to ensure its legitimacy and success. While this system may not be immediately feasible on a large scale, gradual implementation and testing at local levels could provide valuable insights into its potential. If properly executed, this model could revolutionize democratic governance and create a fairer, more efficient political system. -/- . (shrink)

"Transparency" is the constant refrain of democratic politics, a promised aid to accountability and integrity in public life. Secrecy is stigmatized as a work of corruption, tolerable by a compromise of democratic principles. My dissertation challenges both ideas. It argues that secrecy and transparency are best understood as complementary, not contradictory, practices. And it develops a normative account of liberal democratic politics in which duties of transparency coexist with permissions to act behind closed doors. The project begins (...) with some history. I show that the language of transparency gained currency only in the last quarter century, and explain how its proximate sources promote three dubious assumptions—that disclosure should in principle be maximized, that it prevents misrule more or less automatically, and that its value is either instrumental, or rooted in a reductive notion of democracy as the rule of popular opinion. Against these assumptions, I sketch an alternative account of liberal democracy centered on the logics of representation, liberty, and equality. These three "logics of self-government" give rise to duties of transparency binding on public and private actors alike. Such obligations have bite, I argue, but they are not all-encompassing. Indeed, the same ideals of representation, liberty, and equality license concealment in a range of important contexts, including deliberation and dissent. Having made this case, I go on to explain how secrecy and transparency can form a "democratic dyad," deepening rather than undermining the project of self-rule. Lastly, I address the limits of conventional transparency practices. Taken alone, disclosure is subject to a range of pitfalls, often failing to produce the results promised in transparency’s name. While my non-instrumental case for openness is not destabilized by this analysis, it does suggest that mandating disclosure is rarely enough. I therefore propose a series of adversarial practices to facilitate the checking of unjustifiable secrecy, and highlight the critical role of interpretation in efforts to make power intelligible. In the end, my dissertation offers a novel defense of secrecy and transparency that highlights rather than minimizes the hard work of political engagement. (shrink)

What is the role of lay deliberation – if any – in health-care rationing, and administration more generally? Two potential answers are suggested by recent debates on the subject. The one, which I will call the technocratic answer, suggests that there is no distinctive role for lay participation once ordinary democratic politics have set the goals and priorities which reform should implement. Determining how best to achieve those ends, and then actually achieving them, this view suggests, is a matter (...) for experts, armed with the best evidence available to them, both of the subject area involved, and of management and administrative excellence. -/- By contrast, the second, deliberative, view holds that lay deliberation has an important role in the administration and execution of government policy, both because these latter inevitably have a political element which needs to reflect democratic norms and values, and because lay people are, themselves, a source of information, even of wisdom, that experts will want to use in fulfilling their professional responsibilities. Recent debates on the value of lay participation in healthcare provision can illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, as can the experience of NICE. So, I will start by examining two articles by Albert Weale, which attempt to clarify the role that lay deliberation should have in healthcare, before turning to the dilemmas for both the technocratic and deliberative views which emerge from the experience of NICE. (shrink)

Los teóricos de la democracia dejaron de lado la pregunta de quién legalmente forma parte del "pueblo" autorizado, pregunta que atraviesa a todas las teoría de la democracia y continuamente vivifica la práctica democrática. Determinar quién constituye el pueblo es un dilema inabordable e incluso imposible de responder democráticamente; no es una pregunta que el pueblo mismo pueda decidir procedimentalmente porque la propia premisa subvierte las premisas de su resolución. Esta paradoja del mandato popular revela que el pueblo para ser (...) mejor comprendido como una demanda política, como un proceso de subjetivación, surge y se desarrolla en distintos contextos democráticos. En Estados Unidos el disputado poder para hablar en beneficio del pueblo deriva de un excedente constitutivo heredado de la era revolucionaria, a partir del hecho de que desde la Revolución el pueblo ha sido por vez primera encarnado por la representación y como exceso de cualquier forma de representación. La autoridad posrevolucionaria del vox populi deriva de esa continuamente reiterada pero nunca realizada referencia a la soberanía del pueblo a partir de la representación, legitimidad a partir de la ley, espíritu a partir de la letra, la palabra a través de la palabra. Este ensayo examina la emergencia histórica de este exceso de democracia en el período revolucionario, y cómo este habilita a una subsecuente historia de "momentos constituyentes", momentos cuando subautorizados -radicales, entidades autocreadas-, se apoderan del manto de la autoridad, cambiando las reglas de la autoridad en ese proceso. Estos pequeños dramas de reclamos de autoridad política para hablar en nombre del pueblo son felices, aun cuando explícitamente rompan con los procedimientos o reglas estatuidas para representar la voz popular. -/- Momentos constituyentes: paradojas y poder popular en los Estados Unidos de América posrevolucionarios [traducción], Revista Argentina de Ciencia Política, N°15, EUDEBA, Buenos Aires, Octubre 2012, pp. 49-74. ISSN: 0329-3092. Introducción de “Constituent Moments: Enacting the People in Postrevolutionary America”, de Jason Frank [Ed.: Duke University Press Books, enero de 2010. ISBN-10: 0822346753; ISBN-13: 978-0822346753]. (shrink)

The paper considers the gap that exists between between normative and empirical theories of democracy. Empirical theories usually stop in their aspirations where normative theories get off the ground, that is, they take the model of liberal democracy as their normative horizont. This is a confusing situation especially with regard to the possibilities of enhancing the quality of existing liberal democracies. We argue that a simple recalibration of democracy indexes, so as to include normatively more demanding considerations, is impossible, due (...) to certain recurring features of normative models. We conclude that if we want to be serious about bridging the gap, concessions should be made both sides. (shrink)

The concept of representation is a problematic one. So is that of resemblance or similarity. But both concepts can be clarified via a modification of Wittgenstein's notion of a "family-resemblance." I shall introduce an extended version of that notion, specifically relevant to representational objects, after presenting some arguments which show the need for it.