The idea that citizens have a right to receive information that is relevant for their suitable exercise of political rights and liberties is well established in democratic societies. However, this right has never been systematically analyzed, thus remaining a blurry concept. This article tackles this conceptual gap by conceptualizing citizens’ right to information. After reviewing previous approaches to this idea, I locate citizens’ right to information on the map of communication rights, and put forward a systematic framework for both justifying (...) and analyzing it. This framework focuses on this right’s grounds, its function, its holders, its content, and its correlative duties. Although the conceptualization offered here will be incomplete, it will be enough to distinguish the general concept of citizens’ right to information from both its specific conceptions and from the other two best-known rights of the public: freedom of information and the public’s right to know. (shrink)

Aunque el populismo es uno de los conceptos políticos más empleados en nuestra época, suele decirse que también es uno de los más escasamente comprendidos (Taggart 2002, 62), y hay incluso quien cree que está rodeado de un “completo caos conceptual” (Müller 2016, 11). También hay quien ha intentado clasificar diferentes aproximaciones al populismo (véase especialmente Taggart 2000, 10-22; también Panizza 2005, 2-3; Rovira Kaltwasser 2012, 186-96; Weyland 2017, 51-55). Sin embargo, lo cierto es que el principal consenso académico sobre (...) el populismo es, precisamente, que no hay ningún gran consenso sobre lo que pueda ser el populismo. Por eso hay quien dice que el populismo es un ejemplo paradigmático de lo que Gallie (1955) denominó “conceptos esencialmente controvertidos” (Weyland 2001; Mudde y Rovira Kaltwasser 2013; 2017). -/- Semejantes dificultades para acordar una definición permiten explicar por qué prácticamente cualquier texto académico sobre el populismo empieza advirtiendo que en este debate hay que andar con pies de plomo. Así las cosas, esta entrada no aspira a ofrecer ninguna definición concluyente del populismo (para intentos de ese tipo, véase Mansbridge y Macedo 2019 o Urbinati 2019b). Cada sección tiene una aspiración más modesta. La primera identifica algunas dificultades que complican la comprensión y definición del populismo. La segunda sección presenta dos rasgos en los que, a pesar de las discrepancias, la mayoría de las definiciones del populismo coinciden. La tercera ofrece una reconstrucción sintética de la teoría populista desarrollada por Laclau y Mouffe –dos de los teóricos más influyentes tanto política como académicamente. (shrink)

RESUMEN: En este trabajo defiendo que el ideal de una ciudadanía competente es viable incluso en los contextos adversos que ofrecen las sociedades digitales. Para ello, identifico cinco problemas que obstaculizan a la ciudadanía la adquisición de competencia política: el pluralismo, el problema del moderador, la dificultad para acceder a información relevante, la apatía política y los sesgos políticos. Aunque estos problemas se agudizan en las democracias digitales, muestro que existen mecanismos institucionales que permiten corregir y mitigar sus efectos perjudiciales (...) sobre la competencia política. Por ello, concluyo, el ideal de ciudadanía competente es prima facie factible y podría lograrse mediante la implementación de medidas institucionales que fomenten la adquisición de competencia política por parte de la ciudadanía. -/- ABSTRACT: In this paper, I argue that the ideal of a competent citizenry is feasible even in the adverse context digital societies offer. To do so, I identify five problems that hinder citizens’ acquisition of political competence: pluralism, the chairman problem, difficulties in finding relevant information, political apathy, and political biases. Even though these problems worsen in digital democracies, I show that there are institutional mechanisms that allow for the correction and mitigation of the detrimental effects they might have on political competence. I thus conclude that the ideal of a competent citizenry is prima facie feasible and could be achieved through the implementation of institutional measures that foster political competence among citizens. (shrink)

The scope of public reason determines which political decisions should be taken according to its standards. In this paper, I defend a broad-scope view of public reason, according to which every single political decision should be justified by public reasons. In the first part, I argue that, despite the unclarity of Rawls’ position, it is compatible with the wide-scope view. In the three following parts, I refute the main arguments in favour of the narrow-scope view of public reason. Finally, I (...) offer an argument for the wide-scope view and conclude that it is preferable from the point of view of political liberalism. (shrink)

In this article I try to shed some light on the complex relation between democracy, political knowledge, and disinformation. To do so, I first define three related concepts which, once clarified, could facilitate our understanding of the problems digital democracies face. First, drawing from the general notion of competence, I define civic competence. Then, drawing from the general notion of knowledge, I define political knowledge. Finally, and drawing from the general notion of information, I define democratically relevant information. After clarifying (...) these concepts, I will present three epistemic positions, to which I will refer to as knowledge, ignorance, and mistake. These three epistemic positions will be further connected with informative phenomena such as disinformation, fake news, and misinformation. (shrink)