The Racial Rules of Democratic Participation

2017 ◽  
pp. 145-155
Author(s):  
Andrea Flynn ◽  
Susan R. Holmberg ◽  
Dorian T. Warren ◽  
Felicia J. Wong
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Eberhard Bort

The decisive No vote in the Scottish independence referendum on 18 September 2014 was not a vote for the constitutional status quo, although it confirmed that Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom. The referendum outcome is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the power relations between London and Edinburgh and, perhaps more than expected, for the constitutional future of the entire UK. A tight timetable for the delivery of extra powers for the Scottish Parliament is in place, and the ‘elephant in the room’, the constitutional status and governance of England, is now firmly on the agenda. There is also pressure for decentralisation in Scotland itself. And the huge ‘democratic awakening’ which characterised this ‘national conversation’ about Scotland's future, with massive democratic participation and a record turnout, demands that these changes will have to be brought about in a participative way – and not ‘top-down’, as a Westminster or Holyrood ‘stitch-up’.


Author(s):  
Harvey Siegel

`How should public education in democratic states deal with the cultural diversity brought about by contemporary globalization? My suggestion is that key to democratic public education is the obligation to foster in students the skills and abilities, and attitudes and dispositions, needed to participate fully in democratic decision-making. Of central importance are the abilities and dispositions required for critical thinking and rational argumentation: evaluating arguments of others, constructing arguments of one’s own that might rationally persuade one’s fellow citizens, etc. Without these abilities and dispositions, full participation in democratic decision-making is impossible. But fostering them is problematic when students are members of cultures in which argumentation is frowned upon. In this paper I address this tension, and argue that while respecting cultural differences is of the first importance, in democracies it cannot override the requirements of democracy itself. When these two clash, the requirements of democratic participation must take precedence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-183
Author(s):  
Aniket Aga

A fierce controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops has been raging in India for over two decades. Analyzing India’s regulatory regime for GM crops, this article focuses on the modes through which state bureaucracies know the environment. It argues that two epistemologies - scientific and legal-administrative – underpin environment protection. By unraveling the course of regulatory disputes, I demonstrate that bureaucracies are not just hierarchically divided but are also segmented by horizontal, functional specializations. There is thus an inherent ambiguity lodged between environment as a technical discourse and as statecraft. This ambiguity both fosters and constrains democratic participation in policy decisions and can even partially disrupt power relations in unanticipated ways.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009059172110085
Author(s):  
Anna Jurkevics

The recent phenomenon of land grabbing—that is, the large-scale acquisition of private land rights by foreign investors—is an effect of increasing global demand for farmland, resources, and development opportunities. In 2008–2010 alone, land grabs covered approximately 56 million hectares of land, dispossessing and displacing inhabitants. This article proposes a philosophical framework for evaluating land grabbing as a practice of territorial alienation, whereby the private purchase of land can, under certain conditions, lead to a de facto alienation of territorial sovereignty. If land grabs alienate territorial sovereignty, it follows that inhabitants can claim a violation of the people’s right to “permanent sovereignty over natural resources.” However, because sovereignty is entangled in the historical and contemporary causes of land dispossession, I cast doubt on this strategy. Territorially sovereign regimes often undermine democratic land governance by obstructing participation in activities such as zoning, land use, property regulation, and environmental stewardship. These activities, which I theorize as practices of “world-building,” are key to democracy because they give occupants a say in the shape of their common home. The perplexities of sovereignty in matters of land governance suggest that establishing democratic participation in rule over land requires fracturing sovereignty.


2021 ◽  
pp. 019145372199070
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Rustighi

In this article, I engage with what relevant literature addresses as the ‘paradox of democracy’ and trace it back to the dialectic between authorization and representation established by social contract theories. To make my argument, I take Rousseau’s Social Contract as a paradigmatic example of the paradox and analyse it in light of Hegel’s critical response. My aim is to show that, although Rousseau rejects the idea of representing the popular will, representation resurfaces in his Republic from top to bottom and engenders a structural opposition between citizens and rulers: drawing on the Hegelian scrutiny of contractarianism, I focus on three key moments in Rousseau’s theory, namely the Lawgiver, the majority rule and the executive power. After illustrating how the social contract undermines democratic participation in deliberative processes, I suggest that Hegel’s philosophy of right overcomes the paradox by positively assuming it as a dialectical contradiction that requires a specific constitutional approach to democracy. In this sense, I argue, the Hegelian perspective on democratic deliberation helps us to better frame Rousseau’s ambition to conceive the Republic as a free community of equals and urges us to elaborate a more coherent understanding of participation in a pluralistic society.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document