Democracy and Individuality

1986 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Class Struggle ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Marxian Theory ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Political Form

For many contemporary liberals, Anglo-American democracy seems unimpeachably the best political form. In contrast, adherence to democratic values seems an area in which most Marxian regimes, and perhaps Marx himself, are strikingly deficient. Further, Marxian theory insists on the existence of oppressive ruling classes in all capitalist societies and on the need for class struggle and violent revolution to achieve a more cooperative regime – theses which liberal social theories tend to dismiss peremptorily. From the perspective of modern liberal democratic theory, Marxian arguments seem prima facie outlandish and even morally objectionable.

“Listen, Marxist!”: On the Forgotten Past of Self-Management and the Contemporary Orgasms of History

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-194
Author(s):  
Žiga Vodovnik
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Theory ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Self Management ◽  
State Spaces ◽  
The Core ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Original Meaning ◽  
Mass Assembly ◽  
Political Form ◽  
Anarchist Theory

AbstractIn this article, we argue that self-management should not be understood only as an economic project, but rather as a political form based on the transformation of the core principles of modern capitalist societies. We start from the supposition that self-management does not imply an economic, but primarily a political recomposition of society, which is why it is necessary to draw attention to the economic reductionism in the discussions on self-management. The purpose of this article is three-fold: first, we recover the original meaning of self-management, its forgotten, anarchist (pre)history, and elaborate on the anarchist theory of organisation that has dynamised the idea/practice of self-management throughout history. Second, we analyse Yugoslav self-management through the categories and concepts of Praxis philosophy, which leads us to the conclusion that the Yugoslav model of self-management was above all a non-political form that remained in the framework of liberal democratic theory. Finally, we explore the global mass assembly movement Occupy, building on the recent academic attention devoted to the notion of non-state spaces. We analyse the encampments and occupied squares as self-managed exilic spaces in which protesters (in)voluntarily escaped from both state regulation and capitalist accumulation.

Social Development and Police Reform: Some Reflections on the Concept and Purpose of Policing and the Implications for Reform in the UK and USA

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Williams ◽  
Craig Paterson
Keyword(s):  
Social Development ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Critical Question ◽  
Police Reform ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Common Understanding

Abstract The increase in calls for police reform following the death of George Floyd has led to renewed debate about social inequality and the role of policing in society. Modern bureaucratic police systems emerged from locally administered structures and Anglo-American policing models continue to be aligned, to varying degrees, with the political, socio-cultural, legal, and ideological aspects of contemporary liberal democratic society with its emphasis on democratic localism and decentralised accountability. However, at a time when society is reimagining itself and technology, government, and nations are radically re-shaping themselves, a critical question is whether there is a sufficiently common philosophical and conceptual understanding of policing to support its development rather than just a common understanding of police functions. This is profoundly important when considering the current calls for reform of policing in the USA and other western democratic states. The article argues that there is an urgent need to reconsider how we conceptualize policing and its relationship with social development.

Does Liberal Democracy Require a Gandhian Approach to Religion?

Acorn ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-129
Author(s):  
Sanjay Lal ◽  
Jeff Shawn Jose ◽  
Douglas Allen ◽  
Michael Allen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Religious Values ◽  
Public Justification ◽  
Liberal State ◽  
Absolute Truth ◽  
Democratic Socialism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Unity In Diversity

In this author-meets-critics dialogue, Sanjay Lal, author of , argues that Gandhian values of nonviolence raise aspirations of liberal democracy to a higher level. Since Gandhian values of nonviolence are closely associated with religious values, liberal democracy should make public commitments to religions on a non-sectarian basis, except for unreasonable religions. Critic Jeff Shawn Jose agrees that Gandhian values can strengthen liberal democracy. However, Jose finds a contradiction in Lal’s proposal that a liberal state should support reasonable religions only. A more consistent Gandhian approach would focus on everyday interactions between citizens and groups rather than state-directed preferences. Critic Douglas Allen also welcomes Lal’s project that brings Gandhian philosophy into relation with liberal democratic theory; however, he argues that universalizing the Absolute Truth of genuine religion is more complicated than Lal acknowledges. D. Allen argues for a Gandhian approach of relative truths, which cannot be evaluated apart from contingency or context, and he offers autobiographical evidence in support of his critical suspicion of genuine religion. Critic Michael Allen argues that Lal’s metaphysical approach to public justification violates a central commitment of political liberalism not to take sides on any metaphysical basis. M. Allen argues that democratic socialism is closer to Gandhi’s approach than is liberalism. Lal responds to critics by arguing that Gandhi’s evaluation of unreasonable religions depends upon an assessment of violence, which is not as problematic as critics charge, either from a Gandhian perspective or a liberal one. Furthermore, by excluding unreasonable or violent religions from state promotion, Lal argues that he is not advocating state suppression. Finally, Lal argues that Gandhian or Kingian metaphysics are worthy of support by liberal, democratic states seeking to educate individuals regarding peaceful unity in diversity.

Jürgen Habermas and Public Reason

2020 ◽  
pp. 189-240
Author(s):  
Miguel Vatter
Keyword(s):  
Public Reason ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Jürgen Habermas ◽  
Ernst Bloch ◽  
Karl Jaspers ◽  
Jurgen Habermas ◽  
Political Form

This chapter explores Jürgen Habermas’s conception of a post-metaphysical idea of public reason as basis of democratic legitimacy in postsecular societies. It discusses Habermas’s interpretation of Kant’s and Hegel’s philosophies of religion in terms of their efforts to ‘translate’ theological substance into ethico-political form, thus giving a secular meaning to the idea of God’s Kingdom. The chapter shows the roots of Habermas’s adoption of ‘methodological atheism’ in the writings of Karl Jaspers and Ernst Bloch on the relation between philosophy and faith in revelation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the similarities between Habermas’s and Jacques Derrida’s defences of an essential messianic component in contemporary democratic theory.

14. Power

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Owen
Keyword(s):  
Political Theory ◽  
Michel Foucault ◽  
Political Activity ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Contemporary Debate ◽  
Community Power ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
Freedom And Responsibility ◽  
Power Play

This chapter examines the roles that the concept of power play in the understanding of politics as well as the different modes of power. Recent political theory has seen a variety of views of power proposed, and these views have significantly different implications for conceptualizing the scope and form of political activity. Two main views concerning power are the locus of contemporary debate. The first, ‘agency-centred’ view, emerges in the Anglo-American debate that follows discussions of community power in American democracy. The second, ‘non-agency-centred’ view, emerges from the post-structuralist work of Michel Foucault. At stake, in the debate between them, are how we distinguish between injustice and misfortune, as well as how we approach the issues of freedom and responsibility. The chapter explores this debate and presents a case study on racialized inequality in America, along with Key Thinkers boxes featuring Foucault and Steven Lukes.

scholarly journals Populism and the American Party System: Opportunities and Constraints

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances E. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Party System ◽  
The United States ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Party Leaders ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Democratic System ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
American Party ◽  
Democratic Norms

Does populism threaten American democracy, and if so, what is the nature of that threat? In dialogue with the comparative literature on populism, this article considers the opportunity structure available to populist parties and candidates in the American political system. I argue that compared to most other democracies, the US system offers much less opportunity for organized populist parties but more opportunity for populist candidacies. Today’s major parties may also be more vulnerable to populist insurgency than at other points in US history because of (1) changes in communications technology, (2) the unpopularity of mainstream parties and party leaders, and (3) representation gaps created by an increasingly racialized party system. Although no democratic system is immune to deterioration, the US constitutional system impedes authoritarian populism, just as it obstructs party power generally. But the vulnerability of the major parties to populist insurgency poses a threat to liberal democratic norms in the United States, just as it does elsewhere.

Other Domains of Democratic Theory: Space, Power, and the Politics of Democratization

10.1068/d255t ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Slater
Keyword(s):  
Social Relations ◽  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Social Identities ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
The West ◽  
Relations Of Power ◽  
Guiding Questions

Located in the analysis of spatial power and democratic politics, this paper brings together three guiding questions. First, given the fact that inside the West much theorization of power and social relations has assumed a geohistorical context that is intrinsically Western, to what extent and in what ways does this particularity constrain the conceptual and thematic effectiveness of the perspectives employed and especially in relation to the politics of democratization? Second, as it is most appropriate to argue that power shapes social identities, and that democratic politics cannot dispense with power, a key question becomes how to generate relations of power that are compatible with democratic values and opposed to ethnocentric privilege. Third, how can we open up a discussion of democratic politics so that the geographies of democratization can be explored in a way that might broaden our vision of power and geopolitics? These questions are pursued in the context of the coloniality of power and an exploration of the territoriality of democratization in the Peruvian and Bolivian cases. The overall objective is to go beyond the limits of a Euro—Americanist frame and open up the analysis of the complex and dynamic geographies of democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document