The Portuguese Road to Neoliberalism (1976–1989)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Ricardo Noronha

The Portuguese constitution, passed in April 1976, considered the nationalisations undertaken after the Carnation Revolution to be ‘irreversible’, prescribing a development model based on state planning. Changes made to the constitutional text, in 1989, allowed for a privatisation programme that curtailed government intervention and reinforced market provision. This mirrored a previous shift in the public sphere. Whereas political debate in 1976 was mostly centred on state-led development models, the next decade witnessed the rise of a pro-market approach. Two crises of the balance of payments encouraged a growing number of economists, businessmen, journalists and politicians to argue for the need to revise the constitution, enhancing the role and scope of markets. This article focuses on the rise of a neoliberal intellectual field in Portugal between 1976 and 1989, analysing its efforts to overcome the legacy of the Carnation Revolution and build a competitive market order in a semiperipheral context.

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-211
Author(s):  
Lee Michael-Berger

The story of The Cenci’s first production is intriguing, since the play, based on the true story of a sixteenth-century Roman family and revolving around the theme of parricide, was published in 1819 but was denied a licence for many years. The Shelley Society finally presented it in 1886, although it was vetoed by the Lord Chamberlain, and to avoid censorship it had to be proclaimed as a private event. This article examines the political and social context of the production, especially the reception of actress’s Alma Murray’s rendition of Beatrice, the parricide, thus probing the ways in which The Cenci question was reframed, and placed in the public sphere, despite censorship. The staging of the play became the site of a political debate and the performance – an act of defiance against institutionalised power, but also an act of defiance against the alleged tyranny of mass culture.


Author(s):  
Julie Firmstone

Editorial journalism and newspapers’ editorial opinions represent an area of research that can make an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship between the press and politics. Editorials are a distinctive format and are the only place in a newspaper where the opinions of a paper as an organization are explicitly represented. Newspapers and the journalists who write editorials play a powerful role in constructing political debate in the public sphere. They use their editorial voice to attempt to influence politics either indirectly, through reaching public opinion, or directly, by targeting politicians. Editorial journalism is at its most persuasive during elections, when newspapers traditionally declare support for candidates and political parties. Despite the potential of editorial opinions to influence democratic debate, and controversy over the way newspapers and their proprietors use editorials to intervene in politics, editorial journalism is under-researched. Our understanding of the significance of this distinctive form of journalism can be better understood by exploring four key themes. First, asking “What is editorial journalism?” establishes the context of editorial journalism as a unique practice with opinion-leading intentions. Several characteristics of editorial journalism distinguish it from other formats and genres. Editorials (also known as leading articles) require a distinctive style and form of expression, occupy a special place in the physical geography of a newspaper, represent the collective institutional voice of a newspaper rather than that of an individual, have no bylines in the majority of countries, and are written with differing aims and motivations to news reports. The historical development of journalism explains the status of editorials as a distinctive form of journalism. Professional ideals and practices evolved to demand objectivity in news reporting and the separation of fact from opinion. Historically, editorial and advocacy journalism share an ethos for journalism that endeavors to effect social or political change, yet editorial journalism is distinctive from other advocacy journalism practices in significant ways. Editorials are also an integral part of the campaign journalism practiced by some newspapers. Second, research and approaches in the field of political communication have attributed a particularly powerful role to editorial journalism. Rooted in the effects tradition, researchers have attributed an important role to editorials in informing and shaping debate in the public sphere in four ways: (1) as an influence on readers, voters, and/or public opinion; (2) as an influence on the internal news agendas and coverage of newspapers; (3) as an influence on the agendas and coverage in other news media; and (4) as an influence on political or policy agendas. Theorizing newspapers as active and independent political actors in the political process further underpins the need to research editorial journalism. Third, editorial journalism has been overlooked by sociological studies of journalism practices. Research provides a limited understanding of the routines and practices of editorial journalists and the organization of editorial opinion at newspapers. Although rare, studies focusing on editorial journalism show that editorial opinion does not simply reflect the influence of proprietors, as has often been assumed. Rather, editorial opinions are shaped by a complex range of factors. Finally, existing research trajectories and current developments point to new challenges and opportunities for editorial journalism. These challenges relate to how professional norms respond to age-old questions about objectivity, bias, and partisanship in the digital age.


2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
GITTE MEYER

Journalists are often blamed for producing scare stories. It seems to have been forgotten that many, perhaps most, modern scare stories are based on scientific risk calculations, and that journalists are not trained in scaring the wits out of people in that particular way. A more precise accusation might be that journalists are eager, unthinking and unquestioning conveyors of results from scientific risk calculations. Calculation of risk has become an important research product; a product fitting nicely into conventional journalistic storytelling, but the concept of risk tends to dilute value disagreement and conflict of interests into seemingly purely factual issues, leaving little room for political debate. Moreover, the cargo attitude of journalism is in conflict with the journalistic ideal of critical investigation and analysis on behalf of the public to stimulate common deliberation in the public sphere. Apparently, the production of scientific knowledge is excluded from the public sphere. Regarding discussions on science and technology, journalists will have to enquire into aspects of facts, values and social interests to live up to the ideal of investigation on behalf of the public. Several obstacles along this path can be identified, one of them being the commercialization of journalism in the media-industry and of scientific research in the knowledge-industry. Universities, in the search for a meaning of life, might consider providing a home for independent, reflexive journalism on science in a social context.


2008 ◽  
Vol 41 (04) ◽  
pp. 835-837
Author(s):  
Micah Altman ◽  
Kenneth Rogerson

Accelerating technological change is one of the defining characteristics of this era. And the intersection of information, technology, and politics is a constantly changing arena. Technological change can provide the subject for political debate, such as in the controversy over electronic voting (see Tokaji 2005); affect the means by which politics is conducted, such as in the use of information technologies to provide government services and collect regulatory feedback (see Fountain 2001; West 2005; and Mayer-Schonberger and Lazer 2007); or challenge our understanding of political theories and concepts, such as the meaning of privacy and of the public sphere (see Etzioni 2000 and Sunstein 2007 on the meaning of privacy and the compartmentalization of “public” speech, Bimber 2003 on the effect of information technologies on democracy, and Benkler 2006 on the reinterpretation of the public sphere). Each of these perspectives is visible locally, regionally, nationally, and globally.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Stuart

At this moment in New Zealand’s history there is a need for healthy political debate on a range of issues. Specifically, the foreshore and seabed issue has created division and fears between Māori and Pakeha and brought the Treaty of Waitangi to the fore again. As well, settlements of historic grievances with Māori have added to growing Pakeha unease. In this climate there is a need for wide-ranging public discussion of these issues, and the news media seem the obvious site for those discussions. But how well are the New Zealand news media fulfilling that role? This commentary takes the public sphere to be the sum total of all visible decision-making processes within a culture and uses this concept as an analytical tool to examine aspects of the health of New Zealand’s democracy. It uses discourse analysis approaches to show how the mainstream media are in fact isolating Māori from the general public sphere and, after outlining some general aspects of the Māori public sphere, argues that the news media’s methodologies, grounded in European-based techniques and approaches, are incapable of interacting with the Māori public sphere. I am arguing that while there is an appearance of an increased awareness and discussion of cultural issues, the mainstream media are, in reality, sidelining Māori voices and controlling the political discussion in favour of the dominant culture. They are therefore not fulfilling their self-assigned role of providing information for people to function within our democracy. Keywords: 


Author(s):  
Pablo A. Piccato

Free speech was a greater concern for Mexican politicians, legislators, and intellectuals during the 19th century than electoral democracy. This can be easily verified by looking at the large number of laws, decrees, trials, appeals, and polemics provoked by contradictory efforts to guarantee the right to express reasonable opinions, formulated since the 1812 Cádiz Constitution, and the concern to limit that freedom for the preservation of stability, morality, religion, and honor. Mexican public men spent considerably more energy reading and arguing about written words than counting votes. Yet the historiography of Mexican liberalism has, for the most part, stressed the history of frustrated attempts to expand representation and thus consolidate sovereignty. This article looks at the public sphere as a space for but also of contention. Politics, as was understood by most political agents of the time, took place in that virtual space, and a good part of political conflict revolved around the right to speak on behalf of public opinion. The broader arc to be described here starts with the contentious and romantic decades since the 1857 Constitution consecrated free speech and press juries and moves through the taming of the press using legal reforms and politically motivated prosecutions under Porfirio Díaz, to the consolidation of a new order in which a diverse and prosperous press struck an understanding with the post revolutionary regime to constrain the possibilities of political debate, around 1930.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 241-250
Author(s):  
Olexander Serghijovych Tokovenko ◽  
Oleksii Anatoliyovych Tretiak

The prospects of development of modern political theory in the context of filling the new semantic values of concepts of political discourse, political communication and public political representation are considered. The network of newly established democratic institutions, which required firm defenition, practicing public political debate and not distorted political communication defined. With the help of the comparative method, the common and different conceptual views of political debate in interpreting deliberative democracy and the public sphere of politics studied. The content of the concept of the public sphere of politics as a factor of coverage of the transition of democratic public institutions of transformational countries from the state of declarative to a state of sustainable democracy is discussed. Public sphere of politics as mainly unifying concept that determines the possibility of various aspects of joint interpretation of political realities and possibilities of the political participants’ appearance for any topic studied. The subject areas of the concepts of deliberative politics and the public sphere of politics regarding the ways of personal and institutional self-presentation are determined. The specifics of the reflection of political conflict and political decisions within the limits of the values of the public sphere of politics and deliberative democracy are revealed. The features of common approaches to the interpretation of political pluralism and political competition in the semantic structures of the public sphere of politics and deliberative democracy are explored. It emphasizes the flexibility of the concept of the public sphere of politics as a concept that encompasses a large number of events and phenomena of political communication. The possibility of a non-idealist approach to public political presentations on the Internet is substantiated. The political meaning dimensions of political deliberation and political manifestation which differ in explanations background of individual behavior, based on the ancient principle of political pragmatism and defending of selfish interests considered.The explanatory potential of a deliberative policy and the public sphere of politics is singled out. The peculiarities of crossing the subject areas of the public sphere of politics and deliberative democracy in the context of the functioning of modern civil society are established.


Author(s):  
Richard Staley

This chapter pairs a study of ether and aesthetics in exploring dialogues between relativists and critics in two different periods. In the 1880s, Ernst Mach argued against absolute time and space but also offered new perspectives on aesthetic phenomena and speculated on a gravitational ether. In 1905, Albert Einstein announced the superfluity of the luminiferous ether, but by 1918 had described space without the ether as ‘unthinkable’. Responding to his friend H. A. Lorentz and critics Ernst Gehrke and Philipp Lenard, Einstein both used the literary form of a dialogue between a relativist and a critic and defined a new gravitational ether that might have disarmed criticism. Neither strategy was successful, however, and the chapter concludes with an examination of social and aesthetic dimensions of the environment of political debate, commercial publishing and disciplinary discussions that marked the emergence of relativity in the public sphere in the post-war period.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
Dr. Samson Ranti Akinola

Abstract The increasing deprivation, neglect and orchestrated politics of exclusion by the Nigerian-state against the people of the Niger Delta can be traced to the structurally-defective and centralized governance arrangements in the Niger Delta. The consequent stiff resistance, violent reactions, militancy and hostage taking triggered by this politics of exclusion in the region have confirmed that people matter in politics. This paper argues that in some ways, the weakness of centralized and structurally-defective governance in the Niger Delta provides an opportunity for community self-governing institutions to play the role that governments and their agencies have abandoned. Using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, this paper engages in problem solving and solution seeking strategies that could help restructure the public sphere in the Niger Delta. This paper demonstrates principles and practices needed to make polycentric planning, self-governance and adaptive development strategies resolve socio-economic and political crisis. It is in light of this exigency that this paper develops an African Public Sphere Restructuring Model (APSRM) that derives inspirations and workability mechanisms from twelve (12) African development models that cut across several sectors of the economy in the Niger Delta.


Politeja ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (5 (68)) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
Marcin Tobiasz

Contemporary democracy requires rethinking on the normative level and certain changes in the institutional and cultural dimensions. To this end, we should start by revising our perception of the public sphere and the role that citizens have to play in it. First of all, it should be emphasized that the public sphere is composed of various citizens’ forums, which should be effectively included in the political decision-making process. New institutional solutions must ensure the free flow of information between citizens and take into account different, even minority points of view, because democracy, if it is not to be exclusive, cannot be limited only to formal representation and closed, top-defined forms of discourse. In fact, people are unequal in terms of their civic competences, both in terms of their individual characteristics, as well as their social position, and democracy should neutralize these inequalities. These problems cannot be solved on purely theoretical grounds. Indeed, the clash of different views and arguments in the political debate is a constitutive element of politics, and therefore they have to be negotiated in practice by actual citizens. The lack of such solutions and, consequently, the experiences enabling the development of civic competences, not only result in a crisis of democracy, but also lead to the negation of the very essence of politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document