Liberal-Democratic Torture

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-34
Author(s):  
William L. d'Ambruoso
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Standard Definition ◽  
Norm Violations ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Pattern Of Recurrence

This chapter gives a primer on liberal-democratic torture. A brief summary of the historical record shows that liberal democracies have repeatedly engaged in “stealth” coercive interrogation, which the chapter argues usually qualifies as torture by the UN Convention against Torture’s standard definition. What can explain the pattern of recurrence that emerges? Previous work is a useful starting point but leaves important questions unanswered. Lack of monitoring can invite norm violations, but torture is not always hidden. Racism and anger make states and individuals more likely to torture, but they do not tell us why torture often occurs in conjunction with demands for intelligence. Realist and rational choice arguments help to explain the frequent connection between torture and intelligence needs, but they fail to address critical lurking puzzles: Why do people believe torture works? And how do torturers justify these norm-breaking deeds to themselves and others?

scholarly journals The Puzzle of Abu Ghraib: Are Democratic Institutions a Palliative or Panacea?

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Davenport ◽  
Will H. Moore ◽  
David Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
The State ◽  
Abu Ghraib ◽  
Democratic Institutions ◽  
State Repression ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Global Evidence

The events of Abu Ghraib exposed politicians, journalists, military and law enforcement personnel, NGOs, activists and ordinary citizens to the potential brutality of state repression. Many were left stunned that the agents of a liberal democracy would perpetrate such horrific acts against individuals in the state's control. Such shock makes sense if one believes that liberal democratic institutions constrain leaders from acting on the utilitarian incentive to employ torture during interrogations. While such a belief is apparently widespread, is it consistent with the recent historical record? Extant theories of repression and global evidence about torture suggest that it is not. We distinguish among three mechanisms that might constrain the use of torture in liberal democracies: voice, veto, and freedom of expression. We then argue that voice is unlikely to have a strong effect when the state is faced with violent dissent, and that the effect of veto and freedom of expression will be substantially reduced when the state is faced with a violent challenge. To test our hypotheses we use data from 146 countries covering the years 1980-1999 and investigate the extent to which voice, veto, or freedom of expression inhibit countries' use of torture both in times of quiescence and in times when dissidents challenge the state with violence. We find that rather than being aberrant, state-sponsored torture like that in Abu Ghraib is perfectly consistent with both theory and previous experience. More specifically, democratic institutions reduce the probability that a state uses torture in only limited circumstances.

Group-Differentiated Rights and the Liberal Democratic State: Rethinking the Headscarf Controversy in Turkey

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 31-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeşim Arat
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
The Past ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Clifford Geertz ◽  
Ethnocultural Groups ◽  
Special Rights ◽  
The Relationship

The development of liberalism with both the courage and the capacity to engage itself with a different world, one in which its principles are neither well understood nor widely held, in which indeed it is, in most places, a minority creed, alien and suspect, is not only possible, it is necessary.-Clifford Geertz. 2000.Available Light.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, p. 258.Over the past two decades, the debate over multiculturalism challenged the justice of neutral, “difference blind” rules in liberal democracies. Allegedly neutral institutions were shown to be implicitly biased toward the priorities, experiences, or interests of the dominant groups in the society. Criticism of difference-blind rules and claims for justice to minority groups defined the relationship between government and opposition in many contexts. Arguments for special rights to protect minorities, women, or ethnocultural groups gained legitimacy (Young 1990, Jones 1990, Phillips 1991, Taylor 1994, Kymlicka 1995, Kymlicka and Norman 2000).

Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARASH ABIZADEH
Keyword(s):  
Social Integration ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Public Culture ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Shared Norms

This paper subjects to critical analysis four common arguments in the sociopolitical theory literature supporting the cultural nationalist thesis that liberal democracy is viable only against the background of a single national public culture: the arguments that (1) social integration in a liberal democracy requires shared norms and beliefs (Schnapper); (2) the levels of trust that democratic politics requires can be attained only among conationals (Miller); (3) democratic deliberation requires communicational transparency, possible in turn only within a shared national public culture (Miller, Barry); and (4) the economic viability of specifically industrialized liberal democracies requires a single national culture (Gellner). I argue that all four arguments fail: At best, a shared cultural nation may reduce some of the costs liberal democratic societies must incur; at worst, cultural nationalist policies ironically undermine social integration. The failure of these cultural nationalist arguments clears the way for a normative theory of liberal democracy in multinational and postnational contexts.

scholarly journals Security and democratic equality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Milstein
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Community ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Equality ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Fear Mongering ◽  
American Cities

Abstract After a recent spate of terrorist attacks in European and American cities, liberal democracies are reintroducing emergency securitarian measures (ESMs) that curtail rights and/or expand police powers. Political theorists who study ESMs are familiar with how such measures become instruments of discrimination and abuse, but the fundamental conflict ESMs pose for not just civil liberty but also democratic equality still remains insufficiently explored. Such phenomena are usually explained as a function of public panic or fear-mongering in times of crisis, but I show that the tension between security and equality is in fact much deeper and more general. It follows a different logic than the more familiar tension between security and liberty, and it concerns not just the rule of law in protecting liberty but also the role of law in integrating new or previously subjected groups into a democratic community. As liberal-democratic societies become increasingly diverse and multicultural in the present era of mass immigration and global interconnectedness, this tension between security and equality is likely to become more pronounced.

Liberalism, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear

Politics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Sparks
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
The Political ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Politics Of Fear ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Political Health ◽  
The Impact

This article considers the impact of terror and fear on the political health of liberal democratic societies. It examines the strategic use of terror to produce a politics of fear through an exploration of current Western reactions to terrorism. The argument is developed through a presentation of a three-part map of the politics of fear constituted by the instigation of fear, the (attempted) eradication of fear and the management of fear. Central to this presentation is an analysis of the destabilising effects the introduction of terror has on civil society and government, and of the effective ways of responding to it. Running through the presentation is an analysis of the constitution of terror and fear, their relationship to each other and to the general insecurities which beset liberal democracies.

Torture and the Norm against It

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
William L. d'Ambruoso
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
First Century ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Twenty First Century

Why has torture persisted into the twenty-first century despite long-standing normative and legal prohibitions? Especially strange is torture’s occurrence at the hands of liberal democracies, which are supposed to uphold human rights. Perhaps we should not be surprised by democratic hypocrisy in war—realists and rational choice theorists expect all states to violate norms if doing so holds instrumental promise. Yet torture is likely to yield inaccurate intelligence, harm valuable detainees’ memories, stress interrogators, invite retaliation, and encourage the enemy to fight on rather than surrender. In short, torture is both ethically and efficaciously questionable—and its recurrence is puzzling.

Introduction: Questioning the Punitive Paradox

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Insa Lee Koch
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
The State ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Popular Support ◽  
The Core ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
State Coercion

The introduction starts with what many have seen as a worrying paradox: the illiberal turn that liberal democracies have taken with, or perhaps because of, popular support. While commentators have focused on ‘why’ liberal democracy has taken an illiberal turn, the book proposes an alternative starting point that focuses on the ‘how’ and the ‘what’: what democracy means to some of Britain’s most marginalized citizens in the first place and how these citizens engage with the state. It is by shifting the analytical focus to these questions that a more encompassing legacy of state coercion than commonly acknowledged in narratives of the punitive turn can be brought into focus, as well as the possibility of its critique and subversion. The introduction sets out council estates as a historical and ethnographic setting for such a project, outlines the methodology, and introduces the anthropological framework at the core of the book.

HIGHER EDUCATION FOR HAREDIM IN ISRAEL

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-283
Author(s):  
Tova Hartman ◽  
Chaim Zicherman
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Gender Segregation ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Adequate Education ◽  
The Right ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Intense Debate

AbstractOver the past two decades a number of Israeli institutions of higher education have opened gender-segregated programs for the ultra-Orthodox, or haredim. The growth of these programs has generated an intense debate in Israel, reflected throughout Israeli media and in several appeals to Israel's Supreme Court. The issues raised concerning gender-segregated higher education reflect an overarching inquiry that is of great interest to multicultural theoreticians: the relationship of liberal democracies to their illiberal minorities. Multicultural theoreticians agree that healthy democracies must tolerate some illiberal practices while acknowledging that not every illiberal practice can be tolerated. In the case at hand, the essay addresses the question: can a liberal democracy tolerate gender-segregated higher education? Using work by Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, Kwame Anthony Appiah, John Inazu, and others, the essay reviews the arguments for and against gender segregation in higher education for Israeli haredim. The essay explores the limits of toleration of illiberal cultures within liberal democratic societies and finds crucial the right to exit such a culture—a right whose viability is dependent upon adequate education. The essay concludes by discussing the multiculturalism organization development model and what has been termed the manyness and messiness of multiculturalism.

scholarly journals The Uneasy Case for Parsimony in (Law and) Economics: Conceptual, Empirical and Normative Arguments

Global Jurist ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Cserne
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Law And Economics ◽  
Intellectual Honesty ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Value Judgements ◽  
Parsimonious Models ◽  
Economic Analyses ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties

Abstract Taking Guido Calabresi’s discussion of preferences and value judgements in The Future of Law and Economics as a starting point, this paper analyses some conceptual difficulties, epistemic benefits and normative uses of parsimonious economic analyses of “tastes and values.” First, the paper shows that it is not only possible to analyse and model all the richness of “tastes and values” in terms of rational choice theory with intellectual honesty and epistemic benefit. In fact, economists and economically inspired legal scholars have been doing this for a while. Second, it discusses three arguments that economists can mount in support of parsimonious models. Third, it shows that in spite of these benefits the merits of such an exercise in parsimony do not always clearly outweigh its drawbacks. In doing so, the paper distinguishes three types of limits of such parsimonious modelling.

Liberal Democracy: One Form or Many?

1992 ◽  
Vol 40 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 130-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Ware
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Subsequent Section ◽  
The One

This article examines whether there are significant differences between liberal democracies which warrant them being classified as different forms of democracy. The article begins by outlining six features of liberal democracy which are crucial in understanding how this type of government works. The subsequent section examines the origins of liberal democracy and considers the relevance of arguments derived from American ‘exceptionalism’. Attention is then focused on liberal democratic governments today – by reference to Lijphart's distinction between ‘majoritarian’ and ‘consensus' democracies. Finally, the article looks at whether the form of liberal democracy is changed substantially when it is transplanted into a cultural context different from the one in which it originated. The general conclusion is that there is no case for identifying different forms of liberal democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document