Political Parties and the Overlapping Consensus

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Bonotti
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Public Reason ◽  
Overlapping Consensus ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Creative Agency ◽  
Public Reasoning ◽  
The Common ◽  
Comprehensive Doctrines ◽  
Political Liberal

This chapter rejects the ‘extrinsic’ view of public reason examined in Chapter 4, and argues that political parties can play an important role in helping citizens to relate their comprehensive doctrines to political liberal values and institutions. Once we understand the distinctive normative demands of partisanship, this chapter claims, we can see that there is no inherent tension between them and the demands of the Rawlsian overlapping consensus. This is because partisanship (unlike factionalism) involves a commitment to the common good rather than the sole advancement of merely partial interests, and this implies a commitment to public reasoning. The chapter further examines three distinctive empirical features of parties that particularly enable them to contribute to an overlapping consensus. These are their linkage function, their advancement of broad multi-issue political platforms, and their creative agency.

What is the Common Good? The Case for Transcending Partisanship

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-94
Author(s):  
Mickey Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Political System ◽  
General Election ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

Even if most of us can agree on a definition of the “common good” (not a simple matter), there are substantial barriers to establishing public policies in accord with that agreement. The “democratic” element in our political system – the right of voters to choose the men and women who will create our laws – depends on the views of those voters being given considerable weight in determining eventual policy outcomes. Unfortunately, we have developed a political system – both in our elections and in the governing process – that gives disproportionate influence to relatively small numbers of voters (who are also the most partisan) and allows political parties through their closed procedures to limit the choices available to general election voters. Coupled with legislative rules that allow partisans to determine the makeup of legislative committees, the resulting process leaves the common good, however defined, a secondary consideration at best.

scholarly journals Weapons of the Meek

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna GrzyMala-Busse
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Common Good ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Colonial Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Electoral Support ◽  
The Common

How do churches influence public policy and why does their influence vary across similarly religious societies? Prevalent accounts focus on the mobilization of voter demand and coalitions with political parties that offer policy concessions in exchange for electoral support. This article argues, by contrast, that such strategies are both risky and costly, and it demonstrates instead the power of direct institutional access for writing legislation, vetting officials, and even running sectors of the state. Such institutional access is available only to churches with high moral authority: those perceived by the public as representing the common good and the national interest. Churches in Christian democracies have gained such moral authority by defending the nation against a foreign regime, state, or colonial power. In short, churches are most influential when they have the high moral authority to obtain direct institutional access—thus avoiding popular backlash against overt and partisan church politicking.

scholarly journals Voters’ preferences for party representation: Promise-keeping, responsiveness to public opinion or enacting the common good

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annika Werner
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Common Good ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression ◽  
Representative Democracy ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Multinomial Logistic Regression Analysis ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
The Common ◽  
Promise Keeping

The functioning of representative democracy is crucially dependent on the representative behaviour of political parties. Large parts of the party representation literature assume that voters expect parties to fulfil the promises of their election programs. What voters actually want from parties, however, remains largely unclear. Within the Australian context, this article investigates the preferences of voters regarding three ideal party representative styles: ‘promise keeping’; ‘focus on public opinion’; and ‘seeking the common good’. Using a novel survey tool, this study finds that voters value promise keeping highly when it is evaluated individually. However, they rate seeking the common good as most important when the three styles are directly compared. A multinomial logistic regression analysis shows that, in particular, voters who have been involved in party grassroots activities prefer promise keeping. These findings have wider implications for our understanding of how representative democracy can and should work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document