Five Ways of Institutionalizing Political Opposition: Lessons from the Advanced Democracies

2004 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludger Helms
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
New Democracies ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Political Opposition ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Scant Attention ◽  
Democratic Systems ◽  
Western Democracies ◽  
Advanced Democracies

AbstractLegitimate political opposition constitutes a key component of any form of liberal democracy, which has, however, received surprisingly scant attention in the more recent political science literature. In an attempt to revitalize the debate about the various forms of political opposition, this paper starts with distinguishing five different ways or models of institutionalizing political opposition in liberal democratic systems. It goes on to look at how these different models have worked in the constitutional practice of selected western democracies. In the second part of this article, the focus is on the possible lessons that constitution-makers in democratizing countries could draw from this experience. Whereas there is no best model of opposition in general, some models would seem to be better suited to meet the particular needs of new democracies than others.

A Review of Public Issue Salience: Concepts, Determinants and Effects on Voting

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Dennison
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Party Systems ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Issue Salience ◽  
Public Issue ◽  
Electoral Behaviour ◽  
Advanced Democracies

In this article, I offer a review of the uses and findings regarding public issue salience in the political science literature, with a focus on electoral behaviour. I argue that in spite of the increased use of issue salience in recent years, with impressive explanatory results, the concept of issue salience remains underspecified and, at times, contradictory and that its antecedents remain relatively unknown. This is likely to have led to serious shortcomings when attempting to explain recent changes to party systems and electoral results in advanced democracies.

Case study 2

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewan Ferlie ◽  
Sue Dopson ◽  
Chris Bennett ◽  
Michael D. Fischer ◽  
Jean Ledger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Informal Networks ◽  
Think Tank ◽  
Significant Potential ◽  
Key Stakeholders

This chapter analyses the role of think tanks in generating a distinctive mode of policy knowledge, pragmatically orientated to inform and shape issues of importance to civil society. Drawing on political science literature, we argue that think tanks exploit niche areas of expertise and influence to actively mobilize policy analyses and recommendations across diverse stakeholders. Through our exploratory mapping of think tanks, geographically concentrated within London, we characterize their influence as significantly boosting knowledge intensity across the regional ecosystem. In particular, we study the empirical case of one London-based think tank which powerfully mobilized policy knowledge through its formal and informal networks to build influential expert consensus amongst key stakeholders. We conclude that such organizations act as key knowledge producers and mobilizers, with significant potential to influence policy discourses and implementation.

Recalling and/or Repressing German Marxism? The Case of Ernst Fraenkel

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
William E. Scheuerman
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
Third Way ◽  
Tony Blair ◽  
Political Theorist ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Judith Shklar ◽  
Third Way Politics

I spent a few unseasonably hot summer days in 1996 digging around in the German Federal Archives in Koblenz for what later became a lengthy essay on Ernst Fraenkel (1898–1975), the neglected German socialist political and legal thinker. I still recall struggling to justify my efforts not simply as an historian of ideas but also as a political theorist who, at least in principle, was expected to make systematic contributions to contemporary debates. The problem was that Fraenkel had focused his acumen on investigating liberal democratic instability and German fascism, matters that did not seem directly pertinent to a political and intellectual constellation in which political scientists were celebrating democracy's “third wave.” With Tony Blair and Bill Clinton touting Third Way politics, and many former dictatorships seemingly on a secure path to liberal democracy, Fraenkel's preoccupations seemed dated. Even though Judith Shklar had noted, as late as 1989, that “anyone who thinks that fascism in one guise or another is dead and gone ought to think again,” political pundits and scholars in the mid-1990s typically assumed that capitalist liberal democracy's future was secure. When I returned to the US and described my research to colleagues, they responded, unsurprisingly, politely but without much enthusiasm.

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 Causal Interaction and Effect Modification: Same Model, Different Concepts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke Keele ◽  
Randolph T. Stevenson
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Regression Models ◽  
Interaction Analysis ◽  
Effect Modification ◽  
The Political ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Causal Interaction ◽  
Single Treatment ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
The Difference

Social scientists use the concept of interactions to study effect dependency. Such analyses can be conducted using standard regression models. However, an interaction analysis may represent either a causal interaction or effect modification. Under causal interaction, the analyst is interested in whether two treatments have differing effects when both are administered. Under effect modification, the analysts investigates whether the effect of a single treatment varies across levels of a baseline covariate. Importantly, the identification assumptions for these two types of analysis are very different. In this paper, we clarify the difference between these two types of interaction analysis. We demonstrate that this distinction is mostly ignored in the political science literature. We conclude with a review of several applications.

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.

Toleration, Political Liberalism, and Peaceful Coexistence in the Muslim World

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Bican Sahin
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Muslim World ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Way Of Life ◽  
Peaceful Coexistence ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Regimes

How can Muslim societies marked by religious, cultural, and ethnic diversity secure peace and stability? I argue that the principle of toleration provides the most appropriate environment for the peaceful coexistence of these differences, for individuals living in a polity can adopt different moral views and experience their cultural, ethnic, and other differences peacefully. Toleration is mainly a characteristic of liberal democratic regimes. However, different traditions of liberalism lead to different versions of liberal democracy. Also, not all versions of liberalism value toleration to the same degree. I argue that a liberal democracy based on “political” rather than “comprehensive” liberalism provides the broadest space for the existence of differences, for it does not present a shared way of life, but only a political framework within which individuals and groups with different worldviews can solve their common political problems. However, a liberal democracy based on comprehensive liberalism requires cultural groups and/or individuals to subscribe to fundamental liberal values (e.g., autonomy), and this stance limits its room for toleration. Thus, if liberal democracy is going to be introduced into the Muslim world to bring about peace and stability, it must be a liberal democracy based on political, rather than comprehensive, liberalism.

Coming to (a Short) Life: The Czechoslovak Parliament 1989-1992

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Adéla Gjuričová
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
National Unity ◽  
Short Life ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
New Politics ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Velvet Revolution ◽  
Unitary State ◽  
Communist Past ◽  
Formal Procedures

The Czechoslovak federal parliament was designed in 1968 to replace the National Assembly of a unitary state and thus formally express equality between Czechs and Slovaks in the newly established federation. After the crash of the Prague Spring reforms, the socialist parliament lost most of its sovereignty, while preserving its federal character and formal procedures, thus providing a sort of “backup” legislature. The Velvet Revolution of 1989, with its proclaimed respect to peace and legality, logically found the ancient régime’s parliament in the centre of new politics. In the revolutionary parliament of 1989-1990, the concept of socialist parliamentarianism began to clash with new motives, such as the national unity, a break with the Communist past, liberal democracy, or subsidiarity. Various blends of socialist, revolutionary and liberal democratic views of the parliament consequently came to life, while each of these concepts as well as every practical policy was perceived and accepted in conflicting manners by the Czech and Slovak publics as well as political representations. Some of these differences turned out to be irreconcilable and the federal parliament eventually played a key role in administering the break-up of Czechoslovak federation in 1992.

Normativität und Wissenschaft in Zeiten von Populismus

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-175
Author(s):  
Isabelle-Christine Panreck
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
World War ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
The Times ◽  
Fundamental Values

The rise of populist parties throughout Europe is fostering the debate on normativism in science. Klaus von Beyme – one of Germany’s leading political scientists of the Second Generation after World War II – is an early sceptic of normative thinking in the field of political science. He campaigns for a neoinstitutionalist perspective which combines historical insights and empirical findings to describe and explain political phenomenons. Not only in the times of bloc confrontation before 1990 but also in the current debate on populism, Beyme’s hesitation against normative thinking is sharply criticised as a lack of normative comittment to the fundamental values of liberal democracy. Following the concept of Intellectual History, this paper analyses Beymes scientific writings against the backdrop of biographical and historical contextes. Further, the paper shows how methodological and epistemological assumptions can shape the production of knowledge in scientific discourses.

Historical and Contemporary Perspectives of Media and Citizenship

2011 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Terry Flew
Keyword(s):  
Political Science ◽  
Cultural History ◽  
Developing Nations ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Popular Media ◽  
Communication Media ◽  
Science Literature ◽  
Media Communication ◽  
Benedict Anderson

Citizenship has long been connected to communication media. Popular media have been both the relay points between the governing and the governed for purposes of developing nations and citizen identities as well as the places for articulating discontent with the unjust, illegitimate, or unpopular uses of public authority. Yet, one often struggles to find reference to the significance of media to the formation of citizenship practices and identities, particularly in mainstream political science literature. It has been largely in the field of cultural history, through the work of authors such as Benedict Anderson (1991) and Michael Schudson (1994), that a conception of citizenship is linked explicitly to the technologies and institutions of media communication.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document