Scandals as a Positive Feature of Liberal Democratic Politics: A Durkheimian perspective

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 815-844 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Brenton
Keyword(s):  
Political Competition ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Moral Code ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Positive Role ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Positive Feature ◽  
Negative Side Effects ◽  
Political Scandals ◽  
Political Groups

Abstract Political scandals are an indicator of freedom of speech, an open and aggressive media and strong political competition. Émile Durkheim’s ideas on social cohesion have a particular resonance in liberal democracies, and raise the question of whether scandals can only occur in liberal democracies. Scandals enable an interrogation of the collective moral code and public opinion is used to punish the “deviant” behaviour of politicians, who are elevated to a symbolic position of moral authority. This form of non-violent social conflict between competing political groups performs a positive role in maintaining a healthy and vigilant democracy, albeit with the presence of some negative side-effects, such as incursions into the private sphere.

Commentary on “Democracy and Scandal: A Research Agenda”

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 863-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Brenton
Keyword(s):  
Research Agenda ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Safety Valve ◽  
Political Stability ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Positive Feature

Abstract In my original article “Scandals as a Positive Feature of Liberal Democratic Politics: A Durkheimian perspective” (2012b), I argued that scandals are actually a positive feature of liberal democratic politics, and rather than representing a threat to political stability serve an important function. Scandals provide a “safety valve” for the expression of negativity towards political actors while reinforcing collective values and ultimately strengthening the system, consistent with Durkheim’s ideas. The response to this article certainly contains some thought-provoking examples, but they do not contradict my argument that scandal can only occur in liberal democracies due to the necessity of freedom of speech, an open and aggressive media and strong political competition.

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.

scholarly journals Clan hierarchy as the basis of the “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-171
Author(s):  
S. A. Voronin ◽  
E. A. Bakina
Keyword(s):  
Political Competition ◽  
Political Crisis ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Systems ◽  
Protest Movements ◽  
Coup D'etat ◽  
The North ◽  
External Forces ◽  
Political Groups ◽  
North And South

In 2005, the so-called Tulip Revolution took place in Kyrgyzstan. In terms of form and content, the events that took place in Kyrgyzstan fully fit into the concept of protest movements (velvet, melon, jasmine and other revolutions) that unfolded at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries. The start to such “revolutions” aimed at changing the regime was given in 1953, when the Prime Minister of Iran Mossadyk was removed from power during the coup d’etat, which was supervised by the CIA. An analysis of the events in Kyrgyzstan showed that behind the coup that led to the overthrow of President Askar Akayev, there were external forces coordinating their efforts in accordance with the methodological recommendations of the American technologist of political coups Gene Sharpe. However, external actions, for all their significance, did not become the main cause of the Tulip Revolution, but acted only as a catalyst. Over the centuries, in Kyrgyzstan there has been a complex of internal contradictions between various political groups, which became the detonator of a political cataclysm in 2005. One of the most significant internal causes of the political crisis of 2005 was the clan rivalry of the North and South in the struggle for power. The clan hierarchy has been the foundation of the political systems of Central Asia for centuries; Kyrgyzstan was no exception. The article is devoted to the consideration of the mechanism of the clan hierarchy, the analysis of political competition between the North and the South, the role and importance of clans during the 2005 coup.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Liberal Democratic Torture

2005 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN LUKES
Keyword(s):  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Dirty Hands ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
Torture Memos ◽  
Lesser Evil

Liberal democracies have long practised torture, but should they ever permit their officials to torture (and, if so, when?), how should their citizens think and talk about it, and how should the law treat it? Is it just another instance of ‘dirty hands’ in politics? If it averts some terrible harm, can resorting to it be seen as choosing the ‘lesser evil’? What, then, is torture? The ‘torture memos’ of the Bush administration's legal advisers are reviewed and their attempt to narrow its definition criticized, as is Judge Posner's attempt to confine it to physical coercion. Attempts to evade the questions above (on the grounds that torture is never effective in averting disaster) are rejected. It is suggested that torture, unlike other cases of dirty hands considered, cannot be rendered liberal-democratically accountable, in the sense that it will sometimes be legitimate and, when not, punished, because its practice cannot be publicly recognized without undermining both the democratic and liberal components of liberal democracy. This suggestion is supported by adducing a ‘Durkheimian argument’ to the effect that our institutions and customs have been so penetrated by core elements of an egalitarian ‘religion of individualism’ that violating them threatens a kind of ‘moral disintegration’. This, it is argued, requires liberal democracies to reject the very idea of a scale that can allow comparison of the benefits against the costs of torturing. The absolute prohibition serves to maintain inhibitions, though these are currently being eroded by the fear of terrorism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document