Co-creating Democratic Legitimacy: Potentials and Pitfalls

2021 ◽  
pp. 009539972110617
Author(s):  
Asbjørn Røiseland

The aim of the article is to discuss how and to what extent co-creation has the capacity to strengthen democratic legitimacy. By distinguishing between output-based and input-based co-creation, and by discussing types of legitimacy in relation to deliberative, participatory, and representative conceptions of democracy, the article points to potentials and pitfalls inherent in the idea of co-creation. Four examples from Denmark and Norway are used to illustrate the argument. In conclusion, the article points to main challenges associated with co-creation which deserves more research—particularly inequality of individual resources and the clash with the party-political system.

2018 ◽  
pp. 126-146
Author(s):  
Daniel Abreu Azevedo

RESUMOO presente artigo tem como objetivo principal trazer o conceito de espaço político e sua relação com o sistema político democrático, analisando, especificamente, o caso dos Conselhos Municipais e o modelo da democracia participativa. A partir dessa discussão teórico-conceitual, busca-se lançar luz, através de uma perspectiva geográfica, sobre a forma de governo que, ao mesmo tempo em que se expande no mundo, também tem sua legitimidade questionada. A partir de pesquisa empírica desenvolvida nos Conselhos Municipais do Rio de Janeiro entre os anos de 2015-2016, o artigo analisa especificamente o caso dos Conselhos Tutelares e questiona a legitimidade democrática dessas novas instituições brasileiras.Palavras-chave: espaço político, democracia participativa, Conselhos Municipais, Conselhos Tutelares, Rio de Janeiro. ABSTRACTThe main objective of this article is to bring the concept of political space and its relation to the democratic political system, specifically analyzing the case of Municipal Councils and the model of participatory democracy. From this theoretical-conceptual discussion, we seek to highligh, through a geographical perspective, the form of government that, at the same time it expands in the world, also it has its legitimacy questioned. Based on empirical research developed in the Municipal Councils of Rio de Janeiro between the years 2015-2016, the article specifically analyzes the case of the Tutelary Councils and the democratic legitimacy of these new Brazilian institutions.Keywords: political space, participatory democracy, Municipal Councils, Tutelary Councils, Rio de Janeiro.


2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (10) ◽  
pp. 1349-1370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Manow ◽  
Holger Döring

Voters who participate in elections to the European Parliament (EP) apparently use these elections to punish their domestic governing parties. Many students of the EU therefore claim that the party—political composition of the Parliament should systematically differ from that of the EU Council. This study shows that opposed majorities between council and parliament may have other than simply electoral causes. The logic of domestic government formation works against the representation of more extreme and EU-skeptic parties in the Council, whereas voters in EP elections vote more often for these parties. The different locations of Council and Parliament are therefore caused by two effects: a mechanical effect—relevant for the composition of the Council—when national votes are translated into office and an electoral effect in European elections. The article discusses the implications of this finding for our understanding of the political system of the EU and of its democratic legitimacy.


AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 208-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jure Vidmar

In the 1990s, international legal scholarship was marked by democratic idealism and the belief that democracy had become the only legitimate political system. The more radical proposals even speculated about legality of pro-democratic intervention. Such re-conceptualizations of international law were met with determined criticism. However, even skeptical voices were willing to admit that democracy nevertheless did have some limited normative force in post-Cold War international law. While it would be an exaggeration to say that nondemocratic governments are illegitimate per se, a consensus started to emerge that international law prohibited at least a coup against a democratic government. In the absence of a workable definition of substantive democracy for international law purposes, a democratic government was understood as an authority which comes to power in an electoral process that is reasonably free and fair.


Author(s):  
Hannu Nieminen

There is no immediate or absolute relationship between the media and democracy in the sense that, without media, there could be no democracy. Similarly, it does not follow that with the (modern) media comes democracy. Autocracies exist wherein the media supports a political system, and likewise, democracies exist wherein the media works to undermine a political system. However, most often the media and democracy are viewed as supporting each other. This connection is the product of a long historical development, one peculiar to European (and North American) societies, involving not only institutions and practices directly linked to the media-based and democratic processes, but numerous other institutions (such as education, the political system, religion, etc.) as well. The media are not the only institutions that promote (or do not promote) democratic legitimacy. Other major institutions of such influence include education, religion, public authority, cultural institutions, and political systems, among others. From a wider societal viewpoint, the role of the media is rather reduced in influence. If, for example, an education system is based on ethnic or other forms of segregation, or if there is widespread religious intolerance, or if public authority suffers from corruption, it is obvious that the media has only so many resources to encourage systemic legitimacy. The fundamental interrelatedness of different social institutions makes it difficult, or even impossible, to study the media as a phenomenon isolated from the rest of society. For this reason, we should be careful when making comparisons between the media in different countries, even the media outlets within liberal democracies. In addition, there is no consensus as to the right balance of media and other social institutions in a democracy. Throughout the history of democracy, the relations between institutions (the political system, economy, media, and civil society) have undergone renegotiations and adjustments during times of crisis. Over the past few decades, this relationship appears to have reached a new crisis, one that continues to this day and still lacks a clear solution. In many countries, civil society–based media reform movements have been established with clear goals to further democratize media systems. One of the key arguments of these movements has centered on the contradiction between the constitutional obligations of democratic countries and the reality that, in practice, these rights do not apply equally to all. There remain major differences today between different social groups in terms of open access to and the unrestricted availability of information, the ability to utilize information according to one’s needs, having a voice represented by decision-makers, and respect for privacy and personal integrity.


Author(s):  
Joseph Lacey

Centripetal democracy is the idea that legitimate democratic institutions set in motion forms of citizen practice and representative behaviour that serve as powerful drivers of political identity formation. Partisan modes of political representation in the context of multifaceted electoral and direct democratic voting opportunities are emphasized on this model. There is, however, a strain of thought predominant in political theory that doubts the democratic capacities of political systems constituted by multiple public spheres. This view is referred to as the lingua franca thesis on sustainable democratic systems (LFT). Inadequate democratic institutions and acute demands to divide the political system (through devolution or secession), are predicted by this thesis. By combining an original normative democratic theory with a comparative analysis of how Belgium and Switzerland have variously managed to sustain themselves as multilingual democracies, this book identifies the main institutional features of a democratically legitimate European Union (EU) and the conditions required to bring it about. Part I presents a novel theory of democratic legitimacy and political identity formation on which subsequent analyses are based. Part II defines the EU as a demoi-cracy and provides a thorough democratic assessment of this political system. Part III explains why Belgium has largely succumbed to the centrifugal logic predicted by the LFT, while Switzerland apparently defies this logic. Part IV presents a model of centripetal democracy for the EU, one that would greatly reduce its democratic deficit and help to ensure that this political system does not succumb to the centrifugal forces expected by the LFT.


Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Lafont

This essay focuses on recent proposals to confer decisional status upon deliberative mini-publics such as citizens' juries, Deliberative Polls, and citizens' assemblies. Against such proposals, I argue that inserting deliberative mini-publics into political decision-making processes would diminish the democratic legitimacy of the political system as a whole. This negative conclusion invites a question: which political uses of mini-publics would yield genuinely democratic improvements? Drawing from a participatory conception of deliberative democracy, I propose several uses of mini-publics that could enhance the democratic legitimacy of political decision-making in current societies.


Author(s):  
Greg Yudin

Electoral procedures, such as elections, voting, or opinion polling, play a pivotal role in the Russian political system. A theoretical problem for contemporary political science arises; how can this proactive recourse to the popular voice coexist with the obvious depoliticization and concentration of personal power? Describing the Russian political regime as intermediary and inferior as opposed to full democracies cannot account for its electoral enthusiasm nor its robustness and endurance. This paper reverts to the plebiscitarian theory of democracy to address these issues. Combining monarchical power with universal suffrage created the political system of the Second Empire in France, and was later thoroughly theorized in Germany during the years of the Weimar Republic. Plebiscitary democracy produces direct democratic legitimacy for a strong leader while severely reducing the role of the masses under a drastic and rapid extension of suffrage. This paper identifies key principles as well as the main contradictions of plebiscitarian regimes. Additionally, it demonstrates that the plebiscitarian ideas proposed by Max Weber and Carl Schmitt have affected the minimalist definition of democracy espoused by Joseph Schumpeter, and therefore keeps enjoying a wide influence in political science. In identifying democracy with elections, the minimalist view promotes the electoralization of political regimes and favors the contemporary rise of plebiscitarianism. The paper considers present-day Russia as a radical case of plebiscitarian politics and traces some of its key developments.


1986 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Binder

Modernization theory is essentially an academic, and pseudoscientific, transfer of the dominant, and ideologically significant, paradigm employed in research on the American political system. The still dominant paradigm, despite increasing criticism and revisionism is, of course, the pragmatic-pluralist conception of political process, associated with a form of liberalism which links democratic legitimacy with high levels of participation and with egalitarian distributive outcomes. While this paradigm has been criticized as either scientifically inadequate or normatively skewed (toward freedom, against order), its vigor as a legitimating explanation is largely undiminished. This pluralist legitimation of the American political system is based upon a relatively simple conception of political structure, which is understood as producing an appearance of a formal contradiction which is, in turn, resolved by means of the concept of time (or process). Just as Martin Heidegger used the idea of temporality to resolve the apparent contradiction between Being and existence, so the temporality of the pragmatic-pluralist political process resolves the apparent contradiction between the structured inequality of the American system at any given time and the legitimating ideal of equality. Temporality justifies inequality by subordinating it to the freedom to restructure the system through unfettered, self-motivated mobility. In other words, since freedom justifies order, according to this doctrine, an alternative scientific justification of either freedom or order has obvious political drawbacks.


Author(s):  
Joseph Lacey

On the basis of the account of democracy laid out in Part I, and the understanding of the EU as a demoi-cracy in Chapter 3, an assessment of the EU’s democratic credentials is provided in this chapter. Fundamentally, the question to be answered concerns the extent to which member state citizens have control over EU decision-making through their governments and directly as citizens of the Union. While there are important standards of democratic legitimacy that the EU at least partially meets, the assessment concludes that the EU is a political system with some major shortcomings in this regard. The degree to which citizens can directly control European institutions, or their governments’ behaviour with regard to these institutions, is lacking in crucial respects.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Oliver Westerwinter

Abstract Friedrich Kratochwil engages critically with the emergence of a global administrative law and its consequences for the democratic legitimacy of global governance. While he makes important contributions to our understanding of global governance, he does not sufficiently discuss the differences in the institutional design of new forms of global law-making and their consequences for the effectiveness and legitimacy of global governance. I elaborate on these limitations and outline a comparative research agenda on the emergence, design, and effectiveness of the diverse arrangements that constitute the complex institutional architecture of contemporary global governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document