scholarly journals THE DEMOCRATIC BOUNDARY PROBLEM RECONSIDERED

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gustaf Arrhenius
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Boundary Problem ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Recent Criticism ◽  
Decision Method ◽  
The People ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Theoretical Import

Who should have a right to take part in which decisions in democratic decision making? This “boundary problem” is a central issue for democracy and is of both practical and theoretical import. If nothing else, all different notions of democracy have one thing in common: a reference to a community of individuals, “a people”, who takes decision in a democratic fashion. However, that a decision is made with a democratic decision method by a certain group of people doesn’t suffice for making the decision democratic or satisfactory from a democratic perspective. The group also has to be the right one. But what makes a group the right one? The criteria by which to identify the members of the people entitled to participate in collective decisions have been surprisingly difficult to pin down. In this paper, I shall revisit some of the problems discussed in my 2005 paper in light of some recent criticism and discussion of my position in the literature, and address a number of new issues.

The Right to Self-Determination under the Ethiopian Constitution: A Legal Tool for Indigenous Peoples’ Protection against Land Alienation?

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 359-383
Author(s):  
Tilahun Weldie Hindeya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Land Resources ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
The People ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right

AbstractSince 2008 the Ethiopian government has allocated vast tracts of land, particularly in the Gambella and Benishangul-Gumuz regions, to agricultural commercial actors with little or no participation from indigenous communities. The marginalization of indigenous peoples in this process primarily emerges from the government's very wide legislative discretionary power regarding decision-making in the exploitation of land. The government has invoked constitutional clauses relating to land ownership and its power to deploy land resources for the “common benefit” of the people, to assert the consistency of this discretionary power with the Ethiopian Constitution. This article posits that the legislative and practical measures taken by the government that marginalize these indigenous peoples in decisions affecting the utilization of land resources are incompatible with their constitutional right to self-determination. Further, it posits that the government's use of the constitution to justify its wide discretionary power in the decision-making process relating to land exploitation is based on a misreading of the constitution.

scholarly journals Independence of Judiciary in Pakistan: An analysis of 18th & 19th Constitutional Amendments

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Rafia Naz Ali
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Government Agencies ◽  
Elected Officials ◽  
Equal Rights ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
The People ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
The Press ◽  
The World ◽  
The Right

Democracies exist all over the world. In democratic states, elected officials make collective decisions on behalf of the people. People of a state are allowed to regulate their elected officials by unique institutions such as regular elections, the right to free political participation, universal adult suffrage. Similarly, the freedom of the press. In the state where democracy is assured, government agencies (executive, judiciary, and legislature) operate in individual and collective domains to fulfil their constitutional responsibilities. Every person has a direct relationship with these critical institutions, especially the judiciary. The parties' grievances are filed with the state's administrative body in the event of a violation of duty or citizens' rights. Judicial independence is essential for the state's citizens' rights to be protected. If there is judicial independence, there will equal rights for the citizens.

Democracy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
The People ◽  
Special Person ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Procedure ◽  
Equal Power ◽  
Voting Mechanism

Democracy means rule by the people, as contrasted with rule by a special person or group. It is a system of decision making in which everyone who belongs to the political organism making the decision is actually or potentially involved. They all have equal power. There have been competing conceptions about what this involves. On one conception this means that everyone should participate in making the decision themselves, which should emerge from a full discussion. On another conception, it means that everyone should be able to vote between proposals or for representatives who will be entrusted with making the decision; the proposal or representative with most votes wins. Philosophical problems connected with democracy relate both to its nature and its value. It might seem obvious that democracy has value because it promotes liberty and equality. As compared with, for example, dictatorship, everyone has equal political power and is free from control by a special individual or group. However, at least on the voting conception of democracy, it is the majority who have the control. This means that the minority may not be thought to be treated equally; and they lack liberty in the sense that they are controlled by the majority. Another objection to democracy is that, by counting everyone’s opinions as of equal value, it considers the ignorant as being as important as the knowledgeable, and so does not result in properly informed decisions. However, voting may in certain circumstances be the right way of achieving knowledge. Pooling opinions may lead to better group judgement. These difficulties with democracy are alleviated by the model which concentrates on mutual discussion rather than people just feeding opinions into a voting mechanism. Opinions should in such circumstances be better formed; and individuals are more obviously equally respected. However, this depends upon them starting from positions of equal power and liberty; rather than being consequences of a democratic procedure, it would seem that equality and liberty are instead prerequisites which are needed in order for it to work properly.

Jan Sarvaes, Thomas L. Jacobson and Shirley A. White (eds). Participatory Communication for Social Change. New Delhi: Sage Publications. 1996. 286 pages. Hardbound. Indian Rs 325.00.

1996 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afia Malik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Development Projects ◽  
New Delhi ◽  
Equitable Distribution ◽  
Participatory Communication ◽  
Active Involvement ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
The Right

Changing needs and aspirations of society is the fundamental element of the development process. The state’s failure to cope with this galvanises people to make collective decisions. In development projects, participation is very important to decision-making, as it involves the sharing of information, knowledge, commitment, and the right attitude. Participation, like sustainable development, has become one of those catchwords whose message is advocated by everyone, but with their own definition. In development, it is broadly understood as the active involvement of people in making decisions about the implementation of processes, programmes, and projects which affect them. It involves the equitable distribution of political and economic powers between different groups in a society, leading often to a decrease in the advantages of the élites. However, the term covers a wide variety of activities.

The Constitutional Basis of Local Democracy

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 809-825
Author(s):  
Franc Grad ◽  
Igor Kaučič
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Local Elections ◽  
Local Democracy ◽  
The People ◽  
Town Meeting ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Popular Initiative ◽  
The Town

The Constitution of Slovenia guarantees local government, nevertheless it does not regulate forms of local democracy. Thus, the legislation envisages numerous different ways of citizens' participation, both direct and indirect, in decision-making in local communities. Still the local elections remain the most important way of citizens’ influencing decision making in local communities. The right of the people living in local communities to vote local authorities and to be elected for local offices is certainly the core of modern understanding of local democracy. In Slovenia, both members of municipal council and mayor are directly elected. Right to vote and to be elected have also EU citizens while other foreigners have only right to vote. Among forms of direct participation, the most important ones are the town meeting, referendum, popular initiative and right to petition. They enable the citizens to participate in the processes of deliberation, proposing and formulating decisions, stating preliminary positions with regard to decisions to be made as well as decision-making itself or confirming the solutions adopted.

The Persistence of Political Community, 1795–1799

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Owen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Culture ◽  
Political Engagement ◽  
Political Activism ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The People ◽  
Jay Treaty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Gubernatorial Election

This chapter analyses Pennsylvanian and American politics in the late 1790s, focusing particularly on the Jay Treaty debates, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Fries Rebellion, and the Pennsylvania gubernatorial election of 1799 (a key precursor to the Adams–Jefferson election of 1800). In each episode, Pennsylvanians adopted a different set of political practices, all nevertheless predicated on some form of representative action. In all these episodes, Pennsylvanians argued the right of popular political engagement did not end at election time, but instead was a continuous factor that should shape the governmental decision-making process. The outpouring of popular political activism in a variety of forms underscored the importance of a participatory political culture that could be seen to represent the people as a whole.

scholarly journals Sistem Pendukung Keputusan Untuk Menentukan Penerima BLSM Di Kabupaten Indramayu

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 282
Author(s):  
Supriatin Supriatin ◽  
Bambang Soedijono Wiraatmadja ◽  
Emha Taufiq Luthfi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Disadvantaged Communities ◽  
Fuel Prices ◽  
The People ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right ◽  
Hierarchy Process

Bantuan Langsung Sementara Masyarakat (yang selanjutnya disebut BLSM) adalah kompensasi yang diberikan pemerintah kepada orang miskin guna mengurangi beban ekonomi yang semakin menekan kehidupan mereka, sebagai akibat naiknya harga BBM yang membawa dampak membubungnya harga kebutuhan pokok. Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh banyaknya kasus yang menyatakan bahwa penyaluran BLSM tidak tepat sasaran, ada BLSM yang diperuntukkan bagi masyarakat tidak mampu secara ekonomi, namun terkadang masih ada masyarakat kaya yang juga menerimanya khususnya di kabupaten Indramayu, hal tersebut menyulitkan pihak penyeleksi dalam mengadakan penyeleksian calon penerima dana BLSM ini untuk itu dibuat sistem pendukung keputusan dalam menentukan penerima BLSM di kabupaten Indramayu dengan menggunakan metode Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Tujuan penelitian ini adalah Memberikan usulan untuk prioritas penerima BLSM agar tepat sasaran dan dapat membantu pemerintah kabupaten indramayu dalam pengambilan keputusan. Berdasarkan hasil analisis dengan menggunakan metode AHP, maka dapat dihasilkan suatu alternatif pengambilan keputusan dalam menentukan penerima BLSM yang efektif yang dapat menyaring 39% masyarakat yang seharusnya tidak mendapatkan BLSM.Bantuan Langsung Sementara Masyarakat (BLSM) is the compensation given by the government to the poor in order to reduce the economic burden of an increasingly pressing their lives, as a result of rising fuel prices impact soaring prices of basic necessities. This research is motivated by the many cases which states that the distribution BLSM not on target, there BLSM not intended for economically disadvantaged communities, but sometimes there are people who also receive particularly rich in Kabupaten Indramayu, it is difficult for the selectors to selection of recipients of funds held BLSM made to the decision support system in determining the recipient BLSM in Kabupaten Indramayu using Analytic Hierarchy Processahp (AHP) method. The purpose of this study is to provide the proposed recipient BLSM priority for the right target and can help local governments indramayu in decision making. Based on the analysis by using the method of AHP, it can produce an alternative decision-making in determining effective BLSM receiver that can filter out 39% of the people who should not get BLSM.

Theories of Choice

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Market Mechanism ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Behavioural Type ◽  
Adequate Theory ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
The Right ◽  
Selection Of

Choice is a key concept of our time. It is a foundational mechanism for every legal order in societies that are, politically, constituted as democracies and, economically, built on the market mechanism. Thus, choice can be understood as an atomic structure that grounds core societal processes. In recent years, however, the debate over the right way to theorise choice—for example, as a rational or a behavioural type of decision making—has intensified. This collection therefore provides an in-depth discussion of the promises and perils of specific types of theories of choice. It shows how the selection of a specific theory of choice can make a difference for concrete legal questions, in particularly in the regulation of the digital economy or in choosing between market, firm, or network. In its first part, the volume provides an accessible overview of the current debates about rational versus behavioural approaches to theories of choice. The remainder of the book structures the vast landscape of theories of choice along three main types: individual, collective, and organisational decision making. As theories of choice proliferate and become ever more sophisticated, however, the process of choosing an adequate theory of choice becomes increasingly intricate, too. This volume addresses this selection problem for the various legal arenas in which individual, organisational, and collective decisions matter. By drawing on economic, technological, political, and legal points of view, the volume shows which theories of choice are at the disposal of the legally relevant decision maker, and how they can be implemented for the solution of concrete legal problems.

CHALLENGES FOR IMPROVING CONSENSUS REACHING PROCESS IN COLLECTIVE DECISIONS

2007 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 203-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. MARTÍNEZ ◽  
J. MONTERO
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Fuzzy Environment ◽  
The People ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Consensus Reaching Process ◽  
Consensus Reaching

The majority rule is frequently presented as a cornerstone of any democratic society, guiding many group decision-making processes where final decision requires the agreement of more than half the people involved. But sometimes, some key decisions require a higher level of agreement. In such cases, an added value would be to reach some consensus about the decision-making problem. Decision making under consensus drives to decisions which are better accepted and appreciated. But it also implies a greater complexity and time consuming process to reach a final decision, and it may even lead to a deadlock or unsuccessful results, whenever the searched agreement is not achieved. Meanwhile, these problems arise because the requirements to achieve the consensus are too strong, and different processes have softened their requirements. In particular, soft consensus is one of the most widespread consensus reaching processes that uses fuzzy logic to soften the consensus requirements. However, several problems still persist despite the softening of the requirements. In this paper, we are going to make a brief revision of the different concepts about consensus and about different consensus reaching processes, both in the crisp and fuzzy environment. We shall then analyze how to overcome their lacks, indicating the challenges facing these processes in order to obtain successful results in those group decision problems in which they are required to make a decision under consensus.

Democracy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
The People ◽  
Special Person ◽  
Full Discussion ◽  
The Right ◽  
Democratic Procedure ◽  
Equal Power ◽  
Voting Mechanism

Democracy means rule by the people, as contrasted with rule by a special person or group. It is a system of decision making in which everyone who belongs to the political organism making the decision is actually or potentially involved. They all have equal power. There have been competing conceptions about what this involves. On one conception this means that everyone should participate in making the decision themselves, which should emerge from a full discussion. On another conception, it means that everyone should be able to vote between proposals or for representatives who will be entrusted with making the decision; the proposal or representative with most votes wins. Philosophical problems connected with democracy relate both to its nature and its value. It might seem obvious that democracy has value because it promotes liberty and equality. As compared with, for example, dictatorship, everyone has equal political power and is free from control by a special individual or group. However, at least on the voting conception of democracy, it is the majority who have the control. This means that the minority may not be thought to be treated equally; and they lack liberty in the sense that they are controlled by the majority. Another objection to democracy is that, by counting everyone’s opinions as of equal value, it considers the ignorant as being as important as the knowledgeable, and so does not result in properly informed decisions. However, voting may in certain circumstances be the right way of achieving knowledge. Pooling opinions may lead to better group judgement. These difficulties with democracy are alleviated by the model which concentrates on mutual discussion rather than people just feeding opinions into a voting mechanism. Opinions should in such circumstances be better formed; and individuals are more obviously equally respected. However, this depends upon them starting from positions of equal power and liberty; rather than being consequences of a democratic procedure, it would seem that equality and liberty are instead prerequisites which are needed in order for it to work properly.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document