scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article

Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy

01 Feb 1997-Review of Metaphysics-Vol. 51, Iss: 1, pp 153-155
About: This article is published in Review of Metaphysics.The article was published on 1997-02-01 and is currently open access. It has received 2568 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Democracy.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Archon Fung1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors develop a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation, including who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action.
Abstract: The multifaceted challenges of contemporary governance demand a complex account of the ways in which those who are subject to laws and policies should participate in making them. This article develops a framework for understanding the range of institutional possibilities for public participation. Mechanisms of participation vary along three important dimensions: who participates, how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. These three dimensions constitute a space in which any particular mechanism of participation can be located. Different regions of this institutional design space are more and less suited to addressing important problems of democratic governance such as legitimacy, justice, and effective administration.

1,526 citations

01 Dec 2000
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examine the current debate about the nature of democracy and discuss the main theses of the approach called "deliberative democracy" in its two main versions, the one put forward by John Rawls, and the other one put forth by Jurgen Habermas.
Abstract: This article examines the current debate about the nature of democracy and discusses the main theses of the approach called 'deliberative democracy' in its two main versions, the one put forward by John Rawls, and the other one put forwardby Jurgen Habermas. While agreeing with them as regards to the need to develop a more of democracy than the one offered by the 'aggregative' model, I submit that they do not provide an adequate understanding of the main task of democracy. No doubt, by stating that democracy cannot be reduced to a question of procedures to mediate among conflicting interests, deliberative democrats defend a conception of democracy that presents a richer conception of politics. But, albeit in a different way thanthe view they criticize, their vision is also a rationalist one which leaves aside the crucial role played by 'passions' and collective forms of identifications in the field of politics. Moreover, in their attempt to reconcile the liberal tradition with the democratic one, deliberative democrats tend to erase the tension that exist between liberalism and democracy and they are therefore unable to come to terms with the conflictual nature of democratic politics. The main thesis that I put forward in this article is that democratic theory needs to acknowledge the ineradicability of antagonism and the impossibility of achieving a fully inclusive rational consensus. I argue that a model of democracy in terms of 'agonistic pluralism' can help us to better envisage the main challenge facing democratic politics today: how to create democratic forms of identifications that will contribute to mobilize passions towards democratic designs.;

1,338 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Public diplomacy, as the diplomacy of the public, not of the government, intervenes in this global public sphere, laying the ground for traditional forms of diplomacy to act beyond the strict negotiation of power relationships by building on shared... as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The public sphere is the space of communication of ideas and projects that emerge from society and are addressed to the decision makers in the institutions of society. The global civil society is the organized expression of the values and interests of society. The relationships between government and civil society and their interaction via the public sphere define the polity of society. The process of globalization has shifted the debate from the national domain to the global debate, prompting the emergence of a global civil society and of ad hoc forms of global governance. Accordingly, the public sphere as the space of debate on public affairs has also shifted from the national to the global and is increasingly constructed around global communication networks. Public diplomacy, as the diplomacy of the public, not of the government, intervenes in this global public sphere, laying the ground for traditional forms of diplomacy to act beyond the strict negotiation of power relationships by building on shared...

936 citations

Book
05 Oct 2012
TL;DR: Tweets and the Streets as mentioned in this paper examines the relationship between the rise of social media and the emergence of new forms of protest, arguing that activists' use of Twitter and Facebook does not fit with the image of a "cyberspace" detached from physical reality.
Abstract: Tweets and the Streets analyses the culture of the new protest movements of the 21st century. From the Arab Spring to the "indignados" protests in Spain and the Occupy movement, Paolo Gerbaudo examines the relationship between the rise of social media and the emergence of new forms of protest. Gerbaudo argues that activists' use of Twitter and Facebook does not fit with the image of a "cyberspace" detached from physical reality. Instead, social media is used as part of a project of re-appropriation of public space, which involves the assembling of different groups around "occupied" places such as Cairo's Tahrir Square or New York's Zuccotti Park. An exciting and invigorating journey through the new politics of dissent, Tweets and the Streets points both to the creative possibilities and to the risks of political evanescence which new media brings to the contemporary protest experience.

911 citations

References
More filters
Dissertation
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: In this debate, the blogs are often assumed to be independent blogs, whereas mainstream media blogs have received much less attention as mentioned in this paper, which is surprising, given the centrality of journalists to political communication and the fact that blogs are now an integral feature of mainstream news sites.
Abstract: There is widespread disagreement about the extent to which discussions in online spaces such as blogs (sometimes referred to as ‘weblogs’) can reinvigorate the public sphere – pessimists regard them as online lynch mobs and optimists believe they could become Habermasian digital cafes. In this debate, the blogs are often assumed to be independent blogs, whereas mainstream media blogs have received much less attention. This is surprising, given the centrality of journalists to political communication and the fact that blogs are now an integral feature of mainstream news sites. These draw readership numbers unparalleled by citizen-bloggers or alternative news sites. Even though scholars have begun to investigate the interactive opportunities provided by newspaper websites and the deliberative potential of online discussion, the focus has been on comments on articles, the most popular form of user-generated content (UGC). These are typically moderated by in-house teams, or even outsourced, and quite a different space to blogs. The question that seems to have been considered less often – which this thesis addresses – is the value of journalist-blogs and the extent to which they facilitate deliberative dialogue.; Submitted in the fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of the Sunshine Coast, 2013

19 citations

01 Jan 2010
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluate the EU's co-decision procedure for its putative democratic qualities and propose an analytical framework/evaluative scheme that can be applied to codecision in particular and to public policy-making procedures in general.
Abstract: This thesis pursues two main goals. The first is to evaluate the EU’s co-decision procedure for its putative democratic qualities. The second is to contribute to the operationalisation of deliberative democracy by developing an analytical framework/evaluative scheme that can be applied to co-decision in particular and to public policy-making procedures in general. Deliberative democracy states that democratic decisions are those that have withstood testing and critique in a publicly accessible manner. Since the people are never present to make decisions, the realisation of this claim can only be redeemed if the decision-making procedures fulfil certain democratic qualities. Democratic decisionmaking cannot be realised without elected politicians as the main decision-makers. Only they can establish the necessary link to citizens. From a deliberative perspective, it is, however, not enough to be elected. The link between politicians and citizens must also be visible in between elections and not just during election campaigns. Politicians can only claim to speak on behalf of citizens if they regularly justify their positions in public so that citizens can actually know what decision-makers are up to. In short, democracy is understood as a justificatory and reason-giving process where citizens are brought in and can hold politicians to account through public debate. Also experts have a legitimate place in decisionmaking, but their job is to provide technical and scientific expertise and should not make choices and take decisions on politically salient issues. The procedural conditions framing public policy-making processes should therefore seek to approximate the following procedural criteria: (1) democratic deliberative meeting places, (2) inclusion of affected and competent parties, (3) openness, (4) neutralisation of asymmetrical power relations and (5) decisionmaking capacity. The co-decision procedure is evaluated against these criteria. The main conclusion is that there is a tension between the formal provisions and the established practices of the co-decision procedure. In the thesis it is shown that the formal set-up of the co-decision procedure has many democratic qualities: the main decision-making bodies (the EP and the Council) have a popular anchoring; the procedural set-up ensures an intelligible decision-making process with up to three readings where there is time for deliberation prior to final decision-making; the EP provides publicly accessible settings where the citizens can follow the MEPs’ discussions and decisions; legally the co-decision set-up respects the principle of separation of powers; and the ECJ and the Ombudsman represent ex post accountability mechanisms where citizens can file complaints if they find that co-decision acts violate their rights. In other words, the democratic potential of the formal co-decision set-up is definitely there. The problem is that the co-decision-makers have established practices that work against rather than in accordance with the formal provisions. In this way, the democratic qualities are effectively rendered passive due to so-called informal and secret ‘trialogues’. The scope and scale of these meetings between a limited selection of participants from the EP, the Council and the Commission run counter to and are largely incompatible with democratic decisionmaking. This problem is also exacerbated by the internal organisation of the Council where decisions are formulated and basically decided in camera by unelected officials. The procedural incentives for decision-makers to justify their positions are hence not encouraged under such procedural conditions. From a deliberative democratic perspective the problem is that both the extensive use of trialogues and the undemocratic character of the Council’s internal organisation have resulted in a situation where codecision-making largely take place behind closed doors. In this regard also the EP is affected for even if it formally conducts its legislative work in openness, the salience and scope of the trialogues interrupt and curtail the parliamentary process of opinionand willformation. This contributes to empty the EP committees as the place where positions are discussed and formulated. In sum, the democratic legitimacy of the co-decision procedure suffers from two main deficits: Firstly, the relationship between elected politicians and unelected experts is biased towards the latter in the sense that codecision acts are to a large extent made by experts and bureaucrats. Secondly, the trialogues move the policy-making process behind closed doors where only a limited number of participants are present and of which only a half is elected politicians. In sum, the established practices of co-decision-making lead to a situation where politically and publicly salient issues are canalised into closed settings. A privatisation of politics has never been compatible with democratic decision-making.

19 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors connect the previously isolated literatures on corporate citizenship and corporate political activity to explain how firms construct political influence in the public sphere, and connect these literatures to explain corporate political influence.
Abstract: This article connects the previously isolated literatures on corporate citizenship and corporate political activity to explain how firms construct political influence in the public sphere. The publ ...

19 citations

01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: Konieczka et al. as discussed by the authors argue that public participation theory and research claims that participation can transform policy and relations, but evidence supporting that assertion is limited, particularly in real-world situations.
Abstract: Konieczka, Stephen P. (Ph.D., Department of Communication) Grounding Governance in Floating Stakeholders: Communication, Collectivity, and Relational Transformation in Theory and Practice—An Ethnographic and Discourse-Analytic Case Study Dissertation directed by Professor Lawrence R. Frey Public participation theory and research claims that participation can transform policy and relations, but evidence supporting that assertion is limited, particularly in real-world situations. This dissertation argues that to understand if and how participation might transform policy and relations, it is necessary to study participation in situated practices. The chapters report details and lessons from the Community Collaborative Group (CCG), a 2-year stakeholder participation governance process. In this study, “stakeholder” has a specific meaning and is employed as an analytic concept to reflect on uses and interpretation of symbolic categories in social discourses and interactional talk. As a category, the stakeholder concept challenges received interdisciplinary ideals of collectivity as being psychological, binary, and meaningful in competitive relations, raising questions and concerns that treating categories as symbols addresses. As a symbolic construct, categories are communicative, constituted in difference, and meaningful in discursive relations. To study uses, interpretations, and influences of categories, the study examines symbolic practices of categorization, dis/identification, and representation during the CCG. Initiated by a public agency, the CCG represented ideals of investment, design, and facilitation, but it struggled to fulfill policy and relational objectives of the process and theoretical ideals. At the macrolevel, this report discusses how uses and interpretations of locally and situationally relevant categories influenced the design, process, and outcomes of the

18 citations

01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website as discussed by the authors, in case of legitimate complaints the material will be removed.
Abstract: Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

18 citations