Journal Article•
Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy
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
01 Jan 2006
2,797 citations
••
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
••
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
•
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
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors address the problem that democratic polities call for expert advice on normative issues and argue for the need of democratic justification of political use of ethics expertise in regulation of biomedicine.
Abstract: This study addresses the problem that democratic polities call for expert advice on normative issues and argues for the need of democratic justification of political use of ethics expertise in regulation of biomedicine. Ethics expertise, expertise in the systematic analysis of moral problems, must not be conflated with moral expertise, expertise in providing the right moral. However, by asking ethics expertise for advice, political decision-makers impose bioethics councils to provide consensus decisions on value questions, which is detrimental to democracy. The article demonstrates how consensus seeking transforms ethics expertise into alleged moral expertise, which precludes the fundamental democratic value of equal respect of all citizens’ right of normative self-determination and to have an equal say in common matters. To be democratically justified, it is necessary that ethics expertise uses its clarifying expertise and provides different possible moral positions for the public and democratically acco...
18 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the potential for a European discursive space pertaining to issues of gender and diversity, focusing on the views of political parties and social movements that are participating in public debates.
Abstract: Can transnational public spheres be envisaged for Europe, which, in fact, create accountability – that is, spaces of critical articulations, control mechanisms, and political correctives to the governing levels? Can the political, as a critical force and the willingness to struggle and decide, be re-introduced into the public sphere? In which ways are race/ethnicity, class and gender cleavages being (re)presented and articulated in the public sphere and how do they intersect? In attempting to answer these questions, we aim this article at exploring the potential for a European discursive space pertaining to issues of gender and diversity. The empirical focus is on the views of political parties and social movements that are participating in public debates. Addressing the inclusions and exclusions in the European public sphere at the intersections of gender and racial/ethnic minorities, we look at the shifts in rhetoric, discourses and policies. As a result, we find common discursive patterns on th...
18 citations
•
01 Oct 2017TL;DR: In this article, a theoretical framework is developed around the concepts of the public sphere, democracy and journalism, which are examined diachronically and through the lens of hybridity, focusing on their systemic relationship, defined by their common ground, participation.
Abstract: This thesis explores the current ongoing structural transformations of the (digital) public sphere(s) on Twitter, given that the technological advancements pose questions about the value, the sufficiency and the sustainability of Habermas’ theory in a digital epoch. The theoretical framework is developed around the concepts of the public sphere, democracy and journalism, which are examined diachronically and through the lens of hybridity. It focuses on their systemic relationship, which is defined by their common ground, participation. By building a parallel between the Habermasian theory and Athenian Democracy, and by examining the evolving role of the public, the study focuses specifically on the role of media actors in political dialogue during elections. The deep interrelation of the concepts guided the thesis’ rationale, which regards the public sphere through a different prism, that of its duality: as a concept with a normative and a pragmatic side.
The structural transformations of the (digital) public sphere(s) and its formation on Twitter are affected by two factors: the role of the press within the platform, and the current political and financial setting. As such, the empirical research looks into the General Elections of 2015 in the United Kingdom, and contributes to the development of appropriate empirical research methodologies, so as to shed light on the use of this popular platform by traditional media, net-native media and journalists, as well as to audiences’ level of responsiveness. The empirical research consists of Twitter research on media actors’ accounts and on electoral hashtags; and of interviews with journalists.
The thesis concludes with an internal conversation between the normative and the pragmatic models: the first defines how the pragmatic public sphere on Twitter is mapped, whereas the latter is the foundation for the thesis’ proposal for the re-conceptualization of the normative model in the digital epoch.
18 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the German Constitutional Court distinguishes between the equal representation of whole democratic peoples and individual citizens and argues that the composition of a European Parliament with powers of "government formation" would need to give strict priority to the equality representation of persons, rather than continue to give some weight to both equalities.
Abstract: In its Lisbon ruling, the German Constitutional Court claims that the ‘formation of a government with the powers of a state’ from within the European Parliament would require its seats to be apportioned in a strict relationship to the share of each member state in the population of the Union. In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguishes between the equal representation of whole democratic peoples and the equal representation of individual citizens. However, we question that the composition of a European Parliament with powers of ‘government formation’ would need to give strict priority to the equal representation of persons, rather than continue to give some weight to both equalities. The Court's concern that a European Government should not be elected by those who represent a minority of the population could also be met if the Parliament's choice had to be confirmed by a qualified majority of the European Council.
18 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss a general class of theories that attempt to base a normative account of justice on consent-giving procedures, and argue that these theories cannot possibly succeed because they trade on a crucial ambiguity as to whether they are supposed to be understood as voluntarist accounts of justice or rationalist accounts on the other hand.
Abstract: THIS article will discuss a general class of theories that attempt to base a normative account of justice on consent-giving procedures. Contemporary political philosophers offer many different accounts of justice, but at present consent-based theories are probably the most popular. Notwithstanding their (often understandable) appeal, I will argue they cannot possibly succeed. All consent-based theories trade on a crucial ambiguity as to whether they are supposed to be understood as voluntarist accounts of justice on the one hand, or as rationalist accounts on the other. In the former case, consent-based theories fail because they are at best indeterminate and at worst incoherent; in the latter case, they fail because they are superfluous. I will refer to this fatal ambiguity as “Cassirer’s Dilemma.” Interestingly, Cassirer’s Dilemma is not at all new (although its relevance for contemporary consent-based theories does not seem to have been noticed previously): on the contrary, it may be among the oldest problems plaguing western moral and political philosophy. Faced with this insurmountable difficulty, I believe we ought to abandon proceduralism and focus instead on developing substantive accounts of justice. These admittedly bold claims will be explained and defended in due course. Before going much further, however, it will be useful to clarify a few concepts as they will be employed in this article. Although the terms “just” and “unjust” can be applied to a wide range of political institutions, legal regimes, public policies, individual conduct, and so on, contemporary political philosophers tend to abstract from such particular applications so as to focus in a general manner on what are often called the principles of justice. One example might be John Rawls’s “difference principle,” according to which, roughly, social and economic inequalities should be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. J. S. Mill’s famous “harm principle” might be another. By a theory of justice, therefore, political philosophers generally mean a normative account of what the fundamental principles of justice actually are, and not some more specific claim The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 12, Number 1, 2004, pp. 79–101
18 citations