Democracy and participation in the twenty-first century
TL;DR: Democracy is again under attack as mentioned in this paper, and 19 out of 167 countries can be regarded as full democracies and only a small minority of them can be considered full democracies, i.e., they are full democracies.
Abstract: Democracy is again under attack. Only a small minority, i.e. 19 out of 167 countries can be regarded as full democracies. This themed section with its six contributions is addressing the ch...
Citations
More filters
784 citations
203 citations
TL;DR: The Bodley Head, 2016Regular, free and competitive elections are now seen as prerequisites for democracy as mentioned in this paper. Yet, many are beginning to doubt their effectiveness and legitimacy. In many Western countr...
Abstract: The Bodley Head, 2016Regular, free and competitive elections are now seen as prerequisites for democracy. Yet, many are beginning to doubt their effectiveness and legitimacy. In many Western countr...
51 citations
TL;DR: This article studied the social origins of democratic disaffection with liberal-democratic norms and institutions in different regions of the world and found that popular disaffections with liberal democratic norms and institution has been growing in different countries.
Abstract: Recent evidence suggests that popular disaffection with liberal-democratic norms and institutions has been growing in different regions of the world, but studying the social origins of democratic v...
5 citations
References
More filters
5,429 citations
TL;DR: Holbrooke as mentioned in this paper argued that if the election was declared free and fair, and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and r?int?gration], that is the dilemma." Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world.
Abstract: The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. "Suppose the election was declared free and fair," he said, and those elected are "racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and r?int?gration]. That is the dilemma." Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philip pines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life? illiberal democracy. It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy?a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms?what might be termed constitu tional liberalism?is theoretically different and historically distinct
2,019 citations
"Democracy and participation in the ..." refers background in this paper
...Zakaria (1997) spoke already in 1997 about ‘the rise of illiberal democracy’....
[...]
TL;DR: In the summer of 1997, I was asked by a leading Japanese newspaper what I thought was the most important thing that had happened in the twentieth century as discussed by the authors, and I found this to be an unusually thought-provoking question, since so many things of gravity have happened over the last hundred years.
Abstract: In the summer of 1997, I was asked by a leading Japanese newspaper what I thought was the most important thing that had happened in the twentieth century. I found this to be an unusually thought-provoking question, since so many things of gravity have happened over the last hundred years. The European empires, especially the British and French ones that had so dominated the nineteenth century, came to an end. We witnessed two world wars. We saw the rise and fall of fascism and Nazism. The century witnessed the rise of communism, and its fall (as in the former Soviet bloc) or radical transformation (as in China). We also saw a shift from the economic dominance of the West to a new economic balance much more dominated by Japan and East and Southeast Asia. Even though that region is going through some financial and economic problems right now, this is not going to nullify the shift in the balance of the world economy that has occurred over many decades (in the case of Japan, through nearly the entire century). The past hundred years are not lacking in important events.
1,132 citations
"Democracy and participation in the ..." refers background in this paper
...Amartya Sen (1999), Nobel-prize winner for economics, has defended the position of democracy as a...
[...]
...Amartya Sen (1999), Nobel-prize winner for economics, has defended the position of democracy as a universal value for decades....
[...]
TL;DR: Flyvbjerg as discussed by the authors showed that rationality is context-dependent and that the crucial context is determined by decision-makers' power, and he demonstrated that modern "rationality" is but an ideal when confronted with real rationalities involved in decision making by central actors in government, economy, and civil society.
Abstract: "It's like the story of Little Town," an influential actor says in Rationality and Power when choosing a metaphor to describe how he manipulated rationality to gain power, "The bell ringer . . . has to set the church clock. So he calls the telephone exchange and asks what time it is, and the telephone operator looks out the window towards the church clock and says, 'It's five o'clock.' 'Good,' says the bell ringer, 'then my clock is correct.'" In the Enlightenment tradition, rationality is considered well-defined, independent of context; we know what rationality is, and its meaning is constant across time and space. Bent Flyvbjerg shows that rationality is context-dependent and that the crucial context is determined by decision-makers' power. Power blurs the dividing line between rationality and rationalization. The result is a rationality that is often as imaginary as the time in Little Town, yet with very real social and environmental consequences.
Flyvbjerg takes us behind the scenes to uncover the real politics—and real rationality—of policy-making, administration, and planning in an internationally acclaimed project for environmental improvement, auto traffic reduction, land use, and urban renewal. The action takes place in the Danish city of Aalborg, but it could be anywhere. Aalborg is to Flyvbjerg what Florence was to Machiavelli: a laboratory for understanding power and what it means for our more general concerns of social and political organization. Policy-making, administration, and planning are examined in ways that allow a rare, in-depth understanding. The reader is a firsthand witness to the classic, endless drama that defines what democracy and modernity are, and what they can be. The result is a fascinating narrative that is both concrete and general, current and timeless. Drawing on the ideas of Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Foucault, and Habermas, Flyvbjerg reads the Aalborg case as a metaphor of modernity and of modern politics, administration, and planning. Flyvbjerg uncovers the interplay of power and rationality that distorts policy deliberation. He demonstrates that modern "rationality" is but an ideal when confronted with the real rationalities involved in decision making by central actors in government, economy, and civil society. Flyvbjerg then elaborates on how this problem can be dealt with so that more fruitful deliberation and action can occur.
993 citations
TL;DR: The first volume of Tocqueville's Democracy in America as discussed by the authors was published in 1835, and it remains one of the few invaluable books on that subject, despite the fact that it was written at a time when English travelers were frequently aware only of the vulgarity of American manners, and when some European visitors were most impressed with its picturesque qualities.
Abstract: “There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and while the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth.”So concludes the first volume of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Such a statement appearing in 1945 would, except perhaps for the view that the two countries “tend towards the same end,” be truistic. Even the journalists would understand and accept it. It appeared in 1835. To most Europeans of that day, the United States was a crude and bumptious little nation on the western fringes of the world, just as Russia was the half-Oriental, half-feudal state which was not so much a power as a vast expanse of inhospitable steppes. At a time when English travelers were frequently aware only of the vulgarity of American manners, and when some European visitors to this country were most impressed with its picturesque qualities, Tocqueville was much more concerned with the basic nature and with the future of the complex combination of laws, customs, and mores which were embraced within his inclusive conception of democracy. He came here, not to give slightly condescending lectures and to bolster his own feeling of superiority, but rather to observe and report on the operation of a principle of political and social organization. Partly because he had an inquiring mind and was willing to work hard at his self-imposed task, but largely because he was gifted with rare insight and was not prevented from seeing the trend of events by the surface happenings of his own time, his book on the nature of American institutions remains, after more than a century, one of the few invaluable books on that subject.
834 citations