Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, And Self-determination In Multi-cultural Societies

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Self Determination

scholarly journals Deliberative Democracy in Multicultural Societies: The Challenges of Effectiveness, Legitimacy, and Equality

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Barros Soares ◽  
Catarina Chaves Costa ◽  
Andréa Braga de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Meaningful Participation ◽  
Cultural Minorities

Multicultural societies are marked by the coexistence of ethnic, sexual, religious, racial, and cultural minorities and mainstream groups. This coexistence can either be tense or collaborative. How to bridge the gap between the political demands of majority and minority groups? What are the obstacles to meaningful participation? What are the main challenges faced by such societies? And finally, how do we encourage large-scale debates around issues of minorities? In order to provide answers to these questions, this review examines Intercultural Deliberation and the Politics of Minority Rights by R. E. Lowe-Walker (2018), Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems by Edwina Barvosa (2018), and Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-determination in Multicultural Societies by Jorge M. Valadez (2018).  

scholarly journals Deliberative Democracy in Multicultural Societies: The Challenges of Effectiveness, Legitimacy, and Equality

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo Barros Soares ◽  
Catarina Chaves Costa ◽  
Andréa Braga de Araújo
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Meaningful Participation ◽  
Cultural Minorities

Multicultural societies are marked by the coexistence of ethnic, sexual, religious, racial, and cultural minorities and mainstream groups. This coexistence can either be tense or collaborative. How to bridge the gap between the political demands of majority and minority groups? What are the obstacles to meaningful participation? What are the main challenges faced by such societies? And finally, how do we encourage large-scale debates around issues of minorities? In order to provide answers to these questions, this review examines Intercultural Deliberation and the Politics of Minority Rights by R. E. Lowe-Walker (2018), Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems by Edwina Barvosa (2018), and Deliberative Democracy, Political Legitimacy, and Self-determination in Multicultural Societies by Jorge M. Valadez (2018).

5. Identity in politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 52-64
Author(s):  
Florian Coulmas
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Identity Politics ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Democratic Rule ◽  
Multiple Levels ◽  
Natural Child ◽  
Supranational Level

‘Identity in politics: promises and dangers’ concludes that identity in politics is a challenge to democratic rule rooted in the principle of self-determination. As a natural child of nationalism, it gives rise to conflicts that political scientists study at multiple levels. At the subnational level, the focus is on ethnicities and group affiliations. At the supranational level, they are concerned with civilization identities. Considering conflicts in terms of civilization identities is sometimes persuasive for there is the risk of stereotyping, while identities are historically contingent and can be instrumentalized for various political purposes. Because identities tend to be presented as non-negotiable, identity politics is hard to reconcile with deliberative democracy as it makes compromise difficult to achieve.

scholarly journals The Instrumental Value Arguments for National Self-Determination

Dialogue ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-89
Author(s):  
HSIN-WEN LEE
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Instrumental Value ◽  
Shared Identity ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Instrumental Values ◽  
Civic Duties

David Miller argues that national identity is indispensable for the successful functioning of a liberal democracy. National identity makes important contributions to liberal democratic institutions, including creating incentives for the fulfilment of civic duties, facilitating deliberative democracy, and consolidating representative democracy. Thus, a shared identity is indispensable for liberal democracy and grounds a good claim for self-determination. Because Miller’s arguments appeal to the instrumental values of a national culture, I call his argument ‘instrumental value’ arguments. In this paper, I examine the instrumental value arguments and show that they fail to justify a group’s right to self-determination.

Changing hearts and minds: Cristina Lafont on democratic self-legislation

2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372097472
Author(s):  
Maeve Cooke
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Public Policies ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Democratic Values ◽  
Democratic Ideal ◽  
The Core ◽  
Democratic Control ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Hearts And Minds ◽  
The Ideal

Lafont argues for a participatory version of deliberative democracy that shares key features with other contemporary approaches, while departing from them in decisive ways. It is based on the Rousseauian–Kantian idea of democratic self-legislation, interpreted as the idea that citizens must be able to see themselves as the authors of the laws and public policies to which they are subject. She insists that her specification of the ideal of democratic self-legislation is a general one, aiming to appeal to readers with different understandings of the core democratic values of equality, freedom and democratic control. This is questionable. I show that she interprets the democratic ideal of freedom as a distinctive, normatively robust conception of citizen self-determination. Those drawn to travel with her on the long participatory road should be aware of this and ready to explore the implications. By downplaying the distinctiveness and normative robustness of her idea of freedom, she does her model a disservice.

In Defense of Functionalism

2019 ◽  
pp. 47-64
Author(s):  
Jonathan Quong
Keyword(s):  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Autonomy ◽  
Political Status ◽  
Functionalist Approach ◽  
Do So

This chapter provides a response to Anna Stilz’s chapter in this volume, “Legitimacy and Self-Determination.” I argue that Stilz’s Kantian approach to political autonomy and self-determination is vulnerable to a serious dilemma. Her account either cannot explain various intuitively wrongful instances of colonialism and annexation, or else it can only do so by departing from its Kantian foundations. I then defend a functionalist approach to political legitimacy, one that appeals to the pro tanto wrongness of involuntarily changing people’s political status. I argue, contra Stilz, that such a functionalist approach can adequately explain why certain cases of colonialism and territorial annexation are wrongful.

Secession

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Heath Wellman
Keyword(s):  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
The Right

Secession occurs when a portion of a state breaks away either to form its own sovereign country or to join with another state. Because secessionist conflicts are essentially contests over territory, theories of state-breaking presuppose various positions regarding political legitimacy. Most theorists now acknowledge that a group might have the right to secede when it has been treated sufficiently unjustly, but a growing minority (especially nationalists who trumpet the importance of political self-determination) now contend that groups sometimes have the right to political divorce even in the absence of injustice.

Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy

Daedalus ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 51-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hélène Landemore
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Representative Democracy ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Current Crisis ◽  
The People ◽  
Tight Connection ◽  
Historically Situated ◽  
Popular Rule ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

Deliberative democracy is at risk of becoming collateral damage of the current crisis of representative democracy. If deliberative democracy is necessarily representative and if representation betrays the true meaning of democracy as rule of, by, and for the people, then how can deliberative democracy retain any validity as a theory of political legitimacy? Any tight connection between deliberative democracy and representative democracy thus risks making deliberative democracy obsolete: a dated paradigm fit for a precrisis order, but maladjusted to the world of Occupy, the Pirate Party, the Zapatistas, and other antirepresentative movements. This essay argues that the problem comes from a particular and historically situated understanding of representative democracy as rule by elected elites. I argue that in order to retain its normative appeal and political relevance, deliberative democracy should dissociate itself from representative democracy thus understood and reinvent itself as the core of a more truly democratic paradigm, which I call “open democracy.” In open democracy, popular rule means the mediated but real exercise of power by ordinary citizens. This new paradigm privileges nonelectoral forms of representation and in it, power is meant to remain constantly inclusive of and accessible–in other words open–to ordinary citizens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document