Is democracy coming full circle

2019

It is common sense today to say that 'democracy is in crisis'. This apparently obvious crisis of democracy has several aspects: it is a crisis of its representative dimensions; it is a crisis that exposes the tensions and intrinsic contradictions between the political and the economic and financial orders; but it is also a crisis that begins to question the actual future of democracy, announcing the possibility that democracy may be replaced by something else for which we don't have a name yet. In this article I start by looking at the modern (re) invention of democracy, trying to grasp the ways in which 'the people' has been theorised. After, I look at the challenges Europe is facing today, mainly in what concerns the economic and financial crises on the one hand, and the refugees and humanitarian crises on the other. I conclude by showing how and why democracy can only be defined as 'crisis' and why 'the people' must remain simultaneously invisible and un-bodied, in order to fight current populist threats. What is democracy? What are its premises, its necessary conditions and its conditions of possibility? What are its limits? These are some of the questions that seem apparently straightforward to answer-we all recognise democracy, defined by its procedures, methods or regulative ideals. However, even this preliminary consensus is subjected to critique and several interpretations. Some authors define democracy as a 'method' of selection of representatives (Schum-peter 2003; Dahl 1973; Bobbio, 1987); others define it via a set of ideals with intrinsic value and not merely instrumental, such as the ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity (Rawls 1999). According to the priority we establish at the beginning of our democratic construction, the results can be very different: a more egalitarian democracy; a more liberal democracy; a representative democracy ; one that tries to deepen the relationship between the dimensions of representation , participation and deliberation. Therefore, we are led to the conclusion that there is not one model of democracy, but many democratic instantiations. This suggests that contrary to many attempts of several democratic theories,

Neither Nor Philosophical Essays Dediscated to Erik Carlson on the Occasion of His 50th Birthday, 2011

This is not a paper, but rather an idea of one. What I am going to present is a skeleton of an argument, which needs to be fleshed out in various ways before its merits can be judged. Some of the questions posed below are merely stated, but the answers are not yet available. 1 The point of departure in my story is the contrast between two models of democratic voting process: popular democracy, as exemplified by popular elections and referenda, and what might be called committee democracy, i.e., voting in smaller bodies of experts or specially appointed laymen. What is the difference between these two models? On one interpretation, voting in popular democracy is a procedure whose function is to aggregate the individuals' preferences to something like a collective preference, while in committee democracy what is being aggregated are committee members' opinions, or judgments, and the outcome is the collective judgment of the committee as a whole. The relevant judgments on the agenda often address a normative or an evaluative question: What is to be done? Or, what is the best alternative? Or, how are the alternatives to be ranked from the best to the worst? But, in some cases, the question before the committee might instead be factual in nature: Will the bridge that is being planned withstand heavy traffic? What will be the noise level in the vicinity of the railway tracks if the number of tracks is doubled? Etc.. 2 * This is a small birthday offering for my good friend Erik Carlson. The issues I here take up relate to some of the problems he and I discussed during our stay at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study in Uppsala, in 2008. 1 Some of the answers might be soon be forthcoming. Stephan Hartmann and I collaborate on a project in which the issues I take up in the penultimate section of this paper will hopefully be examined in more detail. I have discussed with Stephan several of the questions considered below. The ideas of this paper were presented at a meeting of the Tampere Club, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study in Uppsala, at the department of philosophy in Lund, and at a moral philosophy conference in Copenhagen. I am indebted to the participants in these events for useful comments and suggestions. 2 On another interpretation, even in popular democracy voters are expressing their judgments rather than preferences. But, on this interpretation, while in a committee all members are supposed to answer the same

Representative democracy is in crisis. Legislatures do not accurately reflect all sectors of society. Ordinary citizens should have more say than merely pulling a ballot lever once every few years. A government that is merely ‘for’ the people is not any longer good enough. It is time to institute a government that is also ‘by’ and ‘of’ the people. The original Athenian democracy used a method altogether different than elections to select its officials. They used the system now used to select citizens for jury duty -- sortition. This essay reflects upon how the lessons from that first democracy might be used to develop a ‘legislative jury’ capable of representing all citizens without regard to party affiliation, financial status or any ideology other than fair play. Includes appendix with links, bibliography, how to hold a workshop and access to other goods and services.

A discussion of some elements of the Classical (Athenian) Democracy and their relevance to Democratizing states in the 21st century.

2014

What is democracy? This question has been met with various answers, some normative and theoretical; others historical and descriptive. Castoriadis’s answer is a combination of the two: drawing deeply on the historical case of Athens, his notion of a true democracy is most of all connected to an idea, or an impulse: the project of autonomy. Theorists of democracy have argued that the polis democracy created in the sixth and fifth century BCE and modern liberal democracies have rather little in common (e.g. Habermas, 1994; Held, 1996). Castoriadis also sees significant differences between the two instances; but instead of viewing the former as a more primitive, undifferentiated form, he finds in the case of Greece – and Athenian democracy in particular – a critical corrective to contemporary democracies. While stressing that the Athenian democracy is not a model that can be transposed to modern, largely specialised, societies, he strongly believes in its relevance and potential to inspire us today. For Castoriadis, ancient and modern democracies are rooted in the same impulse, as two instances of the project of autonomy. However, the latter has become so far estranged from this common source that the ancient form can be used as a reminder, and an inspiration for reviving and recreating modern democracy.

Democracy is commonly considered to be a bad form of government, and yet, the best of all other alternatives. Over the following pages I will defend this thesis by making two lines of argument: in the first case, that democracy is a bad form of government because it allows people to make decisions upon matters of which they lack expertise, and in the second case, that democracy is the best out of all other forms because it mitigates corruption and promotes social progress by evenly dividing power among the people. I will argue these two points on a general understanding of democracy and its alternatives: oligarchy and monarchy. My intention is to defend the thesis on strictly theoretical grounds that do not apply to any specific democracy but rather to any form of government that may rightly call itself a democracy. In this way my focus will be on the structural components of democracy generally defined as rule of the people.

Democracy is a Discussion. Civic Engagement in Old and New Democracies, 1996

When democracies are literally under attack from insurrections, bombs and violent autocracies, we return to the basics of civic engagement for hope. This project is based on the premise that the ideals that hold democracies together are strengthened through the process of civic discussion. To that end, this handbook provides readings, discussion questions, and practical tips for leading discussions.

Democracy is analysed and found to be iniquitous. A superior form of government is proposed and shown to be viable and orthodox.

isara solutions, 2020

The idea of Democracy has existed in the tradition of Western political thought since ancient times. The term ‘democracy’ was first used in the fifth century BC by the Greek historian Herodotus in the sense of ‘rule by the people’. This term is derived from a combination of two Greek words: demos, meaning ‘the people’, and kratien, meaning ‘to rule’. Democracy is not merely a form of government; it is also a form of state as well as society. It is closely associated with participation, competition, and civil and political liberties. Abraham Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’ is very close to its literal meaning. Democracy is the Political Empowerment of the People. Democracy originally meant “rule by the people.” An important component of democracy in its original formulation was the ideal of the citizens’ direct participation in the legislative and political decision-making process. Democracy is an idea. It is developed as an analytic concept, a normative ideal, a political presentation, and an empirical description. It’s meaning slide among these usages. The idea of democracy is real in its far reaching consequences. In short, democracy as a form of government implies that the ultimate authority of governance in this system is vested in the ordinary people so that public policy as made to conform to the will of the people and to serve the interests of the people.