| 1. |
- Bellamy, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
The Democratic Production of Politcal Cohesion : Partisanship, Institutional Design and Lifeform
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Contemporary Political Theory. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1470-8914 .- 1476-9336. ; 18:2, s. 282-310
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- What binds a democratic society together? This would seem a well-rehearsed topic in modern political theory, but on closer scrutiny, it may appear less so. If we reformulate the question, it may become clearer why: what binds democratic society together? The emphasis on ‘democratic’ is the clue here. Much recent discussion on the cohesive force in democracies has been parasitic on other debates, such as that between cosmopolitans and communitarians on justice as the first virtue of society; that between nation-state-based and post-national views of contemporary politics or that about the cultural aspects of democratic citizenship as the glue that makes democracy work. All such views and debates tend to assume a somewhat ‘externalist’ perspective, so to speak, of the problem of cohesion in democracies. Cosmopolitans and liberal communitarians have argued over the relative importance of values and identity as the basis for the stability of a just society, whose legitimate political arrangements they generally agree must be democratic, so as to reflect the demands of equality and self-government. Disputes over whether the institutions of democracy still require the background conditions provided by the nation-state, with its consolidated networks of party system, solidarity, civil society organisations and public opinion formation, or whether similar conditions can be reproduced at a more trans- and post-national level, are very similar in scope to those between cosmopolitans and liberal communitarians. Both these disputes concern the social, institutional, ideal or identitarian pre-conditions of democracy, which help it to work with a modicum of stability, in so far as they guarantee the political cohesion of either the demos or the regime itself. Discussions over the quality and competence of citizenship look at democratic culture as an important condition for democratic institutions and procedures to function smoothly and effectively. Debates over the ‘civic culture’ in the 1960s and more recently on ‘social capital’ lay emphasis on a mixture of attitudes, practices, participation in associational networks and consolidated norms of sociability as formative components of democratic citizenship, on which the working of democratic institutions and rules depends. This suggests something more internal, or at least a virtuous circle between the culture and the institutions of democracy. But is democracy itself capable of producing political cohesion, and on what basis?
|
|
| 2. |
- Friedner Parrat, Charlotta, 1980-
(författare)
-
Change, Institutions, and International Organisations : Essays on the English School of International Relations
- 2017
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The overall topic of this thesis is the English School understanding of international order, which I approach specifically by analysing the English School idea of international institutions and their change. The purpose is to develop the theory in a meta-theoretically conscious and coherent way. The three essays in this volume are independent in relation to each other, yet in some ways cumulative. Essays I and II aim to address primarily the question of how to conceptualise the current international order of multilateralism and international organisations. Essay I uses the empirical issue of UN reform to formulate one English School conceptualisation of international order, building specifically on the School’s central theme of international institutions. Essay II theoretically develops the tools of the English School for capturing how international institutions, according to English School theory the fundaments of international order, might change. Essay III approaches the meta-theoretical question of how change itself is understood in the English School, and how different theoretical readings of what we might mean by change give rise to different approaches to the normative question of what might be improvement in the international order. I argue that an internally coherent understanding of change in international society should emphasise change in institutions, made intelligible by ex-post narratives which contribute to establishing the discursive connection between practices and their normative legitimation, and guided by a sustained normative debate on the nature of improvement. This understanding of change signifies a much-needed addition to the English School toolbox, and brings a promise of a meta-theoretical grounding of the theory. In addition, it opens for similar theoretical inquiries into other IR theories.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Näsström, Sofia, et al.
(författare)
-
A Democratic Critique of Precarity
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Global Discourse. - : Bristol University Press. - 2326-9995 .- 2043-7897. ; 5:4, s. 556-573
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The term 'precarity' has become increasingly popular as a way to capture the material and psychological vulnerability resulting from neoliberal economic reforms. This article demonstrates that such precarity is incompatible with democracy. More specifically, it makes two arguments. First, and inspired by Montesquieu's analysis of the 'principles', or public commitments behind different forms of government, it argues that modern democracy is a sui generis form of government animated and sustained by a principle of shared responsibility. Second, it shows that this principle is negated by the neoliberal form of governing. The neoliberal policies currently operating in many democratic countries not only push ever more people into precarious conditions where they have to compete against each other for security and status; by displacing onto individuals a responsibility that ought to be shared and divided between citizens, they corrupt the core of democracy itself. The article thus suggests that precarity is problematic not only from the standpoint of social justice, as emphasized in earlier research, but also from the perspective of democracy. Precarity contradicts the ways of life that must be regenerated in order for a democratic form of government to sustain itself over time.
|
|
| 5. |
- Näsström, Sofia
(författare)
-
Democratic Representation beyond Election
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Constellations. - Chichester, West Sussex : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1351-0487 .- 1467-8675. ; 22:1, s. 1-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article offers a framework for thinking about democratic representation beyond election. It argues, firstly, that modern democracy is a unique form of government made up of representative claims. To act on behalf of the people without electoral backup is therefore not foreign to modern democracy, but integral to its very operation. At the same time, not all claims to represent the people are necessarily democratic. In order to distinguish democratic from non-democratic representative claims, the article argues, secondly, that it is necessary to qualify what it means to act on behalf of the people, and that such qualification can be found in the principle of equality. The article concludes by exploring the significance of this framework for the crisis of electoral democracy.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Näsström, Sofia
(författare)
-
Metodstrid eller nyorientering?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. - 0039-0747. ; 119:4, s. 803-804
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
