The disenfranchisement of non-citizens in democratic governments is close to universal. In this article this state of affairs is critically examined from the vantage point of the meaning of the democratic criterion of inclusion. The major difficulty for any such endeavour is the apparent vagueness and ambiguity of that criterion. Two distinct interpretations are distinguished, the principle of membership and the all affected principle. The argument is made that only the all affected principle provides a coherent account of who should be included in the demos. More importantly, the observation is made that on any reasonable interpretation of the "all affected" the right to vote in national elections for resident aliens follows. Thus, the current practice of exclusion is found to be fundamentally at odds with the basic understanding of the democratic idea.
Should a growing market for genetic self-tests be welcomed or feared? From the point of view of personal autonomy the increasing availability of predictive health information seems promising. Yet it is frequently pointed out that genetic information about future health may cause anxiety, distress and even loss of "life-hopes." In this article the argument that genetic self-tests undermine personal autonomy is assessed and criticized. I contend that opportunities for autonomous choice are not reduced by genetic information but by misperceptions and misunderstandings of the results of genetic tests. Since the interpretation of genetic information is sometimes distorted by the information provided about the genetic products, more attention should be given to deceitful marketing that overblows the utility of genetic products. Yet personal autonomy is reduced neither by genetic tests nor by genetic information and there is consequently no compelling case for the conclusion that genetic self-tests should be prohibited.
The competence of Cabinet members in general, and of Swedish Cabinet members in particular, is frequently put into doubt despite the fact that little systematic research exists on the topic. The meaning of ‘competence’ in this context is of course controversial. This study is confined to the occurrence of ‘expertise’: indicators of professional experience from the subject areas for which the minister is responsible. The sample includes 182 Swedish Cabinet appointments from 1917 to 2004, covering the full range of ministers concerned with economic and social affairs. The indicators used include previous political experience from the relevant policy field as well as relevant educational and professional backgrounds. When these measures are used, the resulting pattern is that few government ministers are truly amateurs at the time of entering the Cabinet. Moreover, there are few signs that the level of expertise so understood has undergone any dramatic changes during the time period. These results speak against the views endorsed by some scholars that ‘the problem of power of politicians is power without competence’. If it is true that political experience has the potential to breed expertise in particular policy fields, it cannot also be true that the recruitment of full‐time politicians as Cabinet Ministers indicates the absence of expertise.
Citizenship and residency are basic conditions for political inclusion in a democracy. However, if democracy is premised on the inclusion of everyone subject to collectively binding decisions, the relevance of either citizenship or residency for recognition as a member of the polity is uncertain. The aim of this paper is to specify the conditions for being subject to collective decisions in the sense relevant to democratic theory. Three conceptions of what it means to be subject to collectively binding decisions are identified and examined, referring to those subject to legal duties and legal powers or to those subject to legal duties and state institutions. The contrast between them is most clearly illustrated in relation to non‐residents, those not present in the territory of the state. The extraterritorial dimension of the law thus highlights a fundamental ambiguity in the theory of democracy concerning the extension of political rights.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.