An odd partnership: identity-based constitutional claims in modern democracy

Breda, Vito

doi:10.1017/cbo9781139696654.006

“…Thirdly, this introductory review will not consider the details of the critique which depicts constitutional patriotism as a form of civil religion (Breda 2004;Müller 2007b, 202). Müller argues, for instance, that constitutional patriotism might generate an uncritical acquiescence of inherited constitutional culture (2007b, 202).…”

Section: Constitutional Patriotism: Recent Critiques and Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Patriotism

Breda

¹

2020

Handbook of Patriotism

Self Cite

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constitutional patriotism is a political theory that seeks to provide an explanation for the sense of ownership that most individuals have towards their national constitutional system. Specifically, constitutional patriotism assumes that free-thinking individuals involved in a discussion over the common good will reach an agreement that is perceived, at least by those involved in the debate, as having normative value. The awareness that such a deliberative process has historically been a part of the constitutional system also induces a sense of ownership of past historical accommodations of constitutional principles. The shared perception of being part of historically grounded institutions within a deliberative democracy is sometimes called the 'normative surplus effect' or 'normative spill-over effect' of the deliberative process. The theory, in its current form, was proposed by Jürgen Habermas and Jean-Werner Müller.Debates over the common good might take place informally or within the state's institutions. Pell-mell informal debates, with few exceptions, have a limited effect on amending constitutional norms. Yet, the prerogative to openly discuss laws and policies legitimised by constitutional norms is normally sufficient to develop an inner sense of belonging to a constitutional system. Deliberative debates within public institutions (e.g. parliaments and courts) are more likely to change the functioning of a constitutional system, but they are, by way of comparison to

show abstract

“…Firstly, over a period of time, unchallenged agreements over the 'common good' will become part of the shared cultural assets. For instance, the due process clause in the English Magna Carta ('No man shall be arrested or imprisoned ... except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land') and the Scottish assertion of individual freedom as a self-evident prerogative ('It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself') are currently part of the UK's constitutional culture (Breda 2014 liberal democracy that we inherited from the Enlightenment (e.g. individual freedom and a commitment to pursue truth and justice) and the dynamic nature of the interpretations of those principles in a highly-diversified society (Habermas 1994, 11-12).…”

Section: Theoretical Assumptions and Normative Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional Patriotism

Breda

¹

2017

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constitutional patriotism is a political theory that seeks to provide an explanation for the sense of ownership that most individuals have towards their national constitutional system. Specifically, constitutional patriotism assumes that free-thinking individuals involved in a discussion over the common good will reach an agreement that is perceived, at least by those involved in the debate, as having normative value. The awareness that such a deliberative process has historically been a part of the constitutional system also induces a sense of ownership of past historical accommodations of constitutional principles. The shared perception of being part of historically grounded institutions within a deliberative democracy is sometimes called the 'normative surplus effect' or 'normative spill-over effect' of the deliberative process. The theory, in its current form, was proposed by Jürgen Habermas and Jean-Werner Müller. Debates over the common good might take place informally or within the state's institutions. Pell-mell informal debates, with few exceptions, have a limited effect on amending constitutional norms. Yet, the prerogative to openly discuss laws and policies legitimised by constitutional norms is normally sufficient to develop an inner sense of belonging to a constitutional system. Deliberative debates within public institutions (e.g. parliaments and courts) are more likely to change the functioning of a constitutional system, but they are, by way of comparison to

show abstract

“…Firstly, over a period of time, unchallenged agreements over the 'common good' will become part of the shared cultural assets. For instance, the due process clause in the English Magna Carta ('No man shall be arrested or imprisoned ... except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land') and the Scottish assertion of individual freedom as a self-evident prerogative ('It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself') are currently part of the UK's constitutional culture (Breda 2014).…”

Section: Theoretical Assumptions and Normative Claimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Constitutional patriotism assumes that freedom, deliberation and a commitment to rational and objective decisions will help in steering a community of citizens towards the common good. As one of the most persuasive contemporary political theories, constitutional patriotism has also attracted a fair amount of criticism (Canovan 2000;Michelman 2001;Laborde 2002;Breda 2004;Kumm 2005). Given that the overarching aim of this Encyclopaedia is to seek to elucidate complex theoretical proposals and provide the reader with a springboard for further studies, this section will focus on a selection of critical engagements with the intention of clarifying the theoretical contribution that constitutional patriotism has made to the current understanding of the functioning of modern constitutional democracy.…”

Section: Constitutional Patriotism: Recent Critiques and Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constitutional patriotism

2008

Choice Reviews Online

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constitutional patriotism is a political theory that seeks to provide an explanation for the sense of ownership that most individuals have towards their national constitutional system. Specifically, constitutional patriotism assumes that free-thinking individuals involved in a discussion over the common good will reach an agreement that is perceived, at least by those involved in the debate, as having normative value. The awareness that such a deliberative process has historically been a part of the constitutional system also induces a sense of ownership of past historical accommodations of constitutional principles. The shared perception of being part of historically grounded institutions within a deliberative democracy is sometimes called the 'normative surplus effect' or 'normative spill-over effect' of the deliberative process. The theory, in its current form, was proposed by Jürgen Habermas and Jean-Werner Müller.

show abstract

An odd partnership: identity-based constitutional claims in modern democracy

Cited by 5 publications

References 19 publications

Constitutional Patriotism

Constitutional Patriotism

Constitutional Patriotism

Constitutional patriotism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About