Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Beckman, Ludvig; Rosenberg, Jonas Hultin

doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9348-8

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This implies not only that individuals are (and should be) "either in or out" of a specific demos, but also that those who are in, should have all political rights and those who are out should have no political rights. Furthermore, they assume that the nation state has "virtually unlimited power to control residents, but only limited power to control non-residents", 16 so that only those who reside within the territory of a nation state should be included in the demoi of nation states. We also find this kind of dichotomous thinking on a further level.…”

Section: Conceptual Innovations In Thinking About Boundaries and Equamentioning

confidence: 99%

Let Me Vote in Your Country, and I’ll Let You Vote in Mine. A Proposal for Transnational Democracy

Blatter

Bauböck

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technocratic forms of international governance have spurred the rise of populist nationalists in Europe and around the globe. Joachim Blatter argues that we should tackle these intertwined challenges to representative democracy by transnationalising national democracies. In his kick-off text for the GLOBALCIT forum, he illustrates the underlining general problematique with the example of the Euro crisis, describes concrete steps towards a system of overlapping and transnationalised national democracies and outlines the potential benefits that would arise from a horizontal expansion of national demoi, elections and representation for democratic parties, parliaments and peoples. Blatter proposes that democracies should sign "joint declarations of interdependence" in which they express their commitment to the democratisation of their joint forms of governance and reciprocally offer their citizens the status of "consociated citizens." These consociated citizens enjoy the right to elect a limited number of "consociated representatives" in the parliaments of the consociated states. The elected and thereby directly authorised consociated representatives bring the perspectives and interests of the consociated citizens into the collective will-formation and decision-making process of the consociated states. According to Blatter, politicians and political parties would benefit since the current trade-off between being responsive and responsible would become weaker. National parliaments would regain their core place in the democratic process by serving as the central spaces for the necessary reconnect between international rule making and nationally embedded will-formation. Democratic nations would provide each other a legitimate pathway for getting involved in their domestic willformation and decision-making processes. Citizens receive additional and constructive means for political participation and contestation. GLOBALCIT has invited eleven scholars to engage with Blatter's proposal. Most see it as stimulating and constructive but raise further questions and some concerns. Is it focussing too much on institutional reform of democratic processes instead of tackling issues of socioeconomic inequality that propel the rise of populism? Is the model grounded in a coherent theory of democracy? Do the envisioned multiple and overlapping demoi undermine the necessary clarity of membership boundaries of political communities? Do consociated citizenship and limited powers of consociated representatives undermine a core democratic norm of political equality? The proposal assumes that reciprocity would be a helpful stimulus for the proposed expansion of the electorate, but what about the motivations of individual actors? Politicians might not want to give up current opportunities to mobilise domestic voters by blaming the external others. Furthermore, many commentators point to alternative ways of democratising relations of interdependence between states, which they perceive as more feasible or desirable, such as the strengthening o...

show abstract

Section: Conceptual Innovations In Thinking About Boundaries and Equamentioning

confidence: 99%

Let Me Vote in Your Country, and I’ll Let You Vote in Mine. A Proposal for Transnational Democracy

Blatter

Bauböck

2019

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Democratic Inclusion of Artificial Intelligence? Exploring the Patiency, Agency and Relational Conditions for Demos Membership

Beckman

Rosenberg

2022

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Should artificial intelligences ever be included as co-authors of democratic decisions? According to the conventional view in democratic theory, the answer depends on the relationship between the political unit and the entity that is either affected or subjected to its decisions. The relational conditions for inclusion as stipulated by the all-affected (AAP) and all-subjected principles (ASP) determine the spatial extension of democratic inclusion. Thus, AI qualifies for democratic inclusion if and only if AI is either affected or subjected to decisions by the political unit in relevant ways. This paper argues that the conventional view is too simple; that it neglects democratic reasons to recognize only agents and/or moral patients as participants in decision-making. The claim defended is that AAP and ASP implicitly affirm requirements for agency and patiency. In ASP, the entity included must be an agent understood either in terms of legal status, capacity to comply with the law or ability to recognize legitimate authority. In AAP, the entity included must be a patient, understood either in terms of capacity for sentience or consciousness. Thus, the idea here is to explore the potential democratic inclusion of artificial intelligences by an updated account of the relevant conditions of agency and patiency that are implicit in democratic theory. Although conceivable that AI is or will be either affected or subjected in relevant ways to decisions made by political units, it is far less clear that AI will ever be agents or patients in the sense required for democratic inclusion.

show abstract

From Openness to Inclusion: Toward a Democratic Approach to Migration Policy

Pippenger

2024

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many theorists argue that justice in international migration requires states to maximize the openness of their borders, even when that can only be done by denying full political membership to some migrants. In contrast, this article contends that democratic ideals recommend inclusion as the guiding principle of migration policy, since full membership for all the state’s residents is the only way to preserve democratic self-rule, whereas the justice- and freedom-related goals associated with openness can be promoted via other means. I define full inclusion as involving not only formal rights, but also solidarity. Against accounts that define solidarity in terms of shared identity (i.e., a specific commonality), I argue that democratic solidarity requires intersubjective “identification” among members of the demos, oriented toward their shared future. This account suggests how migration policy might advance the practical goal of more open borders, along with other moral goals associated with calls for greater openness, without sacrificing important democratic ideals.

show abstract

Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion

Cited by 10 publications

References 35 publications

Let Me Vote in Your Country, and I’ll Let You Vote in Mine. A Proposal for Transnational Democracy

Let Me Vote in Your Country, and I’ll Let You Vote in Mine. A Proposal for Transnational Democracy

The Democratic Inclusion of Artificial Intelligence? Exploring the Patiency, Agency and Relational Conditions for Demos Membership

From Openness to Inclusion: Toward a Democratic Approach to Migration Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About