Multilingual Parties and the Ethics of Partisanship

Abstract

In this article, we argue that within multilingual polities, whether national or transnational, multilingual parties are allthings-considered more desirable than monolingual parties operating via a lingua franca. First, we develop a taxonomy of what we believe are the main ideal-type models of "linguistic democracy," that is, of the relationship between language and democracy in multilingual polities. Second, we argue that multilingual parties are in a better position than monolingual parties to formulate conceptions of the common good that take into account diverse linguistic and epistemic perspectives. Third, we claim that such parties can perform an educational role for their members and for citizens in general, by making them aware of the implications of linguistic diversity for democratic life. Fourth, we argue that multilingual parties can offer a linkage between citizens and government via forms of intraparty deliberation that are rendered more inclusive and democratic by the use of multiple languages.

Who rules the deliberative party? Examining the Agora case in Belgium

“…Operating in the Brussels’ multilingual context, members can express themselves in French, English, or Dutch. Members are proud of their multilingual organization and claim that multilingualism fulfills an important educational role and allows the party to represent and organize the Citizens’ Assembly in a way that is more sensitive to the common good of the people in the Brussels-Capital Region (see Bonotti and Stojanović, 2022).…”

Linguistic prejudice and electoral discrimination: What can political theory learn from sociolinguistics?

“…Similarly, Philippe Van Parijs argues that “the emergence of … a demos is facilitated, indeed made possible, by the availability of a common language” (Van Parijs 2011, 28) and that there can be “[n]o viable democracy without a linguistically unified demos” (Van Parijs 2000, 236). As well as presupposing a monolingual mindset (Clyne 2008, 27) that unwarrantedly dismisses multilingual democracy as impractical and undesirable (see, e.g., Bonotti and Stojanovic 2022; Bonotti and Willoughby 2022), these claims neglect the implications that intra ‐linguistic bias can have for people's (in)ability to participate in democratic life. In other words, even when people do share a common language or lingua franca, this may not result in a democratic process that is truly inclusive for all participants.…”

Babel Fish Democracy? Prospects for Addressing Democratic Language Barriers through Machine Translation and Interpretation

“…It gives examples of governance contexts in which they have been enacted or commentators who have proposed a model. It is informed by the instructive analysis offered by Bonotti and Stojanović (2022) and follows their categorization of nonmachine models as broadly monolingual or multilingual. It also breaks out regional and global-level applications or proposals, introduces a new machine category and three possible models within it, and highlights some objections to each model.…”

“…1; see also Archibugi 2005Etzioni 2008). They also have included various multilingual models focused on the use of multiple shared languages, or on the more widespread provision of human interpretation (Bonotti and Stojanović 2022;Doerr 2012;Isernia and Fishkin 2014).…”