Theories of Democracy

Cunningham, Frank

doi:10.4324/9780203466247

Cited by 167 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As numerous empirical studies have shown, the production of said social formations often leads to greater trust and solidarity among differently situated persons across society, develops new individual capacities in group settings, creates new group capacities, and aids in the alleviation of anomie and alienation common to both capitalist and socialist polities. 32 MaxD clearly resonates with and draws from these aspects of associationism, but it splits with the latter with regard to the relationship of the associations to the state. Associationism still considers the state to be the center of political activity and legitimacy whereas maxD, like Gould's account, locates the right to self-determination in common activities wherever they occur--usually outside the state and political society.…”

Section: Maxd and Democratic Theorymentioning

confidence: 82%

“…18 Initially regarded as a raucous and incommensurable ad hoc mix of antagonists lacking agreement and vision, the anti-(neoliberal) globalization movement has matured into a diverse coalition of forces forging transnational commonalities among one another as visions of "another world" are articulated both conceptually and on the ground. 19 Just as many social and political movements in the 1960s inspired democratic theorists to contemplate the possibilities of participatory democratic practices both within and outside the state, 20 the Global Justice Movement offers a rich array of practices and concepts to contemporary theorists considering the possibility of local, international and/or transnational democracy. This is true for at least three reasons.…”

Section: The Global Justice Movement and The Reinvention Of Participamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transnational Participatory Democracy in Action: The Case of La Via Campesina

Menser¹

2008

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a recent essay in a special issue of this journal on global democracy, Daniel Weinstock argues that there are "two sets of reasons one might have to think that global democracy would be a good thing." The first rationale deems global democracy desirable because it would allow individuals to "exercise political agency." 1 Institutional design, then, should promote the active participation of persons in the collective project of governance if not full-blown "selfgovernment." The alternate form of justification argues that the project of global democratization is worthwhile insofar as such processes would enable individuals of various cultures and locales to efficaciously realize their interests. On this view, institutional design should promote the protection of private freedoms, effective mechanisms for political representation, and competent governance, but not citizen agency as such. Indeed, states Weinstock, schemes seeking the latter are "unrealistic" given the current global situation which is characterized by markedly uneven political and economic development. Thus, international institutions too should function, along with governments, so as to accurately register and respond to the varying demands of citizens. 2 Drawing upon Weinstock's terminology, I shall call the first framework the "agency-oriented" view, and the second the "interest-oriented" view. However, while Weinstock defends an interest-oriented view and takes deliberative democracy as his principal polemical target, I will argue against both interest-oriented and deliberative models and instead defend an agency-oriented model of participatory democracy. Weinstock, like most others in contemporary political theory, argues against models that demand broad participation because they are "unrealistic" given the inclinations and capacities of present populations and the demands and possibilities of the present interstate system. While interest-oriented views often criticize deliberative democracy for being impracticable, deliberative democrats make similar charges against participatory models. And one key tenet that interest and deliberative models share is a strong commitment to the state as a crucial source of political legitimacy and center for political action whatever its modality: social democratic welfare state or neoliberal security state.I shall argue for a version of the agency view that I call "maximal democracy" or maxD. MaxD builds upon participatory democratic traditions within democratic theory and recent work by Carol Gould and identifies the social realm, broadly construed, as the primary locus of democratization. My conception is also

show abstract

Section: Maxd and Democratic Theorymentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: The Global Justice Movement and The Reinvention Of Participamentioning

confidence: 99%

Transnational Participatory Democracy in Action: The Case of La Via Campesina

Menser¹

2008

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12 While republicans see freedom to mean self-government, liberalism defines liberty 'in opposition to democracy, as a constraint on self-government' (Sandels, 1996, p. 25). The liberal understanding that treasures individual rights and limited government contradicts with other, partly republican, democratic values such as participation and equality (Arblaster, 2002;Cunningham, 2002). These theoretical disagreements make it difficult to combine the republican and the liberal models.…”

Section: Republican and Liberal Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Community Building, Civil Society and Societal Service Production in China

Salmenkari

2011

Journal of Civil Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Afinal, se tomarmos a distinção já clássica em filosofia entre conceito e concepção (Herbert Hart, John Rawls, Ronald Dworkin), veremos que existem diferentes concepções em torno do conceito de democracia. Mais do que isso, há autores, como David Held (2006), que identificam, ao longo dos séculos, dez modelos democráticos distintos, ao passo que outros, como Frank Cunningham (2002), falam na existência de, pelo menos, seis teorias sobre a democracia. Já o renomado cientista político Robert Dahl (2006) Assim, buscamos cumprir a advertência do constitucionalista Neil Komesar (1994;; 2013) -cujas reflexões têm, inclusive, impactado estudos sobre as regras decisórias ao nível do pluralismo constitucional europeu (MADURO, 2006) A questão que se coloca é que toda escolha exibe pontos positivos e negativos.…”

Section: Abstract: Icms Confaz Democratic Theory Unanimity Majority Runclassified

Levando a democracia a sério: uma abordagem da regra decisória ideal para o CONFAZ

Derzi

Magalhaes

2017

Revista Jurídica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tendo como panorama teórico a análise comparativa, que busca contribuir para a justificação de escolhas institucionais, tanto em sede de desenho e reforma constitucional, quanto em nível de direito infraconstitucional e políticas públicas, o objetivo deste trabalho é enfrentar a polêmica relativa à definição da regra decisória ideal para a concessão de incentivos e benefícios fiscais do Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços – ICMS no âmbito do Conselho Nacional de Política Fazendária – CONFAZ. Para tanto, será necessário confrontar as regras da unanimidade e da maioria, assim como os principais modelos de democracia, à luz dos princípios constitucionais e dos ideais do federalismo fiscal cooperativo e da justiça social.

show abstract

Theories of Democracy

Cited by 167 publications

References 0 publications

Transnational Participatory Democracy in Action: The Case of La Via Campesina

Transnational Participatory Democracy in Action: The Case of La Via Campesina

Community Building, Civil Society and Societal Service Production in China

Levando a democracia a sério: uma abordagem da regra decisória ideal para o CONFAZ

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About