Widespread concern over recent changes in American civic life has spawned arguments in a range of disciplines about the importance of social capital, citizen civic capacity and deliberative democratic engagement in supporting the development of engaged citizens, as well as supporting a democracy that is effective, publicly-minded and accountable. This study contributes to this literature by empirically investigating the potential for a specific type of place-based community development called "cohousing" to enhance the quantity and quality of resident civic engagement. Cohousing neighborhoods marry elements of social contact design with democratic self-governance and intentional social practices designed to build trust and cohesion among neighbors. In addition to investigating civic engagement in cohousing, this study investigates the degree to which U.S. cohousing neighborhoods build social capital, develop residents' democratic capacities and provide a platform for deliberative democratic practice. The results of the study indicate extraordinarily high levels of civic engagement by U.S. cohousing residents as compared to both the general population and to individuals with similar educational, income and racial characteristics. A multiple-case analysis of three neighborhoods, selected for positive deviance in civic engagement levels, were found to possess high levels of trust, social cohesion and norms of reciprocity. Case community residents were also found to be developing a range of democratic capacities, individually and collectively, particularly through engagement in community self-governance via structures of distributed leadership and the use of consensus-based, community decision-making processes. This study suggests that self-governing, communities of place, such as cohousing neighborhoods may represent a promising new avenue for enhanced citizen-engagement at the grassroots-community level. These neighborhoods also represent an excellent arena for future investigation into conditions, necessary and sufficient, to catalyze increased democratic capacity and civic engagement on the part of citizens. / Ph. D.

No description available.

No description available.

Saudi Arabia is being challenged by increasing demands for democratic reform. Although many Saudi citizens desire such change, in order to maintain stability, dramatic and rapid reform is not considered prudent. Nor is the adoption of a Western model of democracy seen as a way forward. Indeed, such a shift would be counterproductive for most Islamic nations. A more measured approach, introducing reforms that build on traditional Islamic democratic ideals, would help to maintain stability and legitimacy for the various stakeholders involved. Consequently, attention has been turned to the ‘Majlis Al Shura’ or the Al-Shura Council, an Islamic Advisory Council that ensures policies and laws follow the principles of Islam. Shura, developed from the Holy Quran, is an ancient practice that has profound significance in Arab culture and history. It provides a framework which ensures scholars and experts from a variety of backgrounds are consulted on issues related to governance. Currently, the role the members play in governance of the Saudi State is decided by the King, who appoints individuals to the Council according to their perceived suitability. However, the Saudi Arabian Al-Shura Council is a highly respected institution. Allowing citizens to elect members, rather than having the King holding the authority to appoint them, would not only be well received, but would create a more effective check on governmental power, help satisfy the demand for more citizen input into public affairs, and pave the way for future, more substantial reform, if desired by Saudi society.

Over recent years, there has been an intense and polarised debate about the extent of democratisation in Turkey, although this has tended to be defined in institutional terms (for example, in the supposed reduction in military tutelage of the political system and the institutional recognition of minority rights). This study seeks to widen the terms of reference by examining the current challenges confronted by the Turkish media within the media-democracy relationship and, using the Kurdish question as a case study, examines the extent to which mainstream Turkish Media are contributing to deliberative democracy. It also seeks to identify where the Turkish media should be most appropriately located within competing models of media and democracy. This analysis of the challenges confronted in achieving and protecting media freedoms in Turkey is based on three empirical exercises. Semi-structured elite interviews were conducted with representatives from most of the mainstream media organisations in the country. Interviews were also conducted with political party representatives, NGO members and academics to ascertain their opinions of the media s democratic performance and credentials and also explore the extent to which they engage with journalists and news organisations routinely in their work. Finally, a content analysis of the coverage/content of two specific events related to the Kurdish Issue (the launch of the Kurdish language TV Channel TRT6 and Uludere Airstrike) in five mainstream Turkish newspapers was conducted. The interviews reveal sharply contrasting views about the extent to which democratisation processes are progressing in Turkey, and identify a range of barriers that continue to inhibit the democratic performance of the mainstream media (e.g. commercialization, state censorship, and other forms of political pressure). The detrimental impact of these factors is to a large degree confirmed by the content analysis of coverage of the Kurdish issue, but the analysis also shows that news output does contain a degree of diversity and difference. For this reason, it is not appropriate to conceive of the Turkish media as acting entirely as a closed message system for political elites.

The aim of this study is tos to make visible if and how teachers integrate democratic abilities in social studies education. I also want to examine what teachers experience enable or hinder the teaching of democratic abilities. The study is based on the following questions: Does deliberative and participatory democratic abilities apply in teaching and if so, how is this done in the actual teaching? What opportunities and challenges do teachers find in conversations-and participatory democratic abilities? The study examines how teachers teach deliberative and participatory democracy. This study is qualitative and based on interviews and observations offour teachers working in grade 3. The theoretical frame of the study is founded on the deliberative democracy model of Tomas Englund and Åsa Forsberg which is used to study how deliberative abilities take place in teaching. Furthermore, the theory formed by Roger Hart, called Ladder of participation,is used to study whether teachers invite studentsto participateand influencetheir own education. I also used Ljungberg and Unemar Öst theory about teacher's communicative strategies in connection with the controversy handling to give an understanding about how teachers handle controversy, but also how they in connection with controversy encourages deliberative conversations.The results of the study showed that the students did apply and practice conversations democratic abilities.Despite this, some deliberative democratic abilities were more prominent than others.On the other handthe application of participatory abilities were not as common as training deliberativ democractic abilites.

The minority rights paradox is articulated at the level of political theory, is deployed by liberal democratic institutions, and can be observed in the political discourse of mass communications. Minority groups, it is argued, are paradoxically claiming purported rights that are unsupported by the values upon which the claimants base their claim. On the one hand, minority claims are made on the basis of rights secured by a liberal democracy; on the other hand, the claims undermine the legitimacy of liberal reasoning—the same reasoning that legitimizes the rights on which the claims are made. The self-referential implications of this paradox are as follows: Either the minority claim negates its own justification or the underlying justification renders the claim moot. In either case, the charge of paradox effectively puts an end to the conversation by dismissing minority rights claims before they are properly understood. My aim is to first, come to terms with political dialogues in which the charge of paradox occurs and second, to overcome the stultifying effects of the minority rights paradox through a deliberative approach to negotiating the concept and content of minority rights claims. Evaluating the claims of minorities, I will argue, requires a dialogue that can adapt to the participants in the dialogue—an inclusive deliberative process that gives formal, procedural and substantive recognition to the worldviews of minority cultures in political decision-making.

Fsculty of Science School of Animal,Plant And Enviromental Sciences Msc 9201098j tsherwill@yahoo.com / South Africa’s new water policy and law have introduced the requirement for public participation in all aspects of resource management and decision-making. This policy change is in recognition of the potential benefits of participation in generating more informed, acceptable, equitable and sustainable management of the nation’s water resources. However the new water law does not prescribe the form this participation should take, or offer criteria for evaluating the success of participatory processes. The term ‘public participation’, in its contemporary usage worldwide, is poorly or broadly defined and may thus encompass a range of processes, which differ in the roles and influence afforded to their stakeholder participants, and in their ability to deliver desired outcomes and benefits to government or the public. This study aimed to investigate the influence of this procedural variation on public and stakeholder participation in the implementation of the National Water Act (Act no. 36 of 1998) in South Africa, and thereby recommend a preferred approach to conducting and facilitating these processes in the future. Use was made of a qualitative and primarily inductive research approach. This was designed to gather perspectives of the various role-players (stakeholders, specialists and government) for a desired process and outcome of participation, and to link process and outcome by means of two case studies of the current implementation of participatory processes for water resource management decision-making. Both case studies illustrated the over-riding negative influence of a product-oriented and ‘specialist-centred’ approach to participation, focused on the development of specific statutory products or decisions required by the National Water Act. This approach in turn is being driven by the current fragmentation of participation around these different products and stages of the overall resource management process. A recommended alternative is a more process-oriented, ‘stakeholder-centred’ approach to participatory events, within an integrative, ongoing participatory process. This must be based on mutual learning by all role-players, and an emphasis on inter-sectoral interaction and relationships. A key constraint identified to the achievement of more integrative participatory processes that offer influence to, and generate ownership by, stakeholder participants, is the lack of clarity within government and the South African water sector as to the intent of participation within the new water policy, and thus the process by which this participation should take place. In particular, the role of stakeholders, and how much influence or power they should be afforded in decision-making processes, is subject to individual interpretation. The recommendation from this research is that, given the ideals of equity, sustainability and citizen empowerment aspired to by the Constitution and the new water policy, government should strive to fully engage stakeholders in processes that both offer influence and inspire action. Ideally, linkages should be created to extend this influence to the broader political process.

Em discussões recentes, algumas teóricas feministas (Iris Young, Nancy Fraser e Seyla Benhabib) têm posto em evidência as pretensões de reconhecimento das identidades de grupos culturais, étnicos, “raciais", sexuais, etários, assim por diante. Essas pretensões têm revelado a existência de sociedades multiculturais e também implicado uma crescente demanda por políticas e direitos de afirmação das diferenças por parte dos movimentos sociais. Retomando a vertente crítica dessas teorias, o presente trabalho procura mostrar em que medida é possível mediar tais pretensões por reconhecimento no âmbito do Estado democrático de direito. Nesse sentido, parece promissora a idéia de uma esfera política pública que é capaz de dar vazão a esses movimentos e, ao mesmo tempo, oferecer um critério democrático de legitimidade política. / In recent discussions, some feminist theorists (Iris Young, Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib) have focused on claims for recognition of identity-based groups (cultural, ethnic, “racial", sexual, aged, and so forth). These claims have showed the existence of multicultural societies and have also given rise to an increasingly demand for affirmative policies and rights by social movements. This work will review those feminist critical theorists in order to show how it is possible to mediate such claims for recognition within democratic constitutional states. In this sense, a political public sphere seems to be a promising idea, which is able to give an outlet for social movements at the same time it gives a democratic criterion of political legitimacy.

Esta tese trata da atuação das novas instâncias participativas voltadas para a governança territorial constituídas para atender ao Programa de Promoção da Sustentabilidade de Espaços Sub-Regionais, da Política Nacional de Desenvolvimento Regional. Busca identificar a contribuição dos arranjos institucionais deliberativos, denominados Fóruns das Mesorregiões Diferenciadas, enquanto espaços privilegiados para a prática da democracia deliberativa, na governança do desenvolvimento dos seus respectivos territórios. Para tanto, foram escolhidos como objetos de estudo dois fóruns mesorregionais, localizados na macrorregião Sul do país, abrangendo os estados do Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina e Paraná. A abordagem empírica foca-se na atuação do Fórum da Mesorregião Metade Sul do Rio Grande do Sul (Fórum MESOSUL) e do Fórum da Mesorregião Grande Fronteira do Mercosul (Fórum MESO MERCOSUL), constituídos para atuar na integração e articulação dos diferentes atores regionais para a construção, implementação, monitoramento e avaliação de planos, projetos e ações de interesse público para o desenvolvimento das mesorregiões. Buscou-se por meio de uma base teórica-metodológica compreender a atuação e o processo de deliberação destes fóruns, enquanto estratégias inovadoras de governança territorial participativa, em novas escalas de planejamento do desenvolvimento. Com base neste propósito, buscou-se analisar a trajetória sócio-histórica dos Fóruns MESOSUL e MESO MERCOSUL enquanto possíveis instâncias de governança territorial. No estudo empírico dos Fóruns se verificou suas características de espaço de governança territorial participativa. A forma como as deliberações são efetivadas, representam uma inovação em relação às práticas tradicionais de planejamento e gestão do desenvolvimento, embora com algumas fragilidades e dificuldades, a atuação destes fóruns representa um avanço no processo de descentralização político administrativo, principalmente por atuarem em uma escala intermediária entre a municipal e a estadual, onde a multiplicidade de estruturas públicas e privadas se entrecruza, constituindo uma complexa rede de poder e de interesses individuais e coletivos. Conclui-se que os respectivos fóruns se enquadram como arranjos institucionais deliberativos e as suas práticas demonstram um esforço de governança territorial, mesmo que ainda não atenda aos modelos ideais. A expectativa quanto à realização desta pesquisa é a de contribuir com informações sobre o campo do conhecimento das políticas de desenvolvimento local/regional do país, bem como, das estruturas de governança territorial constituídas em espaços territoriais diferenciados. / This thesis focuses on the practice of the new participative bodies aimed at the territorial governance set to meet the Program for the Promotion of Sustainability of Sub-Regional Spaces, of the National Policy for Regional Development. It seeks to identify the contribution of deliberative institutional arrangements, called Forums of the Differentiated Mesoregions, while privileged spaces for the practice of the deliberative democracy, in the governance of the development of their respective territories. In order to do so, two mesoregional forums were chosen as study objects, located in the South macro-region of tthe country, comprising the states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná. The empirical approach focuses on the practice of the Fórum da Mesorregião Metade Sul do Rio Grande do Sul - Forum of the Mesoregion Southern Half of (Forum MESOSUL) and the Fórum da Mesorregião Grande Fronteira do Mercosul – Forum of the Mesoregion of the Mercosur Great Border (Fórum MESO MERCOSUL), comprised to work in the integration and articulation of the different regional actors for the construction, implementation, monitoring and assessment of plans, projects and actions of public interest for the development of the mesoregions. We aimed, through a theoretical-methodological basis, to understand the work and the process of deliberation of these forums as innovative strategies of participative territorial governance, in new scales of development planning. Based on this purpose, the aim was to analyze the social-historical course of the MESOSUL and MESO MERCOSUL Forums while possible instances of territorial governance. In the empirical study of the Forums it has been noticed their characteristics of space of participative territorial governance. The way the deliberations are made represent an innovation in terms of the traditional planning practices and development management, although with some weaknesses and difficulties, the practice of these forums represents an advance in the process of political and administrative decentralization, mainly as they work in an intermediary scale between the city and state level, where the diversity of public and private institutions intertwines, resulting in a complex network of power and individual and collective interests. The conclusion is that the respective forums fit in as deliberative institutional arrangements and their practices show an effort of territorial governance even though it does not yet serve the ideal models. The expectation concerning the completion of this research is to contribute with information on the field of knowledge about policies of local/regional development of the country as well as structures of territorial governance comprised in differentiated territorial spaces.