This dissertation investigates the question: what do we want from our democratic institutions and how should we design them to get it? I argue that we want our democratic institutions to promote cognitive political engagement among all citizens and that accomplishing this task requires focusing reform efforts on electoral institutions like mandatory voting rather than small-scale deliberative forums. Democratic theory has been dominated by deliberative theories of democracy for at least two decades. As this literature turned to the question of how to institutionalize deliberative democracy, the inherently limited scale of deliberative institutions like deliberative polling or participatory budgeting has made scholars like Simone Chambers and Jane Mansbridge worry that deliberation abandons mass democracy, and with it meaningful democratic legitimacy. I argue that such worries are well founded because the effective inclusion of all citizens, not deliberation, constitutes the most important democratic value and that as a result, participatory institutions should be arranged so as to promote inclusion, even at the cost of values like deliberation. The first part of the project advances a novel conception of inclusion based on reflective cognitive engagement with democratic politics and demonstrates the central importance of inclusion within democratic theory. The second half of the project examines different institutions for their ability to promote inclusion and finds that, in the American context, most deliberative forums as currently designed are too small and feeble to do so but that adequately reformed electoral institutions like mandatory voting can promote inclusion and reflection well. One important implication is that in a world of limited activist resources and public taste for reform, democratic reformers in the United States should focus their attention on electoral organization and institutions rather than small-scale experiments if they hope to affect mass democracy. This project sits at the nexus of empirical research on political participation, comparative institutional design, and the ethics of democratic citizenship. It considers questions like: when the resources of democratic reformers are finite, what is the most important goal for them to pursue? How demanding of the time, attention, and resources of its citizens must a flourishing democracy be? May citizens opt out of such demands? What specific reforms are most efficient at achieving the proper priorities of democratic theory? Answering these questions requires combining empirical insights about political behavior and the performance of different institutional arrangements with normative and ethical arguments regarding the priorities of democratic theory and the nature of democratic citizenship.

O presente trabalho procura demonstrar a evolução do conceito jurídico de cidadania, buscando compreender qual conceito melhor reflete o panorama democrático do século XXI. A democracia atual implica o envolvimento de múltiplos personagens, caminhando para a ampliação das formas de participação e do espaço de compartilhamento do poder entre a população e seus representantes. O conceito jurídico tradicional de cidadania se diferencia do conceito adotado pelas demais áreas do conhecimento, pois a limita aos direitos políticos ativos e passivos. Essa concepção clássica parece não corresponder ao atual estágio democrático, em que os governos passam a sofrer maior influência externa e interna, além da crescente possibilidade de participação dos personagens estranhos. É inegável o desconforto em conferir aos não detentores dos direitos políticos a condição de não-cidadãos, mesmo se esse conceito for considerado estritamente técnico. As ciências não-jurídicas desenvolveram o conceito de cidadania a partir do período pós-guerra, especialmente com a concepção de direito a ter direitos, introduzida por Hannah Arendt, a partir da qual os direitos políticos já não se resumem mais ao direito de votar e de ser votado. A possibilidade de participação e de compartilhamento do poder demonstra ser a cidadania um elemento democrático de significado muito mais amplo, cujo conceito deve ser construído não apenas à luz do direito positivo vigente, mas também considerando a necessária afirmação dos Direitos Humanos. Assim, pode-se dizer que o conceito jurídico de cidadania que fundamenta o Estado Democrático de Direito da República Federativa do Brasil deve ser entendido como o \"princípio da máxima inclusão possível\" dos indivíduos nas esferas política, econômica, cultural e social. / This present work aims at showing the evolution of the citizenship legal concept, seeking to comprehend which concept better reflects the democratic panorama of the 21st Century. Current democracy implicates the involvement of multiple characters walking towards the enhancement of participation forms and power sharing space between population and its representative. The traditional legal concept of citizenship differentiates from the concept adopted by other knowledge areas because it limits active and passive electoral rights. This classic conception seems not to relate to the current democracy stage, in which governments suffer greater external and internal influences, other than the possibility of foreign characters participation. It is undeniable how uneasy it is to grant non-citizen status to those not holding electoral rights, even if this concept is considered strictly technical. Non-legal sciences have developed the concept of citizenship from the post-war period, particularly with the conception of right to have rights introduced by Hannah Arendt, from which political rights are no longer narrowed to the right to vote and to be voted. The possibility of participation and sharing power evidences that citizenship is a democratic element with a much broader meaning, which concept must be built not only at the light of the positive right in force but also considering the required affirmation of Human Rights. Therefore, one can say that the legal concept of citizenship providing grounds to the Democratic State based on the rule of Law of the Federative Republic of Brazil must be understood as principle of maximum possible inclusion of individuals in the political, economical, cultural and social branches.

Maintaining the essential features of local democracy, representation and contestation, my theory allows for the representation of the interest of subpopulations in the global community by actors such as nongovernmental organization and intergovernmental organizations. I will begin by outlining what features are necessary for a theory’s consideration as democratic in nature. Then, relying upon democracy in a broad sense, it will be my aim to demonstrate that the right to democracy is universal human right. The following stage will provide the backing, by way of the moral progress of human rights, that the right to democracy is expressible by “importantly affected” subgroups in the global arena. The final stage of my conceptual defense will focus on the validation of representatives who have no institutional connection with the populations they represent. With such established, the paper will proceed into a practical defense, discussing how claims made by actors can be accepted or rejected by represented subpopulations. It will then become necessary to demonstrate that the paternalistic claims made by representatives are incorporable into a democratic theory without forgoing the essence of democracy. To show this is feasible, methods of appealing paternalistic claims by way of international human rights courts will be explained. Finally, possibilities to mediate general feasibility issues will be explored.

Globalization, specialization, and intensification have transformed the global food system, generating material flows and impacts that span multiple scales and levels, presenting novel governance challenges. Many argue for a transition toward a sustainable food system, although the scope and specific goals are fiercely contested. Theory and method is needed to evaluate competing normative claims and build legitimacy. In this dissertation Vermont serves as a case study to investigate how environmental and economic flows impact regional governance, focusing on efforts to manage agricultural phosphorus to achieve water quality goals. A material flow account is developed to estimate phosphorus flows embedded in commodities flowing in and out of Vermont’s agricultural system from 1925-2012. The results indicate a net imbalance of phosphorus flows for the entire period, leading to the accumulation of legacy phosphorus in soils that constitutes a long-term threat to water quality. Agricultural intensification and land cover change during this period led to increased phosphorus use efficiency, livestock density, and dependency on imported feed, the largest source of phosphorus entering Vermont since the 1980s. The evidence of persistent imbalance calls into question the effectiveness of current nonpoint source pollution policy. A critical investigation of nutrient management planning policy reveals several shortcomings: pasture is frequently excluded; many phosphorus flows that cross the farm-gate are not captured; critical information on soil phosphorus levels and runoff risk is not collected in a manner that facilitates regional governance. The integration of nutrient management plans and mass-balances is proposed as an alternative approach that can increase accountability, encourage efficiency, and facilitate management and governance, albeit within constraints imposed by Vermont’s position in a globalized market for agricultural commodities. The empirical and policy analysis is complemented by a theoretical investigation that starts from the observation that a sustainability transition inevitably entails tradeoffs amongst competing normative goals. Navigating these tradeoffs is complicated by mismatch between the reach of governance institutions and the spatial and temporal dimensions of the challenges they face. This investigation contributes to understanding how legitimacy and consensus are constructed in the context of competing normative claims and multi-level governance. It considers deliberative democracy as a means for evaluating normative claims and arriving at a shared, legitimate basis for social action. An instrumental perspective on deliberation is contrasted with a deeper notion that sees deliberation as constitutive of sustainability at a local-to-global level. A conclusion grounds this analysis by drawing out the ways in which deliberation can inform Vermont’s efforts to govern its agriculture, water quality, and economic development, sowing the seeds for a sustainability transition.

<p>The objective for this study is to examine whether it is possible to use the method of reflective equilibrium in order to enhance the usefulness of public debates as a support for political decision-making. Since public debates from political quarters are seen as an important tool for policy-making, the need for a rational assessment of the views put forward in such debates are important. And since reflective equilibrium aims for coherence between judgments on different levels – intuitions, principles and theories, which all are put forward in public debates – the point of departure for this theses is that this method could be useful for the matter of bringing some kind of structure to public debates.</p><p>The analysis in this study shows that there actually are similarities between the method of reflective equilibrium and the course of public debates, since they both are characterized by the fact that viewpoints are mutually scrutinized in the light of one another. Further, it is argued that a more systematic applying of the method of reflective equilibrium would further the justification force of the outcome of public debates, since the method stresses the need of rationality and the importance of taking all relevant opinions into consideration. Therefore, the conclusion is that applying reflective equilibrium to public debates could make the political decision-making more democratic.</p>

We can best understand the moral obligations of citizens and officials concerning public reason as set out by John Rawls when two differing standards latent in his body of work are made explicit. The weaker standard, which I call Public Representation (or PR), is exegetically supported primarily by the proviso found in his “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. PR allows that citizens may deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to whatever perspective and using whatever reasons they please, so long as they believe the positions they advocate are adequately just and adequately justifiable with public reasons. I present PR as establishing a moral minimum citizens and officials bear an obligation to satisfy on pain of failing to garner an adequate degree of justice, respect, legitimacy, and stability. The more demanding standard, which I call Public Judgment (or PJ), is exegetically supported by quotes found throughout Rawls’s work, but especially in Political Liberalism, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. PJ requires that citizens deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to a public perspective with public reasons, that they only advocate positions and offer justifications they consider most reasonable, and that they share their thought processes in public. PR is nonobligatory, but achieves significant gains according to each of the four key political values mentioned above, which gives dedicated citizens good reason to embrace it. Chapter one lays out and explores the big picture concepts framing the project; chapter two sets out Rawls’s view on public reason according to the primary texts; chapter three presents four contemporary liberal theorists’ views on public reason – Nicholas Wolterstorff, Robert Audi, David Reidy, and Micah Schwartzman; chapter four uses the lessons of chapter three to help fully unpack and compare Public Representation and Public Judgment; and chapter five considers three potential objections to my view and offers corresponding replies.

The objective for this study is to examine whether it is possible to use the method of reflective equilibrium in order to enhance the usefulness of public debates as a support for political decision-making. Since public debates from political quarters are seen as an important tool for policy-making, the need for a rational assessment of the views put forward in such debates are important. And since reflective equilibrium aims for coherence between judgments on different levels – intuitions, principles and theories, which all are put forward in public debates – the point of departure for this theses is that this method could be useful for the matter of bringing some kind of structure to public debates. The analysis in this study shows that there actually are similarities between the method of reflective equilibrium and the course of public debates, since they both are characterized by the fact that viewpoints are mutually scrutinized in the light of one another. Further, it is argued that a more systematic applying of the method of reflective equilibrium would further the justification force of the outcome of public debates, since the method stresses the need of rationality and the importance of taking all relevant opinions into consideration. Therefore, the conclusion is that applying reflective equilibrium to public debates could make the political decision-making more democratic.

Abstract Title: A democratic organisation - one click away? A quantitative content analysis which studies the potential of democratic communication through intranet use. Authors: Stina Gabrielsson and Jill Johansson Vennelin Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there is potential for democratic communication within the NGOs through intranet use. Key questions to be answered were: To what extent is authority versus members represented on the intranet Klick’s discussion forum? What/which communication-related functions out of social function, knowledge transferring and debate are featured in the posts published on the intranet Klick’s discussion forum? Are deliberative discussions being practiced in the discussion forumthreads on the intranet Klick? The thesis is based on the theory of deliberative democracy. In order to substantiate the theory has theoretical perspectives concerning participation and involvement also been applied. These perspectives are derived from organizational theory and internal communication. Method/Material: This study consists of a quantitative content analysis of the 477 posts and the 129 discussion threads available on the NGO RFSU’s intranet Klick the 29th of november 2012. Main results: The results show that 63, 4 percent of those who were active in the discussionforum represented the category authority, while the category members were formed by 36, 6 percent. The result of the communicational functions of the forum’s posts were 75, 7 percent knowledge transferring, 33, 3 percent debate and 23, 3 percent social function. 86, 6 percent of the discussion threads were considered neutral, 13, 2 percent deliberative and no, 0 percent, were considered non-deliberative. The study has found many examples of the presence of democratic communication within Klick, showing that this is possible through intranet use. However, the low participation in terms of members as a whole and the over-representation of authorities can be argued to not form democratic communication with reference to the chosen definition of democracy, the model of participatory democracy with deliberative qualities. Course: Media and Communication studies C University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University Period: Fall 2012 Tutor: Josef Pallas Keywords: Employee empowerment, Employee participation, Intranet, NGO, Deliberative democracy / Sammanfattning Ansatsen med denna uppsats var att undersöka huruvida det finns potential för demokratisk kommunikation inom frivilligorganisationer via intranät. Detta undersöktes genom en kvantitativ innehållsanalys av intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum, vilket tillhör frivilligorganisationen RFSU, med frågeställningen: I vilken utsträckning representeras auktoriteter respektive medlemmar på intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum? Vilken/vilka kommunikationsmässiga funktioner av social funktion, kunskapsöverföring och debatt har inläggen publicerade i intranätet Klicks diskussionsforum? Praktiseras deliberativa diskussioner i diskussionsforumets trådar på intranätet Klick? Uppsatsen utgår från teori om deliberativ demokrati. För att underbygga teorin har teoretiska perspektiv som berör medbestämmande och deltagande tillämpats, vilka härstammar från ämnesområdena organisationsteori samt internkommunikation. Resultatet visar att 63,4 procent av de aktiva på diskussionsforumet utgjordes av kategorin auktoriteter medan kategorin medlemmar utgjordes av 36, 6 procent. Resultatet för de kommunikationsmässiga funktionerna var att den kunskapsöverförande funktionen återfanns i 75, 7 procent av inläggen, funktionen debatt i 33, 3 procent och den sociala funktionen i 23, 3 procent av inläggen. För deliberativ diskussion studerades, istället för enskilda inlägg, hela diskussionstrådar. Den största delen av diskussionstrådarna bedömdes vara neutrala vilka utgjorde 86, 6 procent medan deliberativa diskussioner utgjorde 13,2 procent. 0 procent av diskussionstrådarna ansågs vara icke-deliberativa. Undersökningen har funnit många exempel på förekomst av demokratisk kommunikation på Klick vilket visar att denna är möjlig via intranät. Dock kan det låga deltagandet sett till medlemmar som helhet samt överrepresentationen av auktoriteter argumenteras för att inte tolkas som demokratisk kommunikation med hänvisning till den valda definitionen av demokrati, modellen deltagardemokrati med deliberativa kvaliteter. Nyckelord: Employee empowerment, Employee participation, Intranät, Frivilligorganisation, Deliberativ demokrati

In an attempt to lend legitimacy to the troubled wolf project and to root policies in wolf-affected counties, decision-making was decentralized to stakeholder-based county wildlife management delegations in Sweden in 2009. Drawing from Habermas’ critical theory, this paper suggests that a phenomenon of instrumental rationality is currently circumscribing free and open deliberation in these delegations. Consequently, stakeholders remain fixed in their predetermined positions as wolf-skeptic hunters or pro-wolf conservationists, unable to be swayed by the deliberative process. The aim of this paper is to identify the barriers to deliberation that account for the perseverance of this strategic stakeholder rationality. Three county wildlife delegations are investigated as examples of this. The paper identifies the following four barriers, which are traced to instrumentality: strong sense of accountability, overly purposive atmosphere, overemphasis on decision as final outcome and perceived inability on the part of the delegates to influence decision-making, which is found by and large to still be ruled by scientists. Through these findings, it suggests that such barriers cause delegates to censor their own discursive attempts and to act with strategic rather than with communicative rationality toward the decision-making process. Finally, the paper concludes that the effect of instrumentality in these delegations is currently leading to (1) a crisis of legitimacy for the wolf project, as according to Habermas’ theory and (2) reduced individual freedom under the pursuit of sustainable development, as freedom has been confined to the dimension of the protection and promotion of private interests.

<p>In this dissertation, I advance a new interpretation of the meaning and political implications of Isaiah Berlin's theory of value pluralism. My argument focuses on two puzzles within the literature on value pluralism: first, value pluralist political theorists advance a variety of differing political views on an ostensibly value pluralist basis; second, and more deeply, their writings betray significant ambiguity on what value pluralism means in the first place. I identify two central sources of these problems. First, two distinct sets of ideas in Berlin's work, which I label the "moral-practical" and "societal groupings" versions of value pluralism, are persistently conflated by both Berlin and more recent value pluralist theorists. Second, attempts to justify a political view on the basis of value pluralism run aground on a "priority problem" stemming from the central value pluralist concept of incommensurability. In my approach, I maintain the distinction between the moral-practical and societal groupings theories, focusing on the moral-practical version as a more original and less well-understood contribution of Berlin's thought. I also develop a strategy, which I call "giving incommensurability its due," that avoids the priority problem by focusing on metaethical (or second-order), epistemic, and procedural considerations. This strategy supports two major sets of political implications: a liberal-constitutional framework of basic rights and liberties, and a robust, vibrant form of participatory and deliberative democratic politics. This turn to democracy constitutes an important shift vis-à-vis the current literature, which has, up to now, been preoccupied with value pluralism's relationship to liberalism.</p> / Dissertation