“Liberal Democracy” is a common term in political theory, and it is used as if it had a commonly accepted referent, with both normative and descriptive content. This is certainly the case in democratic theory, where it on the one hand seems to refer to a normative democratic model; on the other hand it is used descriptively, to refer to real-life democracies. The deliberative democratic sub-field is not an exception; on the contrary, the term is frequently used albeit rarely defined; yet the concept it refers to is supposedly developed enough to allow detailed propositions about its citizens’s political behaviour. This essay is an attempt to analyze how Liberal Democracy is used by three deliberative democrats (Jürgen Habermas, John Dryzek and Stephen Elstub), in order to understand the democratic model (or models), whether normative or descriptive, they refer to. It is an analysis of how the term is used in some of the authors’ texts, what it denotes and connotes. This is done against the backdrop of their respective deliberative theories; Habermas, Dryzek and Elstub were chosen qua Deliberative Democratic theorists, not just democratic theorists. Habermas’s usage of Liberal Democracy is inconsistent. On the one hand it is a rather “open” democracy (i.e., more Dahl than Madison) dependent on active citizens in the public sphere; on the other hand it is a rights-based society where the market forum serves as an imperative, where isolated individuals make political choices as if they where choices at the market forum and even the social interactions are market-structured. My conclusion is that the latter model takes precedence. The following chapter analyzes John Dryzek’s usage of the term. The democratic model Dryzek calls Liberal Democracy shares some similarities with Habermas’s model – the market forum serves as a model for the citizens’ political behaviour. Following Horkheimer and Adorno, Dryzek connects Liberal Democracy to an instrumental rationality considered to be repressive. The instrumental rationality (and the behaviour it creates) leads to a political strait jacket – the citizens’ preferences get reduced to their interests, and politics is nothing but a battle of the interests. Dryzek’s usage of the term is more consistent than Habermas’s. For Stephen Elstub, upholding autonomy is the telos of democracy, irrespective of model. In his discussions of liberal democracy he equates liberal theory (J.S. Mill and John Locke) with liberal democratic theory, and sees the real-life democracies as realizations of the theory. Elstub's discussions of liberal democracy focus primarily on the demos, citizens with endogenous preferences. Contra Habermas and Dryzek, Elstub’s model lacks the behavioural model based on the market forum. An important inconsistency in Elstub’s model is the State’s capacity for institutional changes; the “representative structures” are incapable of the changes necessary to deal with social pluralism, but at the same time the Liberal Democratic system is flexible enough to accommodate his dualist model of democracy. The last chapter sums up the results and places the liberal democratic model in a taxonomy of democratic theories. I argue that in spite of the differences of the authors’ models, they are basically one and the same, normatively and descriptively. It is not primarily a model of democratic institutions – more than anything it is a conception of demos. The demos consist of citizens focused on their self-interest as a basis for their political actions. The democratic taxonomy used in the essay is fairly inclusive, but I conclude that Liberal Democracy does not fit in; it is not so much a theory of institutionalised democracy as a psychological theory.

This thesis examines the impact of one party dominant systems on liberal democracy in developing countries. It is insufficient to argue that one party dominant systems – systems where one party dominates over a prolonged period - need not be further scrutinised because they occur within democracies. Instead it is contended that the term ‘democracy’ is but one public virtue in a political system and thus needs to be prefixed for it to have meaning beyond a method of government selection. The importance of this is highlighted when looking at two major trends in the understanding of democracy. The first is democracy as rule by the people -a non-authoritarian democracy- where governmental control is limited, and agents of voice and accountability are protected. Voice and accountability refers to citizens being able to exercise power over the process of decision-making and not merely power to select decision-makers. The second type of democracy is rule for the people -an authoritarian democracy- where governmental control extends over all spheres of society, and the operating space for agents of voice and accountability is constrained. Since unchecked centralisation is the anti-thesis of a non-authoritarian democracy, the observed tendency of dominant parties to use their predominant position to further consolidate their control is a concern. The apprehension is, as power is centralised so the operating space of agents of voice and accountability (including political and civil society) is constrained. Despite differences in the type of one party dominant system, whether they be hegemonic (Mexico) or dominant (South Africa) the ruling dominant/ hegemonic party uses similar methods of consolidating dominance – they essentially centralise power through the establishment of (1) economic, (2) political, and sometimes (3) ideological monopolies. These monopolies are established using internal and external methods of control (centralising of political power; party controlled process of political leadership selection; institutional arrangements and electoral amendments, which favour the ruling party; patronage and corporatism), which in turn effectively close down or limit the operating space of civil and political society, especially in developing countries which do not have histories of liberal-constitutionalism, and have vast socio-economic inequalities making them especially susceptible to the manipulation of ruling elites. Although one party dominant systems may initially have a uniting, stabilising effect, if continued they tend to lead towards either the entrenchment of authoritarianism or the establishment of authoritarianism, since dominance is achieved at the expense of competition, and independent and alternative voices. Uncompetitive democracies result in unresponsive governments. Pursuing a liberal democracy, while simultaneously monopolising power is to indulge in serious programmatic contradictions. Eventually something has to give and it is usually liberal democracy. Voice and accountability inevitably become inhibited in one party dominant systems due to the mechanisms of internal and external control used by the dominant or hegemonic party. These mechanisms of control culminate in, as they did in Mexico, there being ‘no life outside the ruling party’. Only when the economic, political and ideological monopolies are dismantled through either economic liberalisation, opposition maintaining its integrity, civil society keeping its independence and societies refusing to be drawn into relationships of patronage, can the space for voice and accountability be prised open again. In the interests of its citizens and the future success of its country, the ruling party of a one party dominant system needs to recognise that it is not the sole channel for the voice of its citizens and to acknowledge the space for agents of voice and accountability. Ensuring that non-authoritarian democracy remains the only game in town in a one party dominant system requires responsive and accountable government and effective agents of voice and accountability. / Thesis (DPhil)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

The core value of any democracy is the right to freedom of expression and thought. In a system of representative democracy, the citizens vote in regular elections to choose a representative to best govern their interests. Of importance is a chance for citizens to have insight into how the public authorities exercise the power given to them. The principle of public access to information is a fundamental principle in Sweden’s form of government and is supposed to ensure transparency regarding public sector activities. One way to achieve transparency is with the possibility for officials to report alleged illegal, immoral, or illegitimate practices directly to the organization, an act known as whistleblowing. The question of possible corruption in Swedish municipalities has become a topic of discussion. A concern for an extensive silence within the public sector from numerous actors such as media and labor organizations has also arisen.  The contribution of this study is to analyze and evaluate the possibilities provided by Swedish municipalities to encourage internal whistleblowing, as previous research stresses its value for the organizational integrity and ethical climate. Applying a qualitative method, the aim of this thesis is to empirically study policies and documents for implemented whistleblowing systems in Swedish municipalities. The results show that the ways vary in which it is made possible for public employees to blow the whistle within their organization. Most of the reporting channels are managed within the municipality. Possibilities for external reporting, which could strengthen review of reported wrongdoings, are limited. The used definition in Swedish municipalities mainly refers to corruption as a behavior that violates the law. The definition is problematic as it might fail to detect other forms of corruption such as nepotism, cronyism, or discrimination. Implemented whistleblowing systems do not guarantee a high sense of protection for a reporting person. A fear of retaliation could therefore have the effect of employees not reporting. The results of this thesis are of great importance as it shows that Swedish municipalities might not gain information of potential wrongdoings and unethical practices.

Ahead of the 2023 Greek legislative election and given the emerging political landscape, this paper focuses on how the immigration policy shift of the center-right government emerged from 2019 elections has affected the state of liberal democracy in the country. For that purpose, a case study was employed, based on data extracted from immigration policy reports and governing party’s manifestos. This thesis is relying on theories on the relationship between populism, immigration, and liberal democracies. Applying a theory-confirming case study through a qualitative content analysis facilitates researcher to explore how the immigration policy shift and anti-immigrant populism in Greece challenge the political system’s commitment to liberal democracy since 2019. Examining the case of how populist tendencies crept into immigration politics in Greece, the study tries to contribute to the discussion on how populism influences liberal democracies. The normative assessment of this case in a deductive way contributes to the investigation in a given theoretical framework. The thematic analysis suggests that certain aspects of liberal democracy can be challenged by the populist immigration policy shift in Greece.

[pt] A União Europeia se apresenta como a mais bem sucedida experiência supranacional. Diante do seu inevitável, e necessário, projeto de integração regional, a presente pesquisa tem como objetivo verificar a existência de um déficit democrático em sua instituição parlamentar. Para tanto, serão abordadas as teorias democráticas liberais que dão forma teórica à democracia representativa ocidental, para que se possa fundamentar as instituições que compõem o bloco. Após, serão analisadas as posições quanto à existência do déficit democrático na União, a perspectiva de um constitucionalismo para além do Estado-Nação, a impossibilidade de aprofundamento federalista, e às críticas à abordagem liberal europeísta, para que assim se analise a atuação do Parlamento Europeu como órgão democraticamente legítimo de representatividade supranacional. / [en] The European Union presents itself as the most successful supranational experiment. In view of its inevitable and necessary regional integration project, the present research aims to verify the existence of a democratic deficit in its parliamentary institution. To this end, liberal democratic theories that give theoretical form to western representative democracy will be addressed, so that the institutions that make up the bloc can be founded. Afterwards, the positions regarding the existence of the democratic deficit in the Union, the perspective of a constitutionalism beyond the Nation-State, the impossibility of federalist deepening, and the criticisms of the liberal Europeanist approach will be analyzed, so that the performance of Parliament can be analyzed. European Union as a democratically legitimate supranational representative body.

Syftet med studie var att synliggöra hur samhällskunskapslärare på gymnasiet förhåller sig till fostransuppdraget i en värld där polarisering blir vanligare. Detta gjordes genom att synliggöra hur polarisering ter sig i klassrummet, hur lärarna hanterar kontroversiella frågor, hur de hanterar dilemmat i styrdokumenten samt deras relation till fostransuppdraget. Data för denna kvalitativa undersökning samlades in genom samtalsintervjuer och analyserades därefter med en riktad innehållsanalys. Resultaten visar att lärarna är medvetna om den växande polariseringen, men de upplever att den närmast syns mer i samhället än i klassrummet. Eleverna har snarare blivit mer tillbakadragande och oengagerade, där rädsla för att sticka ut resulterar i en självcensur hos eleverna. Vad gäller dilemmat om social kontroll och individuell frihet i styrdokumenten så är det något som lärarna balanserar. Det är viktigt att tydliggöra att skolan inte kommer med ett åsiktspaket. Eleven måste tillåtas vara sin egen, men också respektera det samhälle de existerar i. Det finns skillnader i hur lärarna ser på sitt fostransuppdrag. Vissa ser det som naturligt och ägnar därför inte någon särskild uppmärksamhet till det, medan andra anser att det blivit än viktigare på grund av den ökade polariseringen att tydliggöra sitt fostransuppdrag. Lärarna upplever att de finns vissa svårigheter med fostransuppdraget, där en är att fostransuppdraget inte är ett samlat ämne, att egenintresset styr och att elevers brist på engagemang kan försvåra uppdraget. / The aim of this study was to make visible how upper-secondary schoolteachers in social studies relate to the citizenship education in a world where polarization is becoming more normal. This was done by accounting how polarization appears in a classroom, how teachers handle issues that are controversial, how they handle the dilemma that appears in curriculums and how they relate to the citizenship education. The data for this qualitative study was collected by interviews and thereafter analysed with a directed content analysis. The result show that the teachers are aware of the increasing polarization, but their experiences is that it is more visible in society rather than in the classrooms. Pupils have become more withdrawn and careless, whereas the fear of standing out has resulted in a self-censorship among the pupils. When it comes to the dilemma of social control and individual freedom in the curriculum, the teacher balance them both. It is important to show that the school does not come with only one package of opinions. The pupils must be allowed to be their own, but also respect the society where she exits in. There are differences in how the teacher view their mission about citizenship education. Some sees it as natural and does not pay special attention to it, whereas others think it has become more important due to the increased polarization. The teachers also feel that there are certain difficulties with citizenship education, one of which is that it is not a subject on its own, that the self-interest rules and that the lack of interest and commitment among the pupils, which can make the assignment more difficult. / Examensarbete i samverkan

Il Bilancio Partecipativo (BP) è probabilmente l’esempio più famoso ed interessante di governance locale per i suoi effetti democratici e redistributivi. Per via del coinvolgimento diretto dei cittadini nel processo decisionale, il BP è considerato una forma di democrazia diretta capace di ovviare agli attuali limiti della democrazia rappresentativa moderna. Tuttavia, ad un’attenta analisi, è possibile identificare nel suo funzionamento anche degli elementi rappresentativi che non sono mai stati presi molto in seria considerazione. Infatti, poiché la partecipazione avviene solitamente attraverso gruppi ed associazioni, nuove forme di rappresentanza e nuovi rappresentanti emergono in competizione con quelli tradizionali politici in termini di consenso, sostegno popolare e dunque legittimità. Il presente lavoro vuole andare oltre il pensiero corrente e proporre un’interpretazione originale del modello istituzionale del BP come una forma nuova ed alternativa di democrazia rappresentativa, in cui le organizzazioni della società civile assumono un ruolo centrale: dietro al BP vi sarebbe una sorta di democrazia ‘civile’. Questo punto di vista alternativo non solo può stimolare un ulteriore dibattito in letteratura, ma aprire anche degli scenari interessanti in relazione ai temi più generali della crisi delle istituzioni liberal-democratiche e del ruolo e dell’identità della società civile. / Participatory Budgeting (PB) is probably the most famous and interesting example of innovative local governance for its redistributive and democratic effects. Due to the direct involvement of citizens in the decision-making process, PB is celebrated as an example of direct democracy which can help to deal with the limits of representative democracy. However, on closer analysis, it is possible to identify elements of representation in its functioning, which are taken into little consideration and which could probably modify the prevalent theoretical belief. In fact, as citizens usually participate through their groups and associations, new representatives emerge challenging the traditional channels of political representation in terms of popular approval, consensus, hence legitimacy. This work aims to go beyond the prevailing narrative and propose an original interpretation of the PB’s institutional model as a new and alternative representative democracy, where the main political actors become organizations from the civil society: behind PB there seems to lie a sort of ‘civil’ democracy. Hence, introducing this alternative viewpoint can, not only further questions which are never fully considered in the literature, but also open interesting scenarios in the debate over the crisis of liberal-democratic institutions and the role and the identity of civil society.

Cette thèse étudie la contribution assez complexe du partenariat euro-méditerranéen au soft powerde l’UE. Nous avons procédé à l’examen de l’articulation entre les objectifs, les instruments, lesprogrammes, les accords et l’efficacité de l’action de l’Euromed. Il ne s’agit pas d’évaluer lepartenariat en tant que tel mais plutôt son utilisation par l’Union européenne comme instrument desoft power pour instaurer une démocratie libérale dans les pays sud-méditerranéens. Les quatreaspects fondamentaux de la démocratie libérale ont été donc examinés. Dans le domaineéconomique, il y eu des améliorations économiques dans les pays sud-méditerranéens del’Euromed, surtout par la mise en oeuvre de réformes économiques et institutionnelles, mais la zonede libre-échange prévue pour 2010 n’a pas été établie. L’intégration régionale et internationale, deces pays partenaires a connu des avancées qui demeurent encore modestes. La promotion de labonne gouvernance occupe une place centrale au sein des objectifs politiques du Partenariat.Ciblant principalement le renforcement des capacités des institutions et l’indépendance du systèmejudiciaire, les efforts menés dans le cadre de l’Euromed ont apporté une amélioration globale, maisinsuffisante, de la bonne gouvernance dans les pays sud-méditerranéens. Les actions menées dansle cadre du partenariat sur le terrain des droits de l’Homme ont mis surtout l’accent sur les questionsde sécurité, de la lutte antiterroriste et du contrôle des migrations, tandis que les questions relativesaux droits de l’Homme et à la démocratisation étaient plus ou moins passées sous silence. Mêmel’action civile est insuffisamment renforcée. / This thesis studies the rather complex contribution of the Euro-Mediterraneanpartnership to the EU’s soft power. We have examined the link between the objectives,instruments, programs, agreements and effectiveness of the euro-Mediterraneanpartnership’s action. It is not a matter of evaluating the partnership as such but rather itsuse by the European Union as a soft power instrument to establish liberal democracy inthe South Mediterranean countries. The four fundamental aspects of liberal democracywere therefore examined. In the economic field, there have been economicimprovements in the southern Mediterranean countries, mainly through theimplementation of economic and institutional reforms, but the free trade areaanticipated for 2010 was not established. The regional and international integration ofthese partner countries has made some progress that remains however modest. Thepromotion of good governance is central to the political objectives of the Partnership.Focusing mainly on institutional capacity building and the independence of the judicialsystem, Euromed efforts have brought about a global but insufficient improvement ingood governance in the southern Mediterranean countries. Actions in the framework ofthe Human Rights Partnership have focused on security issues, counter-terrorism andmigration control, while human rights issues and democratization were more or lessignored. Even civil action is not sufficiently strengthened.

Statistics from Freedom House show that 2018 is the thirteenth consecutive year with democratic decline. This paper examines underlying causes to this democratic decline. This is done through literature review of current research in the field of democracy development. By using descriptive idea analysis of selected research literature, the paper aims to clarify the current debate on the challenges of democracy. The study somewhat supports that long-term liberal democracy creates conditions that potentially cause its own retreat. This is because long-term liberal democracy provides peace and growth, which is unequally distributed in society and leads to increased social divisions. As a result, large groups of people no longer feel included in society, which in turn will pave the way for populist movements and potential autocratic leaders. The study also somewhat supports that there has been a weakening in the functioning of the democratic institutions to act as gatekeepers, keeping potential autocrats out of power. Increased democracy and transparency in the democratic processes has made it easier for potential autocrats to come to power. All in all, there is some support for the hypothesis of the essay: The more democracy the greater the risk that the democratic system will weaken.