No description available.

This thesis provides a contribution to knowledge by demonstrating that deliberative theories of democracy have failed to take sufficient account of social difference and by arguing for a more complex and relational understanding of social identity to be considered in democratic theory. I argue that deliberative theories of democracy should not consider deliberators only as socially embedded actors but should consider social groups and social identity as a ground for political participation. I show how some of the main deliberative theories to date have failed to commit to a sufficient understanding of social identity, before demonstrating how identity should be conceived for the purposes of deliberative models. I further argue that, in view of the importance of social identity in political participation, we should understand our civic and political spheres as porous, rather than as distinct. Identity is not something we can ignore in political life, and attempts to minimise its workings are more likely to result in problems, than promote greater political harmony. I will demonstrate throughout the course of this thesis that attempts to efface, minimise or overcome identity in deliberative theory leads to that theory being unable to recognise some of the important workings of social identity in democracy.

This thesis explores the relationship between democratic theory and transnational justice. These two theoretical frameworks are connected but in tension; this is relationship is explicated by 'the paradox of democratic equality': that democratic theory has normative logics of both inclusion, inclining it towards universalist conceptions of justice based on human equality, and exclusion, because clear demarcations of the boundaries of membership of democratic associations seem to be preconditions of understanding the demos as a self- determining collective moral agent. The claim is that the concept of human equality can be a conceptual bridge between normative democratic theory and the idea of transnational justice. To give an account of the proper relationship of democracy and transnational justice, this research explores this paradox. I examine the role of human equality as a foundation for political equality - thus crucial to the justification of democracy itself - and for relational accounts of democratic association. I then examine typical cosmopolitan accounts of universal obligations and conclude that cosmopolitanism makes a moral case democratic theory ought to find compelling but overlooks essential features of democratic association, including those that enable democracies to act as agents of justice in the way cosmopolitans assume they should. To resolve the paradox and develop a plausible theory of democratic transnational justice, I develop an account of democratic moral agency based on the concept of collective moral reactive attitudes. Moral reactive attitudes, I argue, can give us an understanding of human equality as an immanent quality in human relations; interpreted collectively, this gives a basis for understanding how universal moral equality can be incorporated in the self-understanding of the demos. I then propose a conception of democratic cosmopolitanism, understood as transnational fraternity, and based on a principle of a responsibility to uphold and further the capacity for collective self-determination of other demoi.

This thesis proposes a new analytical framework by which to assess electoral democracy and tests this theory in three world cities. Asserting that any investigation of electoral democracy requires a tight coupling of philosophical concepts and measurement methods, the first section shows that very few studies genuinely attempt to accommodate both elements and those that do contain significant normative and empirical inconsistencies. Combining this preferred 'tip-to-tail' approach with the contractualist writings of Thomas Scanlon and Brian Barry produces a new theory by which to evaluate electoral fairness. The theory of persistent losing argues that electoral rules can be reasonably rejected if they consistently impose higher participation costs for some-and-not-other community members committed to collective action. The theory is operationalized and tested on local election results in Stockholm, London and New York. Detailed statistical measures show that some small parties can reasonably reject the electoral formula in all three cities as these parties are permanently or almost permanently disadvantaged in how votes are converted to seats. Voting stage tests reveal that where persistent losing is unlikely in Stockholm, it is probable in New York and is shown to exist in London boroughs where participation costs are frequently higher for some geographically-based groups. Finally, prevoting stage results show that where women are persistent losers in Stockholm, their disadvantage is very slight and likely to go unchallenged. Although women's absence from New York City Council is persistent, this absence cannot be directly linked to discriminatory rules. The rules by which parties select candidates in London can be reasonably rejected as women's persistent absence is tied to institutional bias.

This thesis proposes a political economy analysis of the impact of institutional change on representation, policy making and accountability. Specifically, it focuses on the transition from parliamentarism to presidentialism and it exploits information from a unique database on a natural experiment that took place in Italy in the 1990s. We first provide an introduction and critical overview of the related political economy literature. Chapter 1 analyses the effect of the constitutional transition on the structure of governments and fiscal policy out-comes. It develops a theoretical framework for the analysis of citizens' ability to hold representatives accountable in a world of multiple policy issues. The model predicts that institutional change improves accountability and that it modifies the relationship between the executive and legislative preferred policies. These changes are reflected in changes in policy decisions on fiscal expenditure. Findings show that differentiation widens between mayors and the leading parties in the legislature. Furthermore, political changes (as captured by differentiation) affect the expenditure choices in the three largest categories of public expenditure. Chapter 2 analyses the interplay between constitutions and the occurrence of political business cycles. The results show that, once the effect of elections is allowed to vary across constitutional regimes, we observe tax cuts and other policy changes before elections only after the institutional transition took place. Finally, Chapter 3 analyses how the introduction of presidentialism substantially enhanced the quality of elected representatives that are part of the executive. The empirical results show that educational levels of elected representatives rose, and that there was a change in the occupational mix due to the large number of elected politicians with high opportunity-cost professions that joined the local governments. This can be explained by higher self selection of good quality politicians in the political competition for executive seats after the reform.

Historical development toward a universal community of civilization,' said Rosa Luxemburg, 'will, like all social development, take place in the midst of a contradiction ...' Indeed, on its face it seems that the simultaneous consolidation and spreading (within a progressing global order) of nationalist particularism, on the one hand, and of the support for democracy, on the other, do constitute such a contradiction. But is this really the case. Are nationalism and democracy mutually exclusive, or are they reconcilable after all. In this project, to paraphrase Rousseau's words at the beginning of The Social Contract, it is my purpose to enquire whether it is possible to reconcile nationalism with democracy, taking nationalism as it is and democracy as it may be. The dissertation shows that both democracy (as we commonly understand it today) and nationalism are strongly embedded in modern conditions (primarily capitalism) and their inherent contradictions, namely, the development of the autonomous self, on the one hand, and the loss of community and prevalence of identity crisis, on the other. Liberal theories of democracy, the thesis suggests, celebrate the development of the autonomous self but largely neglect or ignore the problem of identity crisis, hence contribute precisely to moral and political tendencies they normally reject. Nationalism and its academic sympathisers, though, may supply a solution to identity crisis but too easily or carelessly sacrifice individual liberty and equality on the altar of renewed Gemeinschaft-like communities. What is urgently needed, I argue, is a form of democracy that could transcend the contradictions latent in modern capitalism and deliver a solution to identity crisis and alienation without subverting the values of individual equality and liberty. Such a democracy, it is concluded, must be a socialist one in which the means of identity production are collectively owned.

No description available.

No description available.

The emergence of the Internet ignited new hope for those aspiring to reinvigorate democracy, especially online political forums whose discursive nature seemingly offers the possibility of deliberative democracy. This thesis aims to explore whether online political forums are capable of contributing to public deliberation in Taiwan's context. Three forums have been chosen in this study, Yahoo Political Forum, Palm BBS and The Presidential Office Forum, respectively sponsored by a commercial website, an academic institution and the government. The complete research project has two branches of inquiry, one focuses on the analysis of the messages published in the forums, and the other aims to comprehend online discussants' motivations, expectations and standpoints concerning online deliberation. Drawing on systematic content analysis and discourse analysis, the results reveal that 1) the discursive qualities are different amongst the three forums The Presidential Office's discussants tend to create their own topics, in contrast to the participants of Yahoo and Palm who rely very much on journalists' reports as sources of discussion topics 2) Current political tensions are amplified, and engender verbal conflict in Yahoo and Palm which thwarts the rationality of discussions 4) Driven by political efficacy, the participants in The Presidential Office prefer to communicate directly with bureaucrats. The analytic results from the in-depth interviews show that the discussants are encouraged and motivated to participate by the forums' anonymous character nevertheless, the lack of positive responses and encouragements gained from the extended environment causes the discussants to reward themselves by pleasing their individual demands. Public deliberation in online forums may be weakened by unequal access, irrational participants/actions and fragmentation of public discourse. In this study, online political forums do not yet constitute a virtual/alternative public sphere. Their deliberative function confronts identity politics and tensions between political groups, therefore, to talk politics online the boundaries and differences of the political diversity in Taiwan must be overcome.

This thesis is an attempt to synthesise two streams of political thought previously conducted in isolation from one another: political realism and the theory of deliberative democracy. The thesis attempts to show that both of these approaches reveal something important about the nature of democratic politics, and that despite the appearance of mutual antipathy these approaches are compatible with one another. Political realism urges us to attend to the sites of power, conflict, and interest in politics, while deliberative democracy emphasises conciliation, inclusion, and reciprocity. By synthesising both approaches, we can achieve a greater understanding of the character and purposes of democratic politics and the possibilities for deliberative democratic reform. The overarching argument is for the central place of deliberation within a realist account of democratic politics. I begin by considering three realist models of democracy: agonism, competitive elitism, and deliberative democracy. I argue that deliberative democracy offers the most promising model as it can accommodate realist concerns. I then move to examine several aspects of democratic politics overlooked by political theorists but which realism directs us towards. These are: rhetoric and leadership, parties and partisanship, and states of emergency. In each case, I elaborate how these features of real democratic politics appear to pose challenges for deliberative democracy, before outlining how the dominant treatments of these aspects are inadequate for various reasons, and then propose alternative accounts of each in which they are compatible with political deliberation. The aim of each chapter is to extend the role and possibilities for deliberation in real democratic politics. I conclude with some general reflections on the recovery of politics for contemporary political thought.