This study critically and systematically analyses the purported democratic values of freedom and equality with a view to clarifying the meaning of the concepts of democracy, freedom and equality; and examining the nature of the relations between kinds of freedom and kinds of equality, their association with democracy, and assessing their reconcilability within the two broad schools of democratic theory, namely, Anglo American democratic theory and Continental democratic theory. Put slightly differently, the issue is whether freedom and equality are mutually compatible or incompatible within democratic contexts. The analysis necessitates exploring the possible reason or reasons for the reconcilability or incompatibility of freedom and equality. Hence, the arguments in democratic literature relevant to the meanings of freedom and equality, and the relations between them will be examined. The first set of arguments concern the question of whether kinds of freedom endanger kinds of equality, and conversely, whether kinds of equality erode or hamper kinds of freedom. The relation existing between freedom and equality, and equality and freedom, in both instances purport to demonstrate the tension existing between them in theory as well as in practice. The second set of arguments concern the question of whether kinds of freedom promote kinds of equality, and conversely, whether kinds of equality further kinds of freedom. The relation in both instances is deemed to demonstrate the affinity between freedom and equality, and equality and freedom. An attempt will thus be made to address the issue of the seemingly confusing array of meanings of democracy, freedom and equality, and the potentially problematic relations between them, and particularly those between freedom and equality as represented by the two sets of arguments within appropriate democratic contexts. The study will endeavour to examine the analytic and synthetic interplay of meanings and relations, their nature and compatibility or incompatibility, and the possible reasons for this state of affairs, in an attempt to identify and address the perceived misapprehensions concerning their meanings and relations in democratic literature. / Political Sciences / D. Litt. et Phil. (Politics)

A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por objetivo estudar os fundamentos da comunidade política (polis), em especial, de que modo fundamentos, como a liberdade e a igualdade, contribuem para perturbação e conservação da comunidade política, a partir do livro I e II da Política de Aristóteles. A pesquisa busca mostrar o papel relevante da crítica que Aristóteles lança à aquisição ilimitada de bens e da crítica à propriedade comum dos bens, proposta por Sócrates, na República - i.e. tal como Aristóteles compreende Sócrates - para sua visão de unidade política. / This thesis aims to study, based on Books I and II of Aristotle\'s Politics, the foundations of the political community (polis), in particular, how core principles such as freedom and equality contribute to the disturbance or to the conservation of the political community. This research intends to present the important role of both Aristotle\'s critique addressed to the limitless accumulation of wealth, and his critique of the common ownership of properties--proposed by Socrates in the Republic - i.e. as Aristotle understands Socrates--to constitute his vision of political unity.

This study deals with the quality of democracy, and its purpose is to examine which factors affect the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the stable democracies in the world. The research question posited in the study is: what explains the varying levels of the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world, and do political institutions matter? Theoretically, the quality of democracy is distinguished from other similar concepts employed in comparative politics, and what the quality of democracy stands for is clarified. The quality of democracy is defined in this study as: the level of legitimacy in a democratic system with respect to democratic norms such as political participation, political competition, political equality, and rule of law. In total, four dimensions of the quality of democracy are included that are considered to be very important dimensions of the quality of democracy. These dimensions are political participation, political competition, political equality, and the rule of law. To explain the variation in the quality of democracy, an explanatory model has been developed. The explanatory model consists of five different groups of independent variables: political institutional variables, socioeconomic variables, cultural variables, historical variables, and physical variables. Methodologically, a large-n, outcome-centric research design is employed and statistical analysis is used to examine what effect the five groups of independent variables have on the four dimensions of the quality of democracy. Empirically, the results show that cultural variables and political institutional variables outperform socioeconomic, historical, and physical variables in relation to their effect on the quality of democracy. Consequently, cultural and political institutional variables are the two most important groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy in the democratic countries in the world. In relation to the other groups of variables, historical variables are slightly more important than socioeconomic variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. The physical variables constitute the group of variables that has the least importance out of the five groups of variables when explaining the variation in the quality of democracy. In summary, the findings from the study show that the best way of increasing the level of the quality of democracy may be to choose political institutions such as parliamentarism as the executive power system and a proportional system as the electoral system. To put this clearly, to increase the possibility of democratic countries achieving a high level of the quality of democracy they should avoid majority electoral systems and presidential or semipresidential executive systems.

This study critically and systematically analyses the purported democratic values of freedom and equality with a view to clarifying the meaning of the concepts of democracy, freedom and equality; and examining the nature of the relations between kinds of freedom and kinds of equality, their association with democracy, and assessing their reconcilability within the two broad schools of democratic theory, namely, Anglo American democratic theory and Continental democratic theory. Put slightly differently, the issue is whether freedom and equality are mutually compatible or incompatible within democratic contexts. The analysis necessitates exploring the possible reason or reasons for the reconcilability or incompatibility of freedom and equality. Hence, the arguments in democratic literature relevant to the meanings of freedom and equality, and the relations between them will be examined. The first set of arguments concern the question of whether kinds of freedom endanger kinds of equality, and conversely, whether kinds of equality erode or hamper kinds of freedom. The relation existing between freedom and equality, and equality and freedom, in both instances purport to demonstrate the tension existing between them in theory as well as in practice. The second set of arguments concern the question of whether kinds of freedom promote kinds of equality, and conversely, whether kinds of equality further kinds of freedom. The relation in both instances is deemed to demonstrate the affinity between freedom and equality, and equality and freedom. An attempt will thus be made to address the issue of the seemingly confusing array of meanings of democracy, freedom and equality, and the potentially problematic relations between them, and particularly those between freedom and equality as represented by the two sets of arguments within appropriate democratic contexts. The study will endeavour to examine the analytic and synthetic interplay of meanings and relations, their nature and compatibility or incompatibility, and the possible reasons for this state of affairs, in an attempt to identify and address the perceived misapprehensions concerning their meanings and relations in democratic literature. / Political Sciences / D. Litt. et Phil. (Politics)

A presente dissertação de mestrado tem por objetivo estudar os fundamentos da comunidade política (polis), em especial, de que modo fundamentos, como a liberdade e a igualdade, contribuem para perturbação e conservação da comunidade política, a partir do livro I e II da Política de Aristóteles. A pesquisa busca mostrar o papel relevante da crítica que Aristóteles lança à aquisição ilimitada de bens e da crítica à propriedade comum dos bens, proposta por Sócrates, na República - i.e. tal como Aristóteles compreende Sócrates - para sua visão de unidade política. / This thesis aims to study, based on Books I and II of Aristotle\'s Politics, the foundations of the political community (polis), in particular, how core principles such as freedom and equality contribute to the disturbance or to the conservation of the political community. This research intends to present the important role of both Aristotle\'s critique addressed to the limitless accumulation of wealth, and his critique of the common ownership of properties--proposed by Socrates in the Republic - i.e. as Aristotle understands Socrates--to constitute his vision of political unity.

Demokratie, verstanden als politische wie ökonomische Teilhabe größerer Teile der Bevölkerung und eine Kultur von geregelter Konkurrenz, Innovation und Austausch haben zu einem für die Vormoderne ganz außergewöhnlich hohen Wirtschaftswachstum und damit mittelbar zur bekannten kulturellen Blüte der griechischen Welt geführt. Nicht weniger als dies ist die These des beeindruckenden Buches, das weit über die Alte Geschichte hinaus Interesse wecken und für Debatten sorgen wird – eben gerade, weil nicht die (bekannten) Errungenschaften der Griechen im Mittelpunkt stehen, sondern deren institutionelle Bedingungen. Das lädt zu Anschlussfragen auch in anderen Epochen und sogar für die Gegenwart ein.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Mémoire numérisé par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

No description available.

Most researchers and democracy theorists who define what democracy is or should be, agree that civic participation is the core of a democracy. Without citizen participation, there would be no democracy. The broad participation in political processes symbolizes the idea of political equality. A high level of political participation among citizens is usually seen as a sign that democracy is functioning satisfactorily. Unfortunately, today's political reality, on the other hand, shows that actual democracy does not reflect the democratic ideal models. The economic and social gaps in society largely explain how participatory activity is distributed among the citizens. The purpose of this master's thesis, which is a case study, has been to study the political equality in the e-proposal process within Linköping municipality. This means that the socio- economic representativeness among the proposers has been studied between the years 2016 and 2021. Furthermore, the geographical spread of the proposals has been studied between the years 2016 and 2018, together with the political priority areas of the proposers.  A web survey was conducted to gather information on the proposers’ socio-economic conditions. In total, the survey was answered by 207 respondents. This survey has contributed to either verifying or falsifying the research hypothesis. The hypothesis states that it is mainly socio-economically resourceful individuals who submit Linköping proposals. In summary, the study shows that it has been particularly resourceful individuals who have submitted Linköping proposals. Furthermore, the proposals are intended to be implemented in areas where the socio- economic standard is relatively high. The study has also shown that the proponents to a large extent (80.9 percent) have requested initiatives that relate to urban planning issues and culture and leisure. Finally, the results of the study illustrate that the approvals mainly refer to socio- economically strong areas. In conclusion, the empirical results of the study have contributed to the hypothesis being verifiable, as it has mainly been socio-economically resourceful individuals who have submitted Linköping proposals.