In every society, the reality of collective decision-making falls short of the democratic ideals in several ways. Yet there is a continuous focus on enhancing and adopting democratic practices through a stronger connection between citizens and public officials. One approach, towards improving democratic practises, which have gained a lot of popularity in recent years, is the incorporation of temporary use in the city. This approach to planning is something that this thesis has work towards understanding. As a means of research this phenomenon, this thesis has investigated a new redevelopment tool at Malmö municipality, known as “intermediate use”.  This thesis has investigated and evaluated this approach to planning and have done so by conduction case studies on the only current two project that utilizes this intermediate use as a method in the city. The projects at hand are: Skeppsbrokajen, a redevelopment project in the early stage of developing Malmö’s “new” city district Nyhamnen and is a project which aims to draw attention as well as establish the foundation for a green quay-walking lane that the municipality envisions for the future. The second case is Naturmolnet, a redevelopment projects located at Sofielund, a district that historically have a bad reputation and is undergoing a repurposing/rebranding phase which Naturmolnet is a part of. The case studies of these projects have been complimented by observations, interviews, and document studies, all in order to gain as deep understanding of the cases as possible. As a theoretical background a critical urban theory has been adopted, meaning that both strength and weaknesses of the investigated cases have been brought up as well as the thesis keeping an underlying strive for everyone right to the city. This thesis has utilized a theoretical structure consisting of temporality and its many implications. Accompanying this, an understanding of communication through the concept of citizen participation and the concept of public space and everyone’s right to it has been discussed. These ideas have finally been used in conjunction with each other in order to create a theoretical framework that this thesis have utilized as a tool to evaluate the democratic potential of the investigated cases. The result of the study showed that even though the intentions of these projects are similar, the outcome of what they have achieved during their time are vastly different. Naturmolnet have managed to create a successful democratic urban space that could be likened to a “bottom-up” approach to planning. Skeppsbrokajen on the other hand, have not been as successful in this endeavour, much due to the pandemic, and the planning here is more in line with the more classical “top-down” approach to planning.

The aim of this study is to analyse the consensus decision making methods that are used at the annual conference of the Uniting Church in Sweden. The methods are analysed through the experiences of people that have attended the conference. Seven participants in the annual conference have been interviewed, and their expressed experiences have then been viewed through Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, the theory of Jane Mansbridge et. al. regarding developments to the concept of deliberative democracy and through Paul Fiddes and his thoughts on finding the mind of Christ. The study concludes that the decision making methods has so far been well received and applied towards their objectives, though there is room for improvement.

Studien utforskar hur ideal från den deliberativa demokratiteorin speglas i ett svenskt planeringsfall som går att definiera som ett informellt samarbetsnätverk, eller ’soft space in planning’. Syftet med arbetet är att delge en ökad kunskap kring den problematik som kan uppstå när aktörer å ena sidan vill effektivisera planeringsformerna men å andra sidan också måste säkerställa att de demokratiska grunderna vidhålls. Arbetet utgår ifrån deltagandet i och observerandet utav ett exploateringsprojekt i en svensk kommun där kommunen tillsammans med en byggaktör och arkitekt inlett en process utanför den lagstadgade planprocessen för att komma fram till en gemensam vision. Observationerna kompletteras med en intervjustudie där en informant från respektive aktör intervjuats. Sammanfattningsvis visade resultatet att en av grundprinciperna för processen var att skapa en arena för öppen diskussion angående de värden som önskades inkorporeras i platsens utformning. Under processens gång fanns det moment som upprätthöll de deliberativa idealen genom att tillåta alla aktörers representanter en plats i samtalet. Däremot innehöll processen också moment som kunde uppfattas som utmanande för några deltagare vilket riskerade att hämma deras åsiktsutryckande. Sammantaget gav deltagarna en positiv bild av processens genomförande och utfall även om den i vissa aspekter lämnade lite att önska gällande de deliberativa idealens säkerställande. Detta till trots argumenterar arbetet att utfallet kan anses stå på demokratiska grunder även om inte alla deliberativa ideal uppfyllts fullständigt. / The study explores how ideals from deliberative democracy theory are reflected in a Swedish planning case that can be defined as an informal cooperation network, or ‘soft space in planning’. The purpose of the work is to share increased knowledge about the problems that may arise when actors on the one hand want to streamline planning methods, but on the other hand also must maintain the democratic foundations. The work is based on participation in and observation of a development project in a Swedish municipality where the municipality, together with a developer and architect, initiated a process outside the statutory planning process to arrive at a common vision. The observations are supplemented by an interview study in which an informant from each actor was interviewed. In summary, the results showed that one of the basic principles of the process was to create an arena for open discussion regarding the values that were desired to be incorporated into the design of the site. During the process, there were moments that maintained the deliberative ideals by allowing everyone a place in the conversation. However, the process also contained elements that could be perceived as challenging for some participants, which risked inhibiting their expression of opinion. Overall, the participants gave a positive picture of the process's implementation and outcome, even though it left a little to be desired in confirming some aspects of the deliberative ideals. Despite this, the study argues that the outcome can be considered to be on democratic grounds even if not all deliberative ideals were fulfilled completely.

民主原則之規範性困境，今日已於所有民主國家的政治生活中，展現為層出不窮的民主危機。尤其因為民粹威權主義於成熟民主國家的大行其道，民主危機的解決已成為當代民主迫在眉睫的問題。為求取釜底抽薪的解決之道，則必須從理論層面出發，對民主之概念進行徹底的反省。然而，法學本身顯然難以克服此一困境，而必須將道德哲學與政治哲學的理論資源與方法納入視野之內，以便從規範性證立民主的基本內涵開始，循序漸進地獲致其反映於制度層面應有的具體內容。 　　過往的民主理論證立民主之所以具有無法克服的困難，是因為其終須依賴當代多元社會下有爭議的道德信念。對此，本文以Jürgen Habermas的「論辯倫理學」為基礎，從而對民主的基本精神提出無爭議的規範性證立。透過論辯倫理學的進一步推演，Habermas亦導出「法律論辯理論」，以說明法律作為施展強制力的工具是如何被證立的。藉由結合論辯倫理學與法律論辯理論，便能將民主強制付諸於日常生活的實踐之中，據此呈現出民主作為憲法原則的應有樣貌。植基於此一的路徑，本文拓展了Habermas的理念，從而證立並闡發民主的核心精神。 　　此一依循論辯倫理學及法律論辯理論所獲致的民主原則內容，即為審議民主理論。依據前述的理論奠基，本文認為審議民主理論蘊含的內容可歸結為「論辯之基本權」以及「政治平等諸規則」兩大理念，並能透過基進民主理論的批判以深化對後者的理解，從而闡發審議民主理論的基進意涵。「基進審議民主」明確而豐富的內容不僅宣告著民主原則規範性困境之解決，也同時於實踐上提出了化解民主危機的制度建議。 / In the political life of all democracies, the normative dilemma of principle of democracy has appeared as endless crises of democracy. Accrodingly, to solve the crisis of democracy thus becomes an urgent issue for the contemporary democracy. As populist authoritarianism propagated on a upsetting scale around developed democracies, finding a resolution also grows more significant. To solve this problems once and for all, we must proceed forward from a theoretical perspective that indicate a profound reflection on the concept of democracy. Because jurisprudence becomes manifest in lack of proper paths to overcome this dilemma by itself, incorporating the theoretical resources and methods of ethics and political philosophy into the field of vision may be imperative and necessary. With the foundation that justifies fundamental connotations of democracy in a normative approch, we will obtain the specific contents that democracy reflects at the institutional level progressively. 　　Previous works on democratic theory are so difficult to justify democracy per se because their justifications depending on controversial moral beliefs in contemporary plural society drift into failure. In this regard, Jürgen Habermas advanced the “Discourse Ethics” which suggests a non-controversial normative justification of democratic essences as the most promising theory at present. Through employing Discourse Ethics, Habermas deduced “Discourse Theory of Law” to explain how to justify law as a compulsory instrument. In this manner, democracy can be forced into daily life, via combining Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law, to draw a ideal form as a a constitutional principle. Through the illustration of Habermas's doctrine, this thesis tries to broaden the ways to understand and describe the democracy. 　　“Deliberative Democracy” is the very idea derived from Discourse Ethics and Discourse Theory of Law. Based on the foundations of the above, this thesis suggests that the contents of Deliberative Democracy can be attributed to the two basic concepts including “fundamental rights of discourse” and “rules of political equality”, which, through criticisms of radical democracy, shall be further deepen the understanding of the latter to elucidate what radical meanings do Deliberative Democracy have. With specific and profuse contents, radical deliberative democracy not only invents a solution to the normative dilemma of principle of democracy, but puts forward institutional proposals to resolving crises of democracy in practice simultaneously.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)

The dominant construction of democracy on a global scale is in the liberal tradition. It is evident in the criteria which constitute democratic barometers in organisations like Freedom House, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation. This study seeks to provide a third-order analysis of liberal democratic consolidation theory in order to highlight that its theoretical discourse and underlying structure is not necessarily compatible with the cultural values of the non-Western world using a critical discourse analysis. Democratic consolidation in the non-Western world may not necessarily mirror the theoretical model of liberal democratic consolidation. Given the hegemonic position of liberal democracy‘s criteria and its dominant discourse and role as a barometer of democracy, this study focuses on democratic consolidation in this tradition. It is primarily due to the perceived inability of non-Western states to consolidate their democracies in the liberal democratic tradition and by default, construct thriving liberal democracies. Present theories of liberal democratic consolidation theory deal with governmental, political organisational and societal aspects of liberal democracy. The level of change these theories propagate is all encompassing, and consequently one cannot merely study one aspect of liberal democratic consolidation theory, but needs to analyse the paradigm as a whole in order to explore its metatheoretical structure. It is in this light that the study conducts an appraisal of liberal democratic consolidation theory. The critique developed in this study is aimed at addressing a disparity that currently exists within contemporary consolidation of liberal democracy theory, namely a failure of producers of liberal democratic discourse to understand the philosophical and ideological undertone of liberal democratic consolidation‘s understructure. The study does not seek to conceptualise alternative criteria of democratic consolidation in the non-Western context, but focuses on liberal democratic consolidation theory, to demonstrate that its criteria is not necessarily an appropriate barometer to measure democracy in the non-Western world. / Political Sciences / D.Litt. et Phil. (African Politics)

每一個國家（或是地區）都是依據其國家（或地區）的理想來形塑其公民的，由這個理想而生的理念，則奠定了公民的角色、政府的制度，以及公民與政府之間關係的三個公民教育面向的定位。換言之，這個人民所賴以共同生活的憑據則塑造了其特定的公民教育型態。這也就是為什麼當我們要探討關於公民教育的問題時，不能不理解其國家（或地區）所追求的共同理想為何，或者是說，不能不碰觸到關於建構其共同理想所依賴的理據。 台灣社會雖然和許多邁向民主化的拉丁美洲國家有著相似的發展過程（Huntington，1994：139），但台灣社會卻有其獨特性。台灣社會自威權體制瓦解後，個人自由以及平等社會的要求不斷擴張，從開放黨禁、報禁到總統直選，原住民、客家委員會的相繼成立，在九○年代初期，整個社會對於公民身分與族群認同的關注，以及這種關注力量展現在主體性的創造與追求，以及族群、國家的認同上可見一斑。此一時期，政府的制度不但從威權走向民主，社會也從一元變為多元。而多元社會體現的背後，則代表了社會中每一個公民對於其個體自主性意識的提昇。公民的角色從過去的被統治者轉成為自我管理者；公民與政府之間的關係也從壓抑、服從逐漸轉為自主與批判。 因此，在自由民主憲政體制下的公民教育，如果以政治社群的共善為考量，要求每一個公民都積極的參與公共事務的討論與決策，並且期待公民體現符合社群共善的目標，則個體的自主性有被消弱或侵害的危險，許多強調民族主義、國家主義、社會主義等型態的公民教育理論即是如此；而以個體自主性為考量，企圖彰顯出公民教育的核心意義即是發展個體的自主性及尊重族群的差異性，則社群的共善又有被忽略的可能性，在宣稱以自由主義為其教育根基的國家即長期面臨此一困擾10。不論如何，公民教育的目的在個人和群體之間的光譜一直是教育哲學所需抉擇或面對的問題，因此，想要釐清公民教育的定位，就不得不面對公民教育中關於個體自主性和社群共善這兩個概念之間所存在的鴻溝。而處理這個鴻溝的重要性，在於其決定了我們的社會如何看待作為一個公民的角色，以及公民的角色和政府之間的關係之爭議。 惟值得進一步探討的是，衡諸現今台灣的公民教育內涵，在諸如教材的編撰等實踐面上皆已同時涵括了這兩個在理論上看似相互衝突的概念，然而，卻不見系統性的論述來論證這兩個概念何以可以同時作為公民教育的內涵卻不陷入理論的謬誤中。這個現象雖然反映出個體自主性和社群共善皆是台灣社會所需求的「公民科」內涵，但另方面卻也再次凸顯了台灣的公民教育長期以來所存在的某種拼湊式的實踐性格。因之，在理論上尋求二者的調和，應是公民教育的理論發展所必要的途徑。 所幸最近幾年開始有學者試圖發展出調和二者的理論建構，其中達傑（Richard Dagger）、鮑伯（Benjamin R. Barber）和哈伯瑪斯（Jurgen Habermas）即是箇中翹楚。即便這些調和理論目前尚未形成一個整全性的論述，但其共同正視這兩個概念鴻溝及所面臨關於民主弱化的問題，以及企圖克服這個鴻溝及問題所提出的審議式民主（deliberative democracy）的作法，非常值得從威權解體邁向民主化發展，並想要努力深化民主未來的台灣社會借鏡。這種審議式的民主理念，在理論上不但能做為個體自主性以及社群共善調和的依據，關於公民參與的強調在實踐上又能做為跨越二者鴻溝的橋樑。故探討這種審議式的民主理念作為調和公民教育理論中關於個體自主性和社群共善這個爭議的論證，不但是研究台灣公民教育的理論基礎建構，更是關心公民教育課程發展與定位的同好所需共同關心的議題。 故筆者擬先從教育目的討論中，探究關於公民教育最根本的兩個教育目標，即個體自主性和社群共善的發展，並透過當代民主社會中兩種不同的公民觀傳統，指出一個以自由主義理論作為基礎，且調和個體自主性以及社群共善的公民觀是當前比較可行的做法，並透過這兩個概念在政治意涵上的演變以及發展，說明其乃相互關聯和互相補足的概念。爾後，筆者則透過達傑的「共和主義式自由主義」（republican liberalism）、鮑伯的「參與民主理論」（participatory democracy）以及哈伯瑪斯的「溝通理論」（discourse theory），論證調和的可能性以及其所共同導向的審議式民主理念及其具體做法，並指出一個以公民參與作為調和依據的關鍵。其次，再藉由這個調和理論的鋪陳，分析「公民科」獨立設科前後相關的公民教育論述以及其對往後「公民科」獨立設科的影響，並透過歷史的分析來還原「公民科」其學科課程的基本架構及理念，企圖透過上述的論證與分析，指出「公民科」乃是一個以〝政治〞為核心主旨的學科，並導引出一個〝重返政治〞的學科課程理念。最後，再以安吉兒（Ann V. Angell）和韓恩（Carole L. Hahn）對於英國、日本和丹麥三個國家的比較研究，作為「以〝重返政治〞為『公民科』的學科理論基礎」這一論題將有助於民主深化的佐證。

行政官員與立法委員於立法院的政策論述，是代議民主體制中政策合法化過程的核心，論述內容是否具備審議民主精神係影響政策合法性及未來執行過程的關鍵因素，但相關主題過去卻為學界所忽略。本文從審議民主觀點探究行政官員與立法委員的政策合法化論述，透過個案比較研究法，選取大學法與私立學校法的修法過程進行內容分析。研究結果顯示，立法委員的政策合法化論述主要以監督、連任、與政策為目標，其互惠性、多元性、尊重性、與合理性皆有待加強；行政官員的論述則是基於課責、回應、及責任等考量，但大多論述皆過於保守與消極，缺乏合理性之精神。兩者論述內容的差異及審議民主精神之缺乏，應與各自的制度性角色要求相關。基於研究發現，本文主張立法委員的論述應多聚焦於政策方案內容，行政官員則應更為主動、積極，以更符合回應與責任的要求、提升政策論述的審議精神。本文亦建議，立法院應針對政策合法化過程建立完整的公開記錄制度。本文為一初探性嘗試，未來學界可根據實務觀察，設計更完善的評估指標，或輔以制度論角度，裨益於對立法委員與行政官員的政策合法化論述有更完整地解釋。 / Administrators and legislators’ policy discourse in the Legislative Yuan is the core of policy legitimation under the representative democracy. The content of discourse with deliberative democracy spirit, ignored by the academics in the past, will influence policy legitimation and policy implementation. This study investigates administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse from the perspective of deliberative democracy. The author selected the processes of amending the University Act and the Private School Law by comparative study of cases, and used content analysis method. The results show legislators take the supervision, reelection, and policy as their purposes in the discourse of policy legitimation. The attributes such as reciprocity, diversity, respect, and reasonableness in the legislators’ policy legitimation discourse have a great room for improvement. Administrators would mainly consider accountability, responsiveness, and responsibility during the discourse. Administrators are always conservative and passive, and the discourse is a lack of the reasonableness. The difference between legislators and administrators’ discourses may relate to respective institutional roles. Accordingly, this study suggests legislators focus on the content of policy proposal. This study also recommends administrators be more active and enthusiastic to answer to the requirement of responsiveness and responsibility, and to promote the deliberative spirit of the discourse. Besides, the author proposes the Legislative Yuan institutionalize the complete and open records of the policy legitimation. This research is the pilot study. Therefore, in the future, the academics could design more appropriate evaluative indicators, or can be integrated by the perspective of the institutionalism for better explanation of administrators and legislators’ policy legitimation discourse.

Nous proposons dans cette thèse une approche critique de la philosophie politique de Jürgen Habermas, qui vise à interroger la conception du discours sur laquelle elle se fonde. De ses premiers textes sur «l’espace public» à la théorie politique et du droit qu’élabore Droit et démocratie, Habermas approfondit l’intuition selon laquelle c’est à travers une certaine pratique du discours argumenté que se forment les espaces de communication, de délibération, et de décision, sans la vitalité desquels la démocratie ne saurait être «radicale». Il convient dès lors de reconstruire cette théorie du discours qui sous-tend sa pensée politique, aux différents niveaux où elle est opératoire : la pratique du langage ordinaire qui est la nôtre lorsque nous communiquons dans la vie de tous les jours ; celle que nous mettons en œuvre en tant que sujets politiques lorsque nous revendiquons des droits dans l’espace public ; celle enfin qui nous permet d’argumenter selon un point de vue moral lorsqu’il s’agit de déterminer les principes de justice. Nous défendons la thèse selon laquelle les normes fondamentales du discours, qu’Habermas établit à un niveau quasi transcendantal, doivent être reconduites à une hétéronomie qui est celle des conditions matérielles du discours. La philosophie sociale d’inspiration matérialiste qu’Horkheimer s’emploie à construire dans les années 1930 ouvre la voie d’une telle analyse. Nous reconstituons à cet effet le débat interne à l’École de Francfort sur la question de savoir comment le matérialisme critique de Marx doit être interprété. / In this dissertation I offer a critical examination of Jurgen Habermas’s political philosophy while questioning the conception of discourse which it is grounded in. From his first texts on the “public space” to the legal and political theory elaborated in Law and Democracy, Habermas explores the intuition that it is through a certain practice of argumentative discourse that spaces of communication, deliberation and decision are formed, the vitality of which is crucial to a truly “radical” democracy. The theory of discourse underpinning his political thought must hence be reconstructed at the different levels it operates on, including the practice of ordinary language through which we communicate in everyday life, the discourse we apply as political subjects when we claim rights in the public space, and the discourse which enables us to form arguments from a moral point of view when principles of justice need to be determined. My thesis supports the idea that fundamental norms of discourse, which Habermas establishes on a quasi-transcendental level, must be confronted to the heteronomy of material conditions of discourse. The materialist-derived philosophy which Horkheimer strove to reconstruct in the 1930s paves the way for this analysis. I therefore reconstitute the debate within the Frankfurt School on the question of how Marx’s historical materialism should be interpreted.

Democracy has been encountering an increasing number of critics. Whether it comes from a sympathy for autocrats, free-markets, or the more knowledgeable, this increasing democratic scepticism often takes an epistemic form. Democracy's critics argue that democratic procedures and institutions are unlikely to make good decisions or produce good outcomes in terms of justice or the common good, and should, therefore, be restricted if not completely rejected in favour of its more able alternatives. In the face of such scepticism, this thesis develops an epistemic theory of deliberative democracy. This theory has two principal aims. The first is to analyse and define the epistemic properties of deliberative democracy, and the second is to clarify the possible role epistemic values can play in a wider justification of democratic rule. In accordance with the first, the thesis analyses the ability of deliberative democratic institutions to make good or correct decisions in comparison to a broad range of prominent alternatives. These include traditional rivals such as autocracy and aristocracy, but also more modern and less considered alternatives such as free-markets, limited epistocracy and forms of technical calculation. Through these comparisons, it is argued that we have no good or clear epistemic reason to reject democracy. Deliberative democracy is found to be epistemically superior to many of its alternatives and epistemically equivalent to even its best competitors. The thesis, therefore, mounts a strong reply to democracy's epistemic sceptics. The analysis, however, also helps clarify which form of deliberative democracy is epistemically most valuable, pointing to the value systems approaches which give a prominent role to direct citizen deliberation. The epistemic theory of deliberative democracy also aims to clarify what role epistemic values can play in a wider justification of democratic rule. The thesis argues that deliberative democracy is epistemically superior to many of its rivals and no worse epistemically than even its best alternatives. This suggests that although epistemic values cannot mount a stand-alone defence of democracy, democrats would only be required to defend very weak non-epistemic values to produce a mixed justification. Far from being 'rule by the incompetent many' and therefore highly reliant on procedural values, the thesis will demonstrate that epistemic values can carry significant weight in an argument for democratic rule.