Abstract Since democracy was developed in the ancient Greece it has come to be used within a small city state, within the national state and as today used within a bigger perspective. After the end of the second world war political leaders wanted to make sure that there would never be a war between European countries again. Now, about 60 years later this type of cooperation now involves 27 of the European countries and goes under the name of the Euroapean Union. This means that democracy is no longer used just within the nation state, but within a big organisation that is responsible for almost 500 million Europeans lives. This also means that the European Union need to make some institutional reforms to be able to handle all the future challenges. The European Union is often accused of not being democratic enough and in my thesis I wanted to see what if there were any suggestions for a more democratic union within the new Lisbon treaty. The aim with this thesis has been to investigate if the European Union can be more democratic in the futher according to those changes that is listed in the Lisbon treaty. My comprehensive objective is: does the European Union have any intentions of making the democratic bas within the union more democratic in the new Lisbon treaty? My other objectives are: How democratic is the EU today? How does the democratic base within the EU look like today? How does the democratic base change in the new Lisbon treaty? I have used a qualitative text analysis as a method to answer my questions because it’s a good method to use when we want to investigate organisational changes for example. The result of my thesis has shown that some democratic changes are expressed in the Lisbon treaty and that they will make the EU a little bit more democratic in the future.

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.

With the increased significance of information technology (IT) in today’s society the term ‘electronic democracy’ (e-democracy) has gained much importance within the democracy theory. Naturally, there are several competing views on how the technology should be used for democratic purpose. One aspect of this is the somewhat revitalized claim for direct democracy in accordance with the hypothetical opportunity to finally realize it as a democratic system. The ideal of direct democracy combined with the almost total credence in the potential of technology constitute the idea of a ‘push-button democracy’. The term has to a large extent been used by critics to the idea. However, it does also figure as a generic term describing this ‘new’ claim for direct democracy. This essay seeks in a qualitative normative and theoretical way, to assess the plausibility of the idea of the push-button democracy in relation to classical democracy theory. In excess of the debate of direct versus representative democracy, the analysis seeks to give a normative approach on how information technology should be applied. The result of the analysis consists of a number of predicted implications with the realization of the push-button democracy, especially concerning the democratic process in regard to decision making. Furthermore, it is reasoned whether this utopian system is desirable, even from a principal view. Finally, the discussion concludes with a stance of policy that information technology should be used as a mean for the existing representative democracy, rather than a goal, in order to create a different political system.

The purpose of the study is to explore how social media can be used as a forum to discuss politics and also how young people use critical reflection to evaluate the information available on social media. To achieve the purpose, a qualitative research is used. The empirical data is collected through semi-structured interviews with six high school students who voted in the Swedish parliamentary elections in/of 2014. The empirical data were then analyzed based on previous research on social media, and the school's mission to foster individuals who think critically. The analysis is also based on the theory of deliberative democracy model. The study shows that social media can be used as a platform for political discussions but it is in a large extent characterized by mudslinging between the sides for and against the various political elements. The survey also shows that the interviewed students do not understand the implications of source criticism. Instead they use critical thinking to determine what is a good or a bad source. The study shows that the deliberative democracy model cannot be applied to social media in its present form, but should be seen as an ideal image of how a deliberative democracy should work.