Nos recherches ont pour point de départ le constat d’un manque de dialogue entre trois philosophies politiques du XXe siècle nous provenant des États-Unis alors même que cet État devrait être le chef de file et un modèle d’ouverture en matière de réflexion sur la démocratie libérale. Les trois philosophies politiques en question sont celles de John Rawls, de Richard Rorty et de Leo Strauss. Nous avons donc procédé à l’amorce d’un dialogue en mettant en relation les idées des trois auteurs sur les grands thèmes de la vérité, de l’histoire, des dimensions de l’homme et des principes démocratiques, et avons fait un effort supplémentaire de rapprochement en montrant le rapport de chacun à onze dualismes classiques liés à ces quatre thèmes. Ces dualismes sont des oppositions binaires habituellement vénérables qui classent et divisent deux ordres de réalité. Avec ce langage commun des dualismes classiques, les obstacles aux rapprochements dus aux jeux de langage ou aux vocabulaires trop particuliers des trois auteurs sont tombés. Nous montrons d’abord qu’aucun vainqueur clair ne ressort de notre confrontation, mais qu’il y a moyen de porter un jugement sur les trois auteurs en fonction de critères non controversés (cohérence, complexité ou nuances, capacité à réfuter les deux autres). Ensuite, une confrontation et un dialogue directs des trois positions permettent de les faire s’exprimer sur les mêmes enjeux et de dégager des conclusions d’intérêt général dépassant le débat d’auteurs. Ces conclusions montrent quel genre de compromis peut être trouvé entre les principes de vérité et d’histoire, approuvent le projet de résoudre les tensions dans la vision de l’homme, en particulier entre les sphères publiques et privées, mais rappellent l’importance du point de vue ancien sur les principes repris par la démocratie (liberté, égalité, justice), ne serait-ce que pour faire contrepoids à la tendance générale. Ultimement, nous montrons comment de cette confrontation peut se dégager le programme pour la philosophie politique de vivre dans une tension féconde entre critique (prémoderne) et confiance (moderne), ainsi que la nécessité réaffirmée de poursuivre les efforts de dialogue pour rendre notre pensée digne de l’idée de la démocratie libérale. / Our study stems from the awareness that three twentieth-century political philosophies emanating from the United States have not partaken in any serious dialogue, even though this country should be a leader and model of openness regarding the topic of liberal democracy. The three political philosophies in question are those of John Rawls, Richard Rorty and Leo Strauss. Consequently, we have initiated a dialogue by confronting the ideas of these three thinkers on matters concerning truth, history, the dimensions of man, and democratic principles, having furthered this effort by highlighting the opinion of each on eleven classical dualisms related to these four matters. These dualisms are binary oppositions, generally venerable, which classify and divide two orders of reality. Using the common language of classical dualisms allowed us to overcome the obstacles due to the particular language game or vocabulary of each. In the first place, we show that if no real victor emerges from our confrontation, it is possible to judge each of the thinkers according to non contentious criteria (consistency, complexity or subtlety, capacity to refute the other positions). Then we illustrate that the direct confrontation through dialogue allows each of the three positions to express itself on the same issues and leads one to conclusions regarding matters beyond simple exegetic analysis. These conclusions show what kind of compromise is possible between the principles of truth and history. They support the project of resolving the tensions in our understanding of man, in particular, between the public and private spheres. Finally, they remind us of the importance of the ancient view of democratic principles (freedom, equality, justice), if only to counterbalance the current overwhelming trend. Ultimately, we explain how this confrontation can lead to a program for a political philosophy which balances the claims of (premodern) criticism and (modern) confidence, as well as restates the importance of continuing the dialogue in order that our thought be worthy of the idea of liberal democracy. / Réalisé en cotutelle avec l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV).

While journalistic ethics exists in the Untied States today, it works primarily to address dilemmas in the profession, as opposed to working to comprehensively understand journalism in relation to its public duties. This role in United States journalism is not only misunderstood by the majority of journalists working in the media industry, it is also misunderstood by the public. This misinterpretation is directly linked to the concepts of cultural separation between the 'natural' laws that run the market place and those things in society that influence everything else. In this sense, journalism has become an industry working in the market place. Essentially, the product of completely corporatising the media industry has created a gap between the role of journalism in a democratic society and the current state of journalism in the United States. That said, the relationship between the media and democracy can be traced back through the history of United States democracy and the subsequent history of journalism as a profession that was an essential part to keeping the public sphere of democratic debate healthy. A section of journalists, public journalists, currently attempt to heed the public responsibility needed to create this space for democratic debate. However, these journalists, though earnest in their pursuit to rebuild the type of journalism needed to create this democratic sphere, cannot reach the masses effectively without more funding and more autonomy. Likewise, the public broadcast station (PBS) in the United States could be enhanced in many ways with more funding and more autonomy. Such funding and autonomy for media in the United States could come from a tax-payer funded public broadcast station. And though not all media need to bear the responsibility of journalism focused on public life and politics, a section of the mass media should commit itself to creating a sphere to enhance democratic debate. This thesis explores the necessity of a government funded mass media source in the United States. Given that United States media and democracy are inherently linked, as I will aim to show through the development of democratic history and the development of liberal democracy in the United States today, the ethical need for a media source that can fulfil its democratic duties.

No description available.

Orientador: Prof. Dr. Ivan Filipe de Almeida Lopes Fernandes / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Federal do ABC, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Políticas Públicas, São Bernardo do Campo, 2018. / O presente trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a relação existente entre a deterioração do contexto econômico e a ascensão eleitoral de partidos radicais (PRs) de direita (PRDs) e de esquerda (PREs) entre 2003 e 2016 na Europa. Partimos da hipótese de que a situação da economia não só gerou um sentimento anti-establishment na população dos países europeus, mas também realçou ressentimentos preexistentes, decorrentes de mudanças na estrutura produtiva e na composição étnica da população desde a década de 1980, com o aprofundamento da globalização produtiva. Estudamos 94 eleições para os Legislativos nacionais de 26 países das Europas ocidental e oriental, o que permite analisar a relação entre indicadores socioeconômicos, variações do sentimento anti-establishment e o desempenho de partidos radicais de ambos espectros políticos. Com o uso de dados em painel, encontramos evidências de que o desemprego constitui a principal variável econômica a afetar o sentimento anti-establishment da população no curto prazo, enquanto a modernização da economia o faz no longo prazo. Além disso, nossos dados mostram que o aumento do sentimento anti-establishment favorece mais os PREs do que os PRDs. Concluímos, assim, que a Grande Recessão trouxe consequências não só econômicas, mas, também, políticas para as democracias europeias, que terão que se adaptar ao novo status alcançado pelos partidos radicais. / This work aims at analyzing the existing relation between the economic deterioration and the ascension of radical right (RR) and left (RL) parties in the period 2003 to 2016 in Europe. We test the hypothesis that the economic situation not only has generated an anti-establishment sentiment in the population of European countries, but also reinforced previous resentments, caused by changes in the productive structure and ethnic composition since the 80s, as a result of the deepening of the productive globalization. We study 94 national legislative elections from 26 Western and Eastern European countries, which enables us to observe the relation between socioeconomic indicators, variations in the anti-establishment and the performance of radical parties from both ends of the political spectrum. Through the use of panel data, we find evidences that the unemployment constitutes the main economic variable affecting the anti-establishment sentiment of the population in the short-term, whereas the modernization of the economy does it in the long-term. Besides, our data show that the increase in the anti-establishment sentiment favors more the RLPs than it does the RRPs. Therefore, we conclude that the Great Recession has brought about not only economic but also political consequences to the European democracies, which will have to adapt to the new status achieved by the radical parties.

As our world globalizes and grows smaller, there is increasing concern about questions related to the future of liberal democracy. Following the breakdown of communism on the European continent and the ensuing emphasis on the universalization of liberal democratic values as ‘the end of history’, much research has been centered on understanding the crafting of stable democratic systems in East-Central Europe. Recently, the widely observed phenomenon of ‘illiberal backsliding’ has evoked considerable scholarly attention. However, the research community lacks a deeper understanding of the factors determining the prospects of sustainable democratic consolidation in a post-authoritarian environment. This case study therefore relates the problems associated with anchoring democratic governance in the post-communist states of East-Central Europe to a broader framework of democratization theories. It is argued that consolidating democracies is a far more complex task than has earlier been acknowledged, as it depends on a multitude of interrelated socio-cultural and political determinants. As is further proposed, the post-communist countries have largely been entrapped in an unsustainable state of incomplete democratic consolidation, evident specifically in the prevalent lack of civic culture and a deficient process of citizenship formation, entailing a serious risk of authoritarian backlash. A somewhat paradoxical hypothesis is suggested: that periods of illiberal government actually could be instrumental to generate the kind of social community needed for a long-term sustainable democratic society. In a concluding discussion on the prospects of consolidating democracy on a global scale, it is stated that the liberal democratic endeavor may be facing two future trajectories: while the first one is that of a global democratic decline in the face of authoritarian reaction, the opposite trajectory implies that liberal democracy may well have a universal future, although to accelerate to that point, it needs to overcome an initial state of instability requiring some setbacks.

“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.

Political tolerance is defined as the willingness to tolerate political ideas, actions, or practices of others that one disapproves of or finds objectionable. Tolerance is considered an indispensable democratic virtue. Contemporary debate in liberal, pluralistic societies covers a variety of controversies regarding tolerance as a concept, its exact meaning as well as its practical boundaries. Other factors such as different perceived threats by the majority group lower tolerance towards minority groups even in democratically stable countries. Sweden as a state rest on a strong liberal democratic foundation with emphasis on individual freedom and dignity as well as to the idea of political equality. Meanwhile, Sweden is confronted with increasing intolerant attitudes and public expressions of intolerance towards immigrants as well as other minority groups. Another consequence is hesitation among citizens to publicly express their opinions and a sense of self-censorship. Thus, the state fails to guarantee all individuals their equal right to political freedom and self-determination.  Although previous research has recognized the challenge of balancing political tolerance with other democratic values such as equality and autonomy, no such study has yet been conducted. This thesis is a contribution to the field of research. The aim is to empirically study how tolerance is expressed from a liberal democratic perspective on freedom of expression and thought towards three minority groups in Sweden: Jews, the Saami people, and Muslims. Applying a qualitative, comparative method, the thesis analyses how tolerance is expressed in media based on three liberal democratic core values: participation, autonomy, and equality. The chosen method provides a deeper understanding of how toleration is expressed towards each minority group. It also shows how the minority groups equal right to freedom of expression and thought is perceived. The results show that each minority group provides a different perceived threat in which toleration towards them are affected. The results therefore questions if there is an indication of a difference in the perception of citizens equal right to freedom of expression and thought in Sweden as a liberal democratic, pluralistic state.

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.