Contemporary democratic states seems to be facing problems regarding who is to be included in demos. Without knowing who is included in the people, it is impossble to know who is to be granted political equality. Whithout political equality, there can be no democracy. This thesis undertakes an internal citique to establish whether the nationalist-principle (represented by David Miller), the all affected interests-principle (represented by Robert E. Goodin) and the coercion-principle (represented by Arash Abizadeh) can be justified on the basis of their own view of political equality. It will be argued that all of the principleas are more or less internally incoherent, meaning that none of the perpesctives of who is to be included in the demos is consistent with political equality. By pointing out these inconsistencies, this paper lays the foundation for a potential further developent of these principles, which could make them more in tune with political equality.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-339081 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Hällmark, Kristin |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Statsvetenskapliga institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds