EUARENAS D1.2 - State of Democracy Debate
Figures
Figures - uploaded by Wojciech Ufel
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Wojciech Ufel
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The theory of deliberation emerged as an effect of a theoretical attempt at solving the democratic deficit, hence situating itself within the "classical" boundaries of political theory. It does not, however, often relate to the theory of public policy, especially its most critical strains. In this paper I make an attempt at such a conflation, juxtaposing the "policy paradox" and the "argumentative turn" with the ideal(ized) models of deliberation, both type I and type II. Recalling the debate on public policy that started in the 80s/90s-right when the theory of deliberation was also taking off-I ask the question whether deliberation, as its most prominent proponents claim, is the answer to the political challenge of public policies, or should rather be equally treated according to the logic outlined by policy paradox and argumentative turn? In my argumentation I lean towards the second option, proposing instead a post-foundationalist and hermeneutic interpretation of political/policy fields in which deliberation occur. This leads to a substantial shift in the understanding of its potential effects and means.
Jeremy Corbyn’s dramatic rise and fall created a problem for left political strategists in the UK. Contradictory explanations centre around two broad areas. First, ideology: Corbynism was either too left-wing or not left-wing enough; and second, democracy and populism: Corbynism was either anti-democratic and authoritarian populist or ‘left-populist’ and democratising. The centrality of these debates to the Corbyn literature implies that strategists today face a dilemma. Either consolidate the Labour party as a radical left-wing grassroots movement against the PLP, or a centre-left party that re-establishes PLP authority. Indeed, Keir Starmer is already interpreted to have aligned himself with the latter of these two options. This paper offers an original interpretation of Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of populism to demonstrate that this is a false dichotomy which not only risks unnecessarily restricting Labour party strategy but potentially has severe ramifications for how we understand left-wing politics in Britain more widely.
The systems debate in democratic theory has long been dominated by the deliberative perspective. However, democratic theory consists of various strands. Recently, participatory, agonistic, pragmatist and transformative democrats have entered the systems debate. This contribution suggests a multiperspectival approach to democratic theory and applies various lenses to demo-cratic systems. Looking through the kaleidoscope of democratic theory animates the research subject. This brings to light a vivid democratic ecosystem, which is perceived differently by each participant and from each position within the system. Democracy appears as a vital assemblage that reaches beyond formal political institutions into the everyday lives of its participants.
Students of social movements fought, and won, a lengthy battle to legitimate academic interest in the field. As the study of social movements is increasingly embraced by the academy, however, practitioners and scholars now face the challenge of using this hard-won legitimacy to afford the time and space to ask and answer important questions about collective action and social movements: How and why do movements emerge? Why do they take the forms they do? When and how do protest movements bring about meaningful social change? Alas, the exigencies of academic study often lead scholars to cultivate niches and burrow more deeply into narrow areas of inquiry, rather than return to the issues that gave rise to the study of social protest in the first place. The essays in this volume represent a concerted effort to build bridges among people researching collective action and social movements and to encourage the construction of comprehensive and synthetic approaches to the study of social movements.
In this introductory essay, I mean to explain the need for bridge-building within this area of study and suggest ways to cross disciplinary and subdisciplinary boundaries, for none has a monopoly on useful knowledge on movements. The important things that have to happen in the study of social protest involve connecting what distinct groups of scholars do into a larger whole. The puzzles of social protest politics mandate a response from the academy that is inherently collective. Indeed, if substantial progress in the study of social movements is really to occur, it will come from a community of scholars that triangulates (cf. Tarrow 1995a) the problems described here, working on pieces of the problems.
The main objective of the essay is to argue that a powerful revanchist and self-referential narrative of authenticity and autonomy is influencing the securitization of mobility. Cultural nationalism, coupled with elements of a new sovereigntism that reifies national interests and unilateralism, is a direct challenge to globalist assumptions that privilege mobility and cosmopolitanism. Discussion begins with a consideration of securitization and the perceptual, socio-cultural, and attitudinal foundations of security. The concept of ontological security is particularly salient in this context, as it emphasizes aspects of national identity that are prone to radicalization as well as relates socio-political bordering processes to securitization. As recent events have made abundantly clear, democratic impulses co-exist with illiberal understandings of belonging, citizenship, and culture. This is manifested by political and social imaginaries of security that are based on what appears to be a reinvigorated cultural nationalism, and as a direct consequence, racial and ethnic autarchy. In contrast to the Nordic examples developed in the present collection, the case of Hungary is elaborated as a perhaps extreme example of revanchist identity politics that is impacting European societies more generally. In concluding, the essay outlines potential consequences of revanchist securitization which in several ways threaten the European Union as a political and multicultural community. Desecuritization will be suggested as an alternative; this is understood as a means of changing the ways in which mobility and migration are discursively framed, and contextually broadening debate on the significance of open borders for European Union.
Citizenship: A Very Short Introduction approaches its subject from a political perspective, to address the complexities behind the major topical issues and to examine the main models of citizenship that exist today. Interest in citizenship has never been higher. It has become a buzz-word for politicians of all varieties, moral leaders, and every kind of campaigning group from the global to the local level. But what does it mean to be a citizen of a modern, complex community? How have ideas of citizenship changed through time from ancient Greece to the present? Why is citizenship important? Can we create citizenship, and can we test for it?
While the normative debate on European integration has addressed the importance of the construction of truly democratic institutions as well as the establishment of social rights at EU level, the role of progressive social movements has not been much debated. Building upon theorization and research in social movement studies, I argue that progressive social movements are indeed already contributing to the construction of European public spheres. Not one liberal (or bourgeois), public sphere but the proliferation of subaltern counterpublics could allow for the participation of the excluded, giving them the possibility to make their political voice heard. Through different paths of Europeanization (in particular, domestication, externalization and transnationalization), progressive social movements have played an important role in the creation of a critical public sphere as, by contesting European institutions, they have contributed to make them (more) accountable, but have also developed collective identities at EU level and, with them, European public spheres. A main challenge is now to connect an emancipatory critical public to public institutions.