Dilemmas Of Democracy Research Articles

A Democratic Dilemma: Racial Attitudes, Authoritarianism, and Whites’ Evaluation of Minority Legislators

The United States prides itself on its immigrant heritage and diversity, yet historically, minority advancements have faced opposition and violence. Little scholarship exists on how whites evaluate minority representation when represented by a minority in a legislative chamber. Prior research suggests that diversity may trigger negative racial and authoritarian attitudes among whites. Given recent political events in the United States and increases in the number of racial minorities running for and winning political office, we investigate white responses to minority representation in the United States Congress. Using the 2022 CES data, we examine how racial and authoritarian attitudes predict whites’ evaluations of Minority House Members. We expand beyond the Black and white binary to include whites’ evaluations of Hispanic legislators and broaden the study of racial attitudes beyond the Racial Resentment index. Our findings demonstrate that whites’ evaluations of minority legislators are linked to racial attitudes and endorsements of policy-based authoritarianism, varying by the representative’s race. White respondents who are in districts that are not represented by a Black or Hispanic legislator exemplify higher levels of racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, and agree that racial problems are rare. They also support more authoritarian policies than in districts represented by a Black Representative. White respondents’ approval of minority legislators relies on authoritarian policies and racial attitudes when the member of Congress is Black or Hispanic. In these districts, white respondents who disapprove of their Congressmember have more racial resentment, disagree that whites have advantages, and support more authoritarian policies than white respondents who approve of their Congressmember. This research provides insights into the complexities of minority political representation and its connection to policy-based authoritarianism, as well as its implications for American democracy.

The Dilemma of Democracy in Modern Russia: Parliamentarism or Universal Civil Co-government

The civilizational choice of modern Russia has posed to our people the problem of searching for a national idea, choosing a socio-political system that ensures the survival of the Russian state in the context of the global political crisis of liberal representative democracy and armed conflict with the West. Universal civil co-government and libertarian state socialism as a popular initiative coming from the depths of the consciousness of Russian society, acts as the only guideline for state-building capable of ensuring the national path of development of the country, preserving its identity and becoming an example to other peoples.

Anti-immigrant backlash: the Democratic Dilemma for immigration policy

Anti-immigrant backlash has emerged in recent years as a considerable threat to democracy. In many countries illiberal and anti-democratic political forces driven in part by anti-immigrant sentiment have damaged or threaten to damage the proper functioning of democratic institutions. Should policymakers try to avert this threat by implementing more restrictive immigration policy? If they do so, they may expose immigrants to unjust exclusion. If they do not, they may risk democratic dysfunction, even democratic failure. I will call this the Democratic Dilemma for immigration policy. In this paper I argue that this is a hard ethical dilemma that does not lend itself to a straightforward resolution. I propose an analytic and evaluative framework for assessing possible policy responses to the Dilemma to aid policymakers’ as well as the public’s ethical judgement.

Public broadcasting and democracy’s defense: responses to far-right parties in Germany and Sweden

ABSTRACT This article studies the response by public sphere institutions in democratic societies to far-right parties, focusing specifically on public broadcasting organizations in Germany and Sweden. With the upsurge of far-right parties these types of institutions are faced with difficult decisions on how to balance norms of inclusivity, impartiality and pluralism while also safeguarding substantive norms related to the protection of equal human dignity and non-discrimination. Public sphere institutions, and public broadcasting in particular, are of key importance for well-functioning democracies. They are also settings where democratic dilemmas appear that have received less attention in the existing literature on democracy's protection. We develop our contribution through a comparative study of the response by public broadcasting organizations to the far-right in Germany and Sweden. Results point to continuing difficulties in navigating dilemmas related to the response to these parties, especially as they are becoming an increasingly normalized part of the political landscape.

Dilemma of Democracy: Reasons for the Failure of Democracy in Pakistan

This article presents critical analysis of the dilemma of democracy in Pakistan. The objective of this study was to find out the major reasons behind the failure of democracy in Pakistan as most of the population is confused about what the actual cause is behind it. The design of the study was descriptive and teachers and students of international relation of university of central Punjab were the population of this study. The sample of study was selected through random sampling technique. In order to collect data, a validated questionnaire was used by the researcher. The major findings of the research showed that most of the population presented illiteracy, corruption, unfair justice system, pressure groups, feudal and tribal system as the major reasons for the failure of democracy in Pakistan and suggested technocratic system and presidential system as the major solution for the disoriented situation in the country. On the basis of research, a major recommendation of a technocratic system was provided by the researcher.

Dilemmas of democracy: challenges to parliamentary practices from the UK public and parliamentarians

The absence of a codified constitution for the United Kingdom combined with numerous parliamentary conventions often perceived as arcane unwritten rules, made the need for guidelines on parliamentary proceedings particularly acute. Thus, in the XIXth century, the initiative came from outside Parliament with aspiring parliamentarians like Albert Venn Dicey in his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution and Walter Bagehot in his English Constitution – two authoritative works on Parliament. But it also emanated from within Parliament with Erskine May, a former clerk of the House of Commons, the author of the invaluable Treatise upon the Law, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament – enlightening parliamentary procedure. MPs guides to procedure have also brought clarification and guidance to (new) members of the House. Indeed, Parliament is “a microcosm”, with its own rules and rituals. They contribute to widening the gap between Parliament and the People it represents. Unprecedented crisis – first Brexit then the Coronavirus pandemic – have stretched parliamentary practices to their limits leading to daunting challenges such as turning Parliament into a virtual or remote legislature making it more difficult for the latter to perform its key role of holding the government to account. Yet it could be an opportunity to rethink parliamentary practices while making them more accessible to the people, thus contributing to restoring trust between them without which there cannot be an effective democracy.

Democratic Dilemma of Malay Islamic Party: PAS, Coalition Pattern, and Rising Social Issues

This article deliberates on how the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) embraces and weathers the challenges of democracy as a political culture beyond elections. The deliberation analyses the approach and behaviors of the party within a period of three general elections (GE), namely the GE12 in 2008, GE13 in 2013, and GE14 in 2018. Through qualitative approach and in-depth interviews with key PAS leaders, this article discusses PAS participation with the Pakatan Rakyat (PR), Muafakat Nasional (MN), and Perikatan Nasional (PN), which demonstrated the PAS’s unchartered undertaking to accept democracy as a political culture and not as a tool to achieve political power through an election. While it is trite to take the position that elections are the truest form of democracy, they can foster greater inclusivity, which can take place in both political and non-political realms.

Exploring the social implications of buying and selling cyber security

Governments, businesses, private citizens and even organised crime are increasingly investing in cyber security, with the cyber security industry growing in size and relevance. This paper demonstrates that markets for the buying and selling of cyber security should be subject to many of the same critical inquiries typically targeted at the private security industry. Using a number of illustrative examples of emerging trends in the commodification of cyber security it will be highlighted how these markets create significant social impacts and present similar dilemmas of democracy, justice, sovereignty, and deleterious side-effects for wider society. Key conceptual differences between cyber security commodities and ‘conventional’ security commodities will also be considered before arguing for an inter-disciplinary research agenda into the considerable social implications of the buying and selling of cyber security commodities.

The Paradox and Dilemma of Democracy in the Information

The Paradox and Dilemma of Democracy in the Information

COVID-19 팬데믹과 민주주의의 딜레마: 글로벌 데이터 분석

본 논문은 170개국의 COVID-19 데이터를 분석하여 정치체제의 특성이 팬데믹 피해에 미치는 효과를 연구하였다. 민주주의 수준이 높은 나라는 인구 대비 확진자의 수 가 많지만 회복률이 높은 경향이 있다. 사전적 방역 영역에서 민주주의 체제는 높은 정책 결정의 비용, 시민권과 공공보건 간의 딜레마, 시민들의 비협조/저항으로 인해 확진율이 높다. 반면 사후적 치료 영역에서 민주주의 체제는 정치적 논쟁과 비난 회피 (blame avoiding)의 부재, 정책적 노력과 자원 배분, 정책결정의 단순한 기회구조, 시민의 적극적 협조 때문에 감염환자의 회복률이 높다. 민주주의 체제는 확진율을 낮추려는 사전적 방역 영역보다, 회복률을 높이는 사후적 치료영역에서 더 성공적이다.

Lines of Reasoning When Designing Education for Municipal Councillors in Sweden

ABSTRACT Although elected representatives play an imperative role for the functioning of a formal democracy, educational research has so far not given much attention to the education and training offered to this group of people. A democratic dilemma may arise in the design and organisation of this education that relate to local governance and policy processes. This paper investigates introductory education that Swedish municipalities offer to municipal councillors and explore the reasons behind its design. The study draws on a comprehensive set of empirical material, consisting of educational programmes from 261 Swedish municipalities and interviews with municipal representatives. The results suggest three different lines of reasoning, denoted system-oriented, relationship-oriented, and market-oriented lines, behind the design of this education. The importance of these results can be considered in relation to previous findings that a strained relation exist between elected representatives and local administrations in Sweden.

Resentment and Coping With the Democratic Dilemma

Resentment is a complex, multi-layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged “crisis of representative democracy” and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people’s relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as “resentful affectivity,” our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a “democratic dilemma.” We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary “crisis of representative democracy.”

The Pandemic and the Crisis of Democracy in Brazil

Some claim that an erosion of democracy is occurring worldwide. There are also questions on the scope of the crisis, which countries are affected, and how to reverse it. The Covid-19 pandemic may have fostered disagreements, deepened rifts, and contributed to the definitive crystallisation of the crisis, but it may also have engendered more moderate and compliant attitudes given the need to unify around the response to common threat. We explore the current dilemmas of democracy in the Brazilian case, focusing on how regime legitimacy, authoritarian attitudes, and support for a populist, authoritarian leader interact and are affected by the pandemic, using public opinion data from 2018 to 2020.

Book review: Democratic Dilemmas: Why Democracies Ban Political Parties

Book review: Democratic Dilemmas: Why Democracies Ban Political Parties

The Democratic Dilemmas of Differentiated Integration: The Views of Political Party Actors

AbstractDifferentiated integration (DI) appeals as a pragmatic way of accommodating political and economic differences among member states (MS). However, it potentially challenges their equal standing in EU decision‐making, creating the possibility for some MS to dominate others. As such, it risks undermining the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Drawing on 35 interviews with party actors in seven MS, we find many shared these concerns, thereby questioning the acceptance of DI. While they considered DI could support self‐determination at the national level, they worried it might result in arbitrary exclusion and growing inequality at the EU level. To be non‐dominating, they contended differentiated policies must remain open for all to join, be based on clear criteria, and allow all MS a say, though only participating states should be entitled to vote on differentiated policies in the Council, whereas all MEPs should be able to vote in the European Parliament.

Democracy in times of the pandemic: explaining the variation of COVID-19 policies across European democracies

In fighting the spread of COVID-19, the drastic measures undertaken by governments worldwide demonstrate a trade-off between public health and fundamental democratic principles. Yet this behaviour is not consistent across democracies, which motivates this paper to examine why some democracies were willing to constrain individual freedoms and concentrate power more than others during the pandemic’s first wave. Creating two indices to measure the degree to which COVID-19 policies interfere with these democratic principles in 34 European countries, the analyses show that the large variation cannot be solely explained by pandemic-related factors. It is argued that the strong protection of democratic principles already established in ‘normal’ times makes governments more reluctant to opt for restrictive policies. By highlighting how differences in policy responses are attributed to provisions guaranteeing individual liberties, this paper contributes to a better understanding of how democracies handle the democratic dilemma in times of crises.

To Democratize or to Protect? How the Response to Anti‐System Parties Reshapes the EU's Transnational Party System

AbstractThis article studies how efforts to democratize the European Union's (EU) decision‐making procedures are reshaped by the growing influence of anti‐system parties in Europe. This new political landscape exacerbates a fundamental democratic dilemma for the EU: to either open up, and further democratize its institutions or to work to protect those institutions from the influence of anti‐systemic actors. The article analyses how political elites engage with this dilemma by studying a process unfolding from 2010 to 2019 through which reforms to the EU's transnational party system were introduced. Building on extensive interview and debate data the analysis demonstrates that, while a democratizing logic informed early stages of the process, a protective logic gradually became dominant. The article goes on to discuss the possible implications of this shift for the continued democratization of the EU and identifies this dimension in EU politics as a pertinent field for further study.

Rethinking the Democratic Dilemma

Rethinking the Democratic Dilemma

Democratic Dilemmas of Elite Institutions: Comparing the Court and the Fed

The Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve, twin pillars of the liberal market order, have never been systematically compared. Yet, as elite institutions in a democratic political world, they face parallel problems in carrying out similar functions of maintaining the precommitments to a stable rule of law and a stable value of money respectively. Both face a countermajoritarian difficulty of justifying their decisions on occasion to go against popular will. In response, both tie themselves to rules in order to cabin their own discretion and to prevent epistemic mistakes common in small groups of insulated decisions makers. Yet as a descriptive matter in emergencies both transcend rules to keep the republic steady. The comparison illuminates parallel dilemmas sometimes recognized in the context of one institution yet denied or ignored in the other. For instance, commentators appreciate the epistemic difficulty of small-group decision making as a major problem for the Fed, while this is not often seen as an issue for the Court. Moreover, the Fed admits it acts differently based on its own evaluation of an emergency, but the Court often does not acknowledge altering its jurisprudence in an emergency. Yet decisions like Bush v. Gore and Wickard v. Filburn are best explained as rooted in emergency judgments similar to the Fed’s. More transparent acknowledgment of the decisiveness of such emergent circumstances would make it easier for the Court, like the Fed, to unwind from its prior judgments in non-emergent circumstances. In addition, the parallel independence of these entities is not only necessary for their purposes but also face similar perils in a time of polarization like our own. Today, the central bank is considering whether it should engage in new forms of activism to address such problems as climate change and inequality. The Supreme Court’s history shows the substantial risk that such activism will undermine the diffuse support among elites. That loss of support leads to political movements, like court packing or favoring structural change for the Fed, that make it more difficult for such institutions to preserve their independence and sustain their precommitments.

Politicians, Social Media, and Digital Publics: Old Rights, New Terrain

In this interdisciplinary roundtable discussion, five scholars interested in political communication work through the democratic dilemmas created when privately owned social media platforms are used as digital public squares by elected officials in the United States. This conversation unfolds in the context of ongoing legal cases that challenge politicians’ efforts to block select interlocutors and bar them from participation. We grapple with the tension between politicians’ use of social media to broadcast their own messages as a form of publicity with the desire by some members of the public that politicians be transparent online by allowing the electorate to question or even criticize them. Through this discussion, we weigh the importance of the right to criticize the government and its leaders alongside the realities of contentious content on social media platforms that are rife with abusive content, in a cultural context marked by social inequalities.