Normative Models Of Democracy Research Articles

Obywatele w środowisku informacji politycznej: obszary badań i wyzwania metodologiczne

Citizens in Political Information Environment: Areas of Study and Methodological The aim of this paper is to offer a theoretical background for studies on political communication that focus on the role of the audience in the flow of political messages. We start with normative models of democracy and their demands upon citizens and the concept of political information environment. By employing these two concepts, we are able to focus on two dimensions of citizens’ roles in political communication, that is expectations towards media users who are perceived here as citizens, as well as citizens’ expectations towards news media disseminating political information. A combination of the aforementioned concepts provides us with a theoretical background for studies on actual news media consumption and related phenomena, such as news avoidance and selective media exposure.

Conceptualising democratic resilience: a minimalist account

ABSTRACT The aim of this article is to contribute in two respects to the evolving research agenda focused on the problem of democratic resilience. First, we attempt to provide several clarifications regarding the general concept of ‘democratic resilience’, in the course of which we both assess a number of accounts offered thus far and discuss some difficulties raised by elements of its most attractive articulation. Second, we outline a specific conception of democratic resilience framed on minimalist grounds and designed so as to be compatible with a wide range of descriptive and normative models of democracy. Aside from the conceptual and analytical value of these contributions, we also point to their practical relevance for both empirical assessments and for the normative and applied-level evaluation of democratic institutions and their performance.

Rökræða, stofnanir, þátttaka. Ágreiningsefni um lýðræði

Í þessari grein skýrir höfundur og ver þær lýðræðishugmyndir sem felast í greiningu hans á íslensku stjórnarfari og stjórnmálamenningu í aðdraganda og eftirmálum fjármálahrunsins 2008. Gerð er grein fyrir og metin gagnrýni þeirra Jóns Ólafssonar og Birgis Hermannssonar á röksemdir Vilhjálms og notkun hans á fræðilegum lýðræðislíkönum Jürgens Habermas til að greina íslensk stjórnmál. Færð eru rök fyrir því að greiningu Vilhjálms verði að skilja í ljósi þess að hún taki mið af þeim sérstöku aðstæðum sem sköpuðust hérlendis kringum fjármálahrunið og villandi sé að slíta röksemdir hans úr tengslum við það. Í skrifum Vilhjálms er til dæmis stöðugt minnt á mikilvægi ákveðinna lærdóma sem draga þurfi af rökræðukenningunni um lýðræði andspænis þeirri gagnrýni á stjórnarhætti og stjórnsiði hérlendis sem sett var fram í skýrslu rannsóknarnefndar Alþingis á orsökum hrunsins. Sú gagnrýni Jóns og Birgis að Vilhjálmur smætti lýðræði í stjórnsýslu og geri ekki ráð fyrir aðkomu almennings í hugmyndum sínum um lýðræði er sögð eiga rætur sínar í því að þeir slíti umfjöllun hans úr þessu tiltekna samhengi og dragi af henni villandi ályktanir um afstöðu hans til lýðræðis almennt. Einnig er ágreiningurinn rakinn til ólíks skilnings þessara fræðimanna á lýðræðishugtakinu. Vilhjálmur hafnar því að gera aðkomu borgaranna að ákvörðunum að þungamiðju lýðræðis á kostnað vandaðra stjórnarhátta og öflugra stofanana sem vernda mikilvæg lýðræðisleg gildi og gera borgurunum kleift að draga stjórnvöld til ábyrgðar. Loks eru reifaðar hugmyndir um borgaravirkni í anda rökræðulýðræðis og hvernig þær megi útfæra andspænis þeim ógnum sem steðja að upplýstri skoðanamyndun í samtímanum.

Lýðræðisleg gildi, samræða og hlutverk menntunar

Ákvæði grunnskólalaga um að búa eigi nemendur undir þátttöku í lýðræðisþjóðfélagi er hér skoðað í ljósi hugmynda Sigrúnar Aðalbjarnardóttur. Skólastarf í anda þessa ákvæðis veltur óhjákvæmilega á því hvaða skilningur er lagður í lýðræði, hvað það þýði að búa og starfa í lýðræðisþjóðfélagi. Kynnt eru til sögunnar þrjú lýðræðisviðhorf sem fela í sér ólíka sýn á borgarana og mismunandi hugmyndir um borgaravitund nemenda sem búa skal undir þátttöku í lýðræðissamfélagi. Því er haldið fram að í menntunarkenningu og menntunarstarfi Sigrúnar sé samræðuhæfni lykilhugtak sem felist einkum í því að fást farsællega við félagslegan ágreining og mynda samstöðu um sameiginleg gildi. Samkvæmt Sigrúnu beinist samræðan síður að því að meta vægi raka og réttmæti gilda, en það krefst ræktunar gagnrýninnar hugsunar og rökræðufærni. Færð eru rök fyrir því að bæði samstaða um lýðræðisleg gildi og gagnrýnin rökræða sé nauðsynleg til að takast á við þær áskoranir sem lýðræðissamfélagið stendur nú frammi fyrir.

Conceptualizing and Measuring the Quality of Democracy: The Citizens’ Perspective

In recent years, several measurements of the quality of democracy have been developed (e.g. Democracy Barometer, Varieties of Democracy Project). These objective measurements focus on institutional and procedural characteristics of democracy. This article starts from the premise that in order to fully understand the quality of democracy such objective measurements have to be complemented by subjective measurements based on the perspective of citizens. The aim of the article is to conceptualize and measure the subjective quality of democracy. First, a conceptualization of the subjective quality of democracy is developed consisting of citizens’ support for three normative models of democracy (electoral, liberal, and direct democracy). Second, based on the World Values Survey 2005–2007, an instrument measuring these different dimensions of the subjective quality of democracy is suggested. Third, distributions for different models of democracy are presented for some European and non-European liberal democracies. They reveal significant differences regarding the subjective quality of democracies. Fourth, the subjective quality of democracy of these countries is compared with the objective quality of democracy based on three indices (electoral democracy, liberal democracy and direct popular vote) developed by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Finally, further research questions are discussed.

JUSTIFYING LIBERAL RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: PUNISHMENT, CRIMINALIZATION, AND HOLISTIC RETRIBUTIVISM

ABSTRACT In this article I explore whether liberal retributive justice should be conceived of either individualistically or holistically. I critically examine the individualistic account of retributive justice and suggest that the question of retribution – i.e., whether and when punishment of an individual is compatible with just treatment of that individual – must be answered holistically. By resorting to the ideal of sensitive reasons, a model of legitimacy at the basis of our best normative models of democracy, the article argues that in modern liberal democracies, punishment of an offender A for f is compatible with just treatment of A only if punishment of an individual for f can be legitimate in A's and A's fellow citizens' eyes. Only once retributive justice is understood in this holistic fashion the imposition of punishment can be made compatible with just treatment of individuals.

Economic theories of democratic legitimacy and the normative role of an ideal consensus

Economic theories of democratic legitimacy (discussed here as minimalist theories) have criticized deliberative accounts of democratic legitimacy on the grounds that they do not represent a practical possibility and that they create conditions that make actual democracies worse. It is not simply that they represent the wrong ideal. Rather, they are too idealistic – failing to show proper regard for the cognitive and moral limitations of persons and the depth of disagreement in democratic society. This article aims to show (1) that the minimalist criterion of democratic legitimacy is self-defeating and (2) that even if there are minimal cognitive, moral, and social requirements for the possibility of practicable deliberative democracy, these limitations do not necessarily impose insuperable barriers for democratic deliberation as the normative basis of democratic legitimacy. Thus, the limiting facts do not dictate the structure of appropriate normative models of democracy in the way minimalists have supposed.

In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism

The literature discussing the impact of media and journalism upon democracy, typically criticizes both media and journalism for their content and their negative effects on some aspects of democracy. In turn, this raises the question of identifying news standards by which the quality of news journalism might be evaluated. But neither the proposed news standards nor the criticism levelled against them specify with sufficient clarity the model of democracy to be used as a normative departure. This article argues that the question of proper news standards cannot be addressed in isolation from the question of different normative models of democracy. In order to discover news standards by which the quality of news journalism can or should be evaluated, it analyzes four normative models of democracy and their demands upon citizens: procedural democracy, competetive democracy, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. Building upon that analysis, the article asks: What normative implications for media and news journalism follow from the distinctive perspectives of procedural, competitive, participatory and deliberative democracy?

THREE NORMATIVE MODELS OF DEMOCRACY

This chapter provides a proceduralist view of democracy and deliberative politics which differs in relevant aspects from both the liberal and the republican paradigm. It describes the opposite features of these two established models. The chapter introduces a new proceduralist conception by way of a critique of the overload of the republican view. It further elaborates the three normative models of democracy by comparing their corresponding images of state and society. The normative models are republican model, liberal model, and proceduralist model. In contrast to the ethical constriction of political discourse, the concept of deliberative politics acquires empirical reference only when we take account of the multiplicity of communicative forms of rational political will-formation. According to the communitarian view, there is a necessary connection between the deliberative concept of democracy and the reference to a concrete, substantively integrated ethical community.