Democracy, Participation, and Deliberation in China : The discussion about democratic centralism in the official Chinese press, 1978-1981

This study examines the Chinese press discussion about democratic centralism in 1978-1981 in newspapers, political journals and academic journals distributed nationwide. It is thus a study of intellectual trends during the Hua Guofeng period and of methods, strategies, and techniques of public political discussion of the time. In addition, this study presents democratic centralism as a comprehensive theory of democracy and evaluates this theory. It compares the Chinese theory of democratic centralism with Western traditions of democracy, not only with the standard liberal theory but also with traditions of participatory and deliberative democracy, in order to evaluate whether the Chinese theory of democratic centralism forms a legitimate theory of democracy. It shows that the Chinese theory comes close to participatory types of democracy and shares a conception of democracy as communication with the theory of deliberative democracy. Therefore, the Chinese experience provides some empirical evidence of the practicability of these traditions of democracy. Simultaneously, this study uses experiences of participatory democracies outside of China to explain some earlier findings about the Chinese practices. This dissertation also compares Chinese theory with some common Western theories and models of Chinese society as well as with Western understandings of Chinese political processes. It thus aims at opening more dialogue between Chinese and Western political theories and understandings about Chinese polity. This study belongs to scholarly traditions of the history of ideas, political philosophy, comparative politics, and China studies. The main finding of this study is that the Chinese theory of democratic centralism is essentially a theory about democracy, but whether its scrupulous practicing alone would be sufficient for making a country a democracy depends on which established definition of democracy one applies and on what kind of democratic deficits are seen as being acceptable within a truly democratic system. Nevertheless, since the Chinese theory of democratic centralism fits well with some established definitions of democracy and since democratic deficits are a reality in all actual democracies, the Chinese themselves are talking about democracy in terms acceptable to Western political philosophy as well.

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights : A comparative analysis of the conceptual relationship between democracy and rights in contemporary political theories

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights is a research in normative political theory, based on comparative analysis of contemporary democratic theories, classified roughly as conventional liberal, deliberative democratic and radical democratic. Its focus is on the conceptual relationship between alternative sources of democratic legitimacy: democratic inclusion and liberal rights. The relationship between rights and democracy is studied through the following questions: are rights to be seen as external constraints to democracy or as objects of democratic decision making processes? Are individual rights threatened by public participation in politics; do constitutionally protected rights limit the inclusiveness of democratic processes? Are liberal values such as individuality, autonomy and liberty; and democratic values such as equality, inclusion and popular sovereignty mutually conflictual or supportive? Analyzing feminist critique of liberal discourse, the dissertation also raises the question about Enlightenment ideals in current political debates: are the universal norms of liberal democracy inherently dependent on the rationalist grand narratives of modernity and incompatible with the ideal of diversity? Part I of the thesis introduces the sources of democratic legitimacy as presented in the alternative democratic models. Part II analyses how the relationship between rights and democracy is theorized in them. Part III contains arguments by feminists and radical democrats against the tenets of universalist liberal democratic models and responds to that critique by partly endorsing, partly rejecting it. The central argument promoted in the thesis is that while the deconstruction of modern rationalism indicates that rights are political constructions as opposed to externally given moral constraints to politics, this insight does not delegitimize the politics of universal rights as an inherent part of democratic institutions. The research indicates that democracy and universal individual rights are mutually interdependent rather than oppositional; and that democracy is more dependent on an unconditional protection of universal individual rights when it is conceived as inclusive, participatory and plural; as opposed to robust majoritarian rule. The central concepts are: liberalism, democracy, legitimacy, deliberation, inclusion, equality, diversity, conflict, public sphere, rights, individualism, universalism and contextuality. The authors discussed are e.g. John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Young, Chantal Mouffe and Stephen Holmes. The research focuses on contemporary political theory, but the more classical work of John S. Mill, Benjamin Constant, Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt is also included.

Local Politicizations : A Comparison of Finns and French Practicing Democracy

This study examines how do the processes of politicization differ in the Finnish and the French local contexts, and what kinds of consequences do these processes have on the local civic practices, the definitions and redefinitions of democracy and citizenship, the dynamics of power and resistance, and the ways of solving controversies in the public sphere. By means of comparative anthropology of the state , focusing on how democracy actually is practiced in different contexts, politicizations the processes of opening political arenas and recognizing controversy are analyzed. The focus of the study is on local activists engaged in different struggles on various levels of the local public spheres, and local politicians and civil servants participating in these struggles from their respective positions, in two middle-size European cities, Helsinki and Lyon. The empirical analyses of the book compare different political actors and levels of practicing democracy simultaneously. The study is empirically based on four different bodies of material: Ethnographic notes taken during a fieldwork among the activities of several local activist groups; 47 interviews of local activists and politicians; images representing different levels of public portrayals from activist websites (Helsinki N=274, Lyon N=232) and from city information magazines (Helsinki-info N=208, Lyon Citoyen N= 357); and finally, newspaper articles concerning local conflict issues, and reporting on the encounters between local citizens and representatives of the cities (January-June in 2005; Helsingin Sanomat N=96 and Le Progrès N= 102). The study makes three distinctive contributions to the study of current democratic societies: (1) a conceptual one by bringing politicization at the center of a comparison of political cultures, and by considering in parallel the ethnographic group styles theory by Nina Eliasoph and Paul Lichterman, the theory on counter-democracy by Pierre Rosanvallon and the pragmatist justification theory by Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot; (2) an empirical one through the triangulation of ethnographic, thematic interview, visual, and newspaper data through which the different aspects of democratic practices are examined; and (3) a methodological one by developing new ways of analyzing comparative cases an application of Frame Analysis to visual material and the creation of Public Justification Analysis for analyzing morally loaded claims in newspaper reports thus building bridges between cultural, political, and pragmatic sociology. The results of the study indicate that the cultural tools the Finnish civic actors had at their disposal were prone to hinder more than support politicization, whereas the tools the French actors mainly relied on were frequently apt for making politicization possible. This crystallization is defined and detailed in many ways in the analyses of the book. Its consequences to the understanding and future research on the current developments of democracy are multiple, as politicization, while not assuring good results as such, is central to a functioning and vibrant democracy in which injustices can be fixed and new directions and solutions sought collectively.

Paradox between democracy and security- case study on Pakistan

Pro gradu-tutkielma tutkii demokratian ja turvallisuuden paradoksia Pakistanissa esitellen kuusi tekijää, jotka vaikuttavat kyseiseen paradoksiin. Näitä tekijöitä ovat historiallinen kehitys; eliittihallinto; taloudellinen kehitys; Pakistanin poliittisten tekijöiden demokratian eri määritelmät; opetuksen puuttuminen; ja valtataistelu hallituksen, armeijan, tiedustelupalvelun, oikeusjärjestelmän, poliittisten puolueiden sekä eri heimojen, uskonnollisten ja etnisten ryhmien välillä. Tutkimus tarkastelee myös sitä miten nämä tekijät vaikuttavat demokratian kehitykseen Pakistanissa. Keskeinen argumentti on, että länsimainen demokratia ei esiinny eikä toimi Pakistanissa vallitsevissa oloissa, etenkin historiallisen kehityksen ja ulkoisen turvallisuuden takia. Pro gradu-tutkielma käyttää sekundäärisiä lähteitä, kuten kirjoja, artikkeleita, maaraportteja, kommentaareja sekä omiin kokemuksiin perustuvia havaintoja Pakistanin matkalta 2010-2011. Keskeiset teoriat gradussa ovat Guillermo O’ Donnelin delegaattidemokratia sekä Duncan McCargon eliittihallintoteoria, jotka yhdessä selittävät historiallista kehitystä ja eliittihallinnon dynamiikkaa, mitkä johtavat paradoksiin. Kautta historian armeija on hallinnut Pakistania, ja siviilihallinto on ainoastaan neljä kertaa onnistunut olemaan vallassa, mutta silloinkin siviilihallinto päättyi korruptioväitteisiin tai armeijan vallankaappaukseen. Armeijahallinnoille on luonteenomaista hyvät suhteet USA:n, positiivinen taloudellinen kehitys ja vakaus, kun taas siviilihallinnot ovat epävakaita ja korruptoituneita. Tämä kehitys on paradoksin tausta, joka rakentuu turvallisuuspoliittisen tilanteen pohjalle eli hallitusten ja muiden tekijöiden yritykseen löytää vastapaino Intian uhalle. Tämä on ollut keskeinen huoli kelle tahansa poliittiselle päättäjälle itsenäisyydestä lähtien. Loputon valtataistelu eri poliittisten tekijöiden kesken sekä eliittihallinto pitävät yllä paradoksia, koska eliitit ovat kiinnostuneempia oman valtansa säilyttämisestä kuin kansan tahdon huomioonottamisesta. Koska valtaosa ihmisistä ei ole koulutettuja, he ovat paljolti kiinnostuneita omasta selviytymisestään, ja tämän takia sekä kansa että eliitit suosivat armeijahallintoa, koska se tuo vakautta ja taloudellista kehitystä. Sen vuoksi vallitsevissa oloissa demokratian tulevaisuus Pakistanissa näyttää huonolta, koska liberaalidemokratian vaatimukset eivät täyty puoliksi vapaan oikeussysteemin, puoliksi vapaan lehdistön, valtavan korruption ja monien ihmisoikeusloukkauksien takia unohtamatta armeijan ja tiedustelupalvelun sekaantumista siviilihallintoon.