Marginalization of the Youth – a Current Societal Development?

The last two years a discussion on reforming the public sector has emerged. At its very heart we find important concepts like ‘quality reform’, ‘democracy’, and ‘development’. Recently I have presented an example of the ‘quality reform’ in SocMag, and this leads me to prolong that discussion on central themes on welfare state and democracy. Much energy is invested in arguing about management of the public sector: Do we need more competition from private companies? Do we need more control? Are more contracts concerning outcome needed? Can we be sure about the accountability needed from politicians? How much documentation, effectiveness measurement, bureaucracy, and evidence-based policy and practice are we looking for? A number of interesting questions – but strange enough we do not discuss the purpose of ‘keeping a welfare state’. What sort of understanding is lying behind the welfare state, and what kind of democracy are we drawing upon?

The EU Policy on Institutional Multilingualism: Between Principles and Practicality

This article brings to light several inconsistencies within the narrative of the EU policy on institutional multilingualism. The EU has invoked fundamental EU principles of democracy, equality and transparent government, to publically bolster the need for its institutions to communicate and operate in the languages of its citizens. However, these principles do not allow for the pragmatic and budgetary arguments that the EU uses to justify the in reality limited number of official and de facto working languages of its institutions. The article argues that this disagreement could be resolved if the narrative of the EU's language policy would include the objective that all European citizens master any of the languages that the EU institutions use. In that light, the article recommends that further research is done into the question whether the EU should accept or even encourage the spontaneous development of English as a de facto pan-European lingua franca.

Democracy Concepts of the Fundamentalist Parties of Algeria and Tunisia – Claim and Reality

This article discusses democratic elements in early Islamic sources and in the programs of the Algerian FIS (Front Islamique du Salut) and ANNAHDA in Tunesia. According to historic writings, Islam includes the principles of democratic consensus, consultation, and freedom of opinion, and an understanding that the sources of Islamic jurisdiction are subject to interpretation, that the sharia can be changed, and that religious authorities’ power to issue instructions on worldly matters is limited. These are the type of expectations that fundamentalist parties arouse when they speak of an Islamic caliphate as a state system. Against this background, an examination of the political system proposed until 1992 by the Algerian FIS shows that this system would have resulted in a very restrictive form of Islam. An investigation of the political system of the Tunisian fundamentalist leader Rached al-Ghannouchi reveals that the system he proposes may be designated as an Islamic democracy, since it takes into account separation of powers and pluralism of political parties. The head of state would be subject to the law in the same manner as the people. However, it is no liberal democracy, as he categorically rejects secularism, intends to punish apostates, and is only willing to allow political parties that are based on the religion of Islam. His state would only be a state of those citizens who follow Islam, completely neglecting secularist groups. Social conflicts and unrest are thus predetermined.