Directing Democracy : The Case of the John Lewis Partnership

The John Lewis Partnership was founded in 1929 as an “experiment in industrial democracy” (Lewis, 1948). This thesis explores the meaning of democracy in the Partnership and examines the wider implications of the case. It argues that democracy in work should be viewed as something which is intrinsically valuable because of its connection to furthering justice, equality, freedom and the rights and interests of all workers. The thesis makes three main contributions. Firstly, the production of a historically situated exploration of democratic participation in the John Lewis Partnership – the largest co-owned business in the UK. Secondly, an analysis of power relations in the organisation and an examination of the ways in which disciplinary power and regimes of truth both constrain democratic practice and offer the potential for resistance and challenge. Thirdly, the thesis challenges critics of the Partnership who have dismissed it as a form of “pseudo democracy” (Pateman, 1970: 73) and “suffocatingly paternalistic” (Ramsay, 1980: 52). Despite the constant threat of degeneration and dilution of the value framework laid down by the founder, the Partnership’s continued commitment to democratic participation provides an important contribution to our understanding of co-ownership and democratically organised forms of work. The analysis shows that management have attempted to direct and define democracy in a highly constrained way, assigning it an instrumental purpose, and privileging the ‘business case’ for democratic engagement. However, the study emphasises that the meaning of democracy is heavily contested and fraught with contradictions and paradoxes. This creates a space in which understandings of equality, solidarity and democracy are debated by the 69,000 employees who are co-owners of the business.

Governing depression in Australian legal education : power, psychology and advanced liberal government

Legal educators in Australia have increasingly become concerned with the mental health of law students. The apparent risk posed by legal education to a student’s mental health has led to the deployment of a variety of measures to address these problems. By exploring these measures as productive power relations attempting to shape law students, this paper outlines how this government of depression is achieved, and the potential costs of these power relations. It examines one central Australian text offering advice about how students and law student societies can address depression, and argues that doing so not only involves students adopting particular practices of self-government to shape their legal personae, but also relies on an extension of the power relations of legal education. In addition, this paper will link this advice — which privatises the issue of depression, responsibilises individuals and communities, privileges psychological expertise, and seeks to govern ‘at a distance’ — to broader forms of social administration that presently characterise many Western societies. Doing so allows legal educators to reflect on the effects of their attempts to govern depression, and to consider new ways of altering the power relations of legal education.

Parrhesia and democracy : Truthtelling, WikiLeaks and the Arab Spring

Parrhesia — the practice of truth-telling — was adapted to various ancient legal, political, philosophical and religious contexts. In this essay we focus on parrhesia in politics and its relevance for democracy, concentrating on the account given by Michel Foucault. We suggest that Foucault’s approach to parrhesia and democracy is valuable because of its stress on the analysis of governmental rationalities and the ethical comportment of citizens, rather than on the normative dimensions of democracy, as is more usual (but more sterile) in political thought. We take two modern examples of truth-telling’s role in democracy – the recent WikiLeaks scandal and the political struggles in Tunisia and Egypt – as a way of assessing the value of Foucault’s distinctive approach and the relevance of parrhesia for democracy today.

Democracy, Crime and Justice. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences

As a growing number of nations embark on a path to democracy, criminologists have become increasingly interested and engaged in the challenges, concerns, and questions connecting democracy with both crime and criminal justice. Rising levels of violence and street crime, white collar crime and corruption both in countries where democracy is securely in place and where it is struggling, have fuelled a deepening skepticism as to the capacity of democracy to deliver on its promise of security and justice for all citizens. What role does crime and criminal justice play in the future of democracy and for democratic political development on a global level? The editors of this special volume of The Annals realized the importance of collecting research from a broad spectrum of countries and covering a range of problems that affect citizens, politicians, and criminal justice officials. The articles here represent a solid balance between mature democracies like the U.S. and U.K. as well as emerging democracies around the globe – specifically in Latin America, Africa and Eastern Europe. They are based on large and small cross-national samples, regional comparisons, and case studies. Each contribution addresses a seminal question for the future of democratic political development across the globe. What is the role of criminal justice in the process of building democracy and instilling confidence in its institutions? Is there a role for unions in democratizing police forces? What is the impact of widespread disenfranchisement of felons on democratic citizenship and the life of democratic institutions? Under what circumstances do mature democracies adopt punitive sentencing regimes? Addressing sensitive topics such as relations between police and the Muslim communities of Western Europe in the wake of terrorist attacks, this volume also sheds light on the effects of terrorism on mature democracies under increasing pressure to provide security for their citizens. By taking a broad vantage point, this collection of research delves into complex topics such as the relationship between the process of democratization and violent crime waves; the impact of rising crime rates on newly established as well as secure democracies; how crime may endanger the transition to democracy; and how existing practices of criminal justice in mature democracies affect their core values and institutions. The collection of these insightful articles not only begins to fill a gap in criminological research but also addresses issues of critical interest to political scientists as well as other social and behavioral scientists and scholars. Taking a fresh approach to the intersection of crime, criminal justice, and democracy, this volume of The Annals is a must-read for criminologists and political scientists and provides a solid foundation for further interdisciplinary research.

Crime, Justice and Social Democracy : International Perspectives

Crime, Justice and Social Democracy is a provocative and thoughtful collection of timely reflections on the state of social democracy and its inextricable links to crime and justice. Authored by some of the world's leading thinkers from the UK, US, Canada and Australia, with a preface from Professor David Garland of New York University, this volume provides a powerful social democratic critique of neoliberal regimes of governance and crime control on an international scale. Social democratic values raise broad questions about government, ethics, and the exercise of power in criminal justice institutions; each chapter here engages with how this might occur and with what consequences. The contributions to this volume, while critical and hard hitting, also boldly envision a more socially just criminal justice politic. This collection is essential reading for activists, scholars, legislators, politicians and policy makers who are concerned with promoting, imagining and understanding socially sustaining societies.

Justice and social inclusion policies

Since 2008 the social policy of Australia’s Labor government (in office since 2007) has been framed by a commitment to ‘social inclusion’. In this respect Australia belatedly aligned itself with policy imaginaries already widely, if variably, adopted in Europe (Atkinson & Davoudi 2000; Levitas et al 2007; Buckmaster & Thomas 2009). This framework has been self-consciously identified as what Labor governments are equipped to do. Framed by the post-2007 global financial crisis and agreeing with claims that ‘excessive greed’ and irresponsibility on the part of financial markets sponsored that calamity, the Labor government vigorously promoted its ‘social democratic’ credentials. Former Prime Minister Rudd has explained this meant that Australia would no longer adopt a neo-liberal orientation promoting unrestrained capitalism (Rudd 2009).

Human rights, the law, cyber-security and democracy : after the European Convention

Many commentators have treated the internet as a site of democratic freedom and as a new kind of public sphere. While there are good reasons for optimism, like any social space digital space also has its dark side. Citizens and governments alike have expressed anxiety about cybercrime and cyber-security. In August 2011, the Australian government introduced legislation to give effect to Australia becoming a signatory to the European Convention on Cybercrime (2001). At the time of writing, that legislation is still before the Parliament. In this article, attention is given to how the legal and policy-making process enabling Australia to be compliant with the European Convention on Cybercrime came about. Among the motivations that informed both the development of the Convention in Europe and then the Australian exercise of legislating for compliance with it was a range of legitimate concerns about the impact that cybercrime can have on individuals and communities. This article makes the case that equal attention also needs to be given to ensuring that legislators and policy makers differentiate between legitimate security imperatives and any over-reach evident in the implementation of this legislation that affects rule of law principles, our capacity to engage in democratic practices, and our civic and human rights.

Education for social responsibility: Ethics and imagination for engaging students and teachers in educational reform

In this chapter we make assumptions about the primary role of education for the life of its beneficiaries and for society. Undoubtedly, formal education plays an important role in enhancing the likelihood for participation in future social life, including enjoyment and employment, by the student as well as the development of the well being of society in general. Similarly, education is often seen as a main means for intergenerational transmission of knowledge and culture. However, as Dewey (1916) argues, in liberal societies, education has the capacity of enhancing democratic participation in society that goes beyond passive participation by its members. One can argue that the achievement of the ideals of democracy demands a free and strong education system. In other words, while education can function as an instrument to integrate students into the present society, it also has the potential to become an instrument for its transformation by means of which citizens can develop an understanding of how their society functions and a sense of agency towards its transformation. Arguably, this is what Freire (1985) meant when he talked about the role of education to “read and write” the world. A stream of progressive educators (e.g., Apple (2004), Freire, (1985), Giroux (2001) and McLaren (2002)) taught us that the reading of the world that is capable of leading into writing the world is a critical reading; i.e., a reading that poses “Why” questions and imagines “What else can be” (Carr & Kemmis, 1987).

Yutori Kyoiku and the uncertainty of recent neo-liberal reforms in Japanese higher education

This paper draws upon the current situation within Japanese Higher Education. In particular the paper focuses on educational reforms and how they relate to the notions of Yutori Kyoiku which constituted a major attempt by Japanese education to develop individual student capacity. A clear subtext of the recent neo-liberal reform agenda is a desire to incorporated free-market ideals into the Japanese educational system. This paper raises several important problems connected to the reforms such as the decrease in classroom hours, changes to the contents of textbooks and a growing discrepancy in academic skills between students in different localities. These education reforms have impacted on notions of Yutori Kyoiku through the continuation of nationally standardized testing and changes directed at controlling the practices of classroom teachers. While acknowledging the current Japanese cabinet’s (DP) education policy has been inherited from an earlier LDP government, the paper points to similarities between the current reforms and the iconic Meiji era reforms of the late 1800s.

(Neo)Liberal doses of inequality : advance Australia where?

The relationship between social background and achievement has preoccupied educational researchers since the mid-20th century with major studies in the area reaching prominence in the late 60s. Despite five decades of research and innovation since, recent studies using OECD data have shown that the relationship is strengthening rather than weakening. In this paper, the systematic destabilisation of public education in Australia is examined as a philosophical problem stemming from a fundamental shift in political orientation, where “choice” and “aspiration” work to promote and disguise survivalism. The problem for education however extends far deeper than the inequity in Federal government funding. Whilst this is a major problem, critical scrutiny must also focus on what states can do to turn back aspects of their own education policy that work to exacerbate and entrench social disadvantage.

Democracy and participation in Singapore : a case study

A typical characteristic of the ongoing practice of democracy in Singapore has been described by some scholars as 'illiberal democracy'. Noting that Singapore 's brand of democracy operates within a 'dominant, one-party system', other scholars cushioned such a democratic practice by their reference to 'semi-democracy', 'controlled democracy, 'guided democracy, and 'communitarian democracy'. However, despite the demonstration that there are many restrictions in the type of democracy that exists in Singapore, the benefits are numerous. Singapore is the only country in the world to have transformed itself from a developing country to a developed country in less than only forty years. But its slower move towards a culture ofparticipation must move as quickly as globalization does if it is to remain in relevant and legitimate democracy. If the younger generation understands that they should have the right to a voice before the government acknowledges it, the transition could be more tumultuous than necessary.