Rethinking What is Necessary in a Democratic Society: Militant Democracy and the Turkish State

Questions relating to contemporary understandings of democracy continue to preoccupy the academic landscape, from politics to law—how does one define democracy; is it necessary to recalibrate the concept of democracy to meet the exigencies of the current global security "crisis" and, following from this, how does one understand (and control) the democratic relationship of representation and accountability between citizen and state? Although those writing on the recalibration of democratic theory come from different points of departure, they often arrive at a similar conclusion; namely that this global era poses significant challenges to contemporary understandings of democracy. This article identifies and focuses on one challenge posed by the concept of “militant” democracy against the backdrop of the Turkish case.

Disentangling Discrimination: The Impact of Political and Societal Discrimination on Democratic (Dis)Engagement

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Privacy, surveillance, and the democratic potential of the social web

This chapter argues that theories about privacy would benefit from embracing deliberative democratic theory on the grounds that it addresses harms to democracy, and widens our understandings of privacy infringements in social networking environments. We fi rst explore how social networking services (SNS) have evolved through diff erent phases and how they enable political deliberation. Subsequently, we discuss more traditional individualistic and intersubjective theories of privacy in relation to social networking and point out their limitations in identifying and redressing social networking-related harms. We then critique emerging claims concerning the social value of privacy in the context of the social Web. Here we point out how these theories might identify non-individualized harms, yet, at the same time, suff er important challenges in application. We conclude by arguing that deliberative democratic theory can add some critical insights into the privacy harms encountered on the contemporary “social Web” that are only imperfectly understood by individualistic and social conceptions of privacy

On democracy

If one clear argument emerged from my doctoral thesis in political science, it is that there is no agreement as to what democracy is. There are over 40 different varieties of democracy ranging from those in the mainstream with subtle or minute differences to those playing by themselves in the corner. And many of these various types of democracy are very well argued, empirically supported, and highly relevant to certain polities. The irony is that the thing which all of these democratic varieties or the ‘basic democracy’ that all other forms of democracy stem from, is elusive. There is no international agreement in the literature or in political practice as to what ‘basic democracy’ is and that is problematic as many of us use the word ‘democracy’ every day and it is a concept of tremendous importance internationally. I am still uncertain as to why this problem has not been resolved before by far greater minds than my own, and it may have something to do with the recent growth in democratic theory this past decade and the innovative areas of thought my thesis required, but I think I’ve got the answer. By listing each type of democracy and filling the column next to this list with the literature associated with these various styles of democracy, I amassed a large and comprehensive body of textual data. My research intended to find out what these various styles of democracy had in common and to create a taxonomy (like the ‘tree of life’ in biology) of democracy to attempt at showing how various styles of democracy have ‘evolved’ over the past 5000 years.ii I then ran a word frequency analysis program or a piece of software that counts the 100 most commonly used words in the texts. This is where my logic came in as I had to make sense of these words. How did they answer what the most fundamental commonalities are between 40 different styles of democracy? I used a grounded theory analysis which required that I argue my way through these words to form a ‘theory’ or plausible explanation as to why these particular words and not others are the important ones for answering the question. It came down to the argument that all 40 styles of democracy analysed have the following in common 1) A concept of a citizenry. 2) A concept of sovereignty. 3) A concept of equality. 4) A concept of law. 5) A concept of communication. 6) And a concept of selecting officials. Thus, democracy is a defined citizenry with its own concept of sovereignty which it exercises through the institutions which support the citizenry’s understandings of equality, law, communication, and the selection of officials. Once any of these 6 concepts are defined in a particular way it creates a style of democracy. From this, we can also see that there can be more than one style of democracy active in a particular government as a citizenry is composed of many different aggregates with their own understandings of the six concepts.

Suppressed democracy in China : theoretical rationalisation using a cosmopolitan methodology

The intention of this work is to explain theoretically that democracy logically exists in China, despite the statements to the contrary by China’s ruling party. We will have to look at several recent developments in social and political theory to fully understand my point. The first involves recent findings in the historical analysis of democracy from thinkers like Keane (2009), Isakhan and Stockwell (2011). The second deals with cosmopolitan theory and 2nd modernity, or from the works of David Held (2003), Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande (2010) respectively. Finally, the third is a recent work of mine titled “Democratic Theory and Theoretical Physics” (2010).

Review of Dr. Richard Shapcott's International Ethics : A Critical Introduction. 2010. London: Polity Press. ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-3142-4.

This work by Richard Shapcott is, as the title provides, an introduction to international ethics. By taking a quick glance at the table of contents (see Figure 1) we see that he has systematically divided this particular discourse into its normative areas of concern (in other words its major areas of argument or research). When reading, we also see that a great deal of work has gone into the publication because the narrative is flowing, the arguments continuous, and because the tone of the work maintained its critical position throughout.

An interview with Professor David Held : exploring the concepts of cosmopolitanism and democracy

David Held is the Graham Wallace Chair in Political Science, and co-director of LSE Global Governance, at the London School of Economics. He is the author of many works, such as Cosmopolitanism: Ideals and Realities (2010); The Cosmopolitanism Reader (2010), with Garrett Brown; Globalisation/AntiGlobalisation (2007), Models of Democracy (2006), Global Covenant (2004) and Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture (1999). Professor Held is also the co-founder, alongside Lord Professor Anthony Giddens, of Polity Press. Professor Held is widely known for his work concerning cosmopolitan theory, democracy, and social, political and economic global improvement. His Global Policy Journal endeavours to marry academic developments with practitioner realities, and contributes to the understanding and improvement of our governing systems.

An interview with Dr. Benjamin Isakhan : on the alternative histories of democracy

Dr. Isakahn is currently a research associate with the Centre for Dialogue at La Trobe University in Australia. His latest works include several forthcoming books: Democracy in Iraq is a monograph soon to be released; whilst The Edinburgh Companion to the History of Democracy and The Secret History of Democracy, both done in concert with Stephen Stockwell, are edited collections. His most recent articles include “Targeting the Symbolic Dimension of Baathist Iraq,” “Measuring Islam in Australia” and “Manufacturing Consent in Iraq.” For further information regarding Dr. Isakhan and his works, please visit his website, www.benjaminisakhan.com.

An interview with Dr. Richard Shapcott : the international ethics of 'Basic Democracy'

Dr. Richard Shapcott is the senior lecturer in International Relations at the University of Queensland. His areas of interest in research concern international ethics, cosmopolitan political theory and cultural diversity. He is the author of the recently published book titled International Ethics: A Critical Introduction; and several other pieces, such as, “Anti-Cosmopolitanism, the Cosmopolitan Harm Principle and Global Dialogue,” in Michalis’ and Petito’s book, Civilizational Dialogue and World Order. He’s also the author of “Dialogue and International Ethics: Religion, Cultural Diversity and Universalism, in Patrick Hayden’s, The Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations.

Deliberation and collaboration in the policy process : a Web 2.0 approach

This paper is a summary of a PhD thesis proposal. It will explore how the Web 2.0 platform could be applied to enable and facilitate the large-scale participation, deliberation and collaboration of both governmental and non-governmental actors in an ICT supported policy process. The paper will introduce a new democratic theory and a Web 2.0 based e-democracy platform, and demonstrate how different actors would use the platform to develop and justify policy issues.

Rethinking Media Pluralism : A Critique of Theories and Policy Discourses

This study examines different ways in which the concept of media pluralism has been theorized and used in contemporary media policy debates. Access to a broad range of different political views and cultural expressions is often regarded as a self-evident value in both theoretical and political debates on media and democracy. Opinions on the meaning and nature of media pluralism as a theoretical, political or empirical concept, however, are many, and it can easily be adjusted to different political purposes. The study aims to analyse the ambiguities surrounding the concept of media pluralism in two ways: by deconstructing its normative roots from the perspective of democratic theory, and by examining its different uses, definitions and underlying rationalities in current European media policy debates. The first part of the study examines the values and assumptions behind the notion of media pluralism in the context of different theories of democracy and the public sphere. The second part then analyses and assesses the deployment of the concept in contemporary European policy debates on media ownership and public service media. Finally, the study critically evaluates various attempts to create empirical indicators for measuring media pluralism and discusses their normative implications and underlying rationalities. The analysis of contemporary policy debates indicates that the notion of media pluralism has been too readily reduced to an empty catchphrase or conflated with consumer choice and market competition. In this narrow technocratic logic, pluralism is often unreflectively associated with quantitative data in a way that leaves unexamined key questions about social and political values, democracy, and citizenship. The basic argument advanced in the study is that media pluralism needs to be rescued from its depoliticized uses and re-imagined more broadly as a normative value that refers to the distribution of communicative power in the public sphere. Instead of something that could simply be measured through the number of media outlets available, the study argues that media pluralism should be understood in terms of its ability to challenge inequalities in communicative power and create a more democratic public sphere.

Rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism, 1642-1681

The study analyses the ambivalent relationship republicanism, as a form of self-government free from domination, had with the ideal of participatory oratory and non-dominated speech on the one hand, and with the danger of unhindered demagogy and its possibly fatal consequences to that form of government on the other. Although previous scholarship has delved deeply into republicanism as well as into rhetoric and public speech, the interplay between those aspects has only gathered scattered interest, and there has been no systematic study considering the variety of republican approaches to rhetoric and public speech in 17th-century England. The rare attempts to do so have been studies in English literature, and they have not analysed the political philosophy of republicanism, as the focus has been on republicanism as a literary culture. This study connects the fields of political theory, political history as well as literature in order to make a multidisciplinary contribution to intellectual history. The study shows that, within the tradition of classical republicanism, individual authors could make different choices when addressing the problematic topics of public speech and rhetoric, and the variety of their conclusions often set the authors against each other, resulting in the development of their theories through internal debates within the republican tradition. The authors under study were chosen to reflect this variety and the connections between them: the similarities between James Harrington and John Streater, and between John Milton and John Hall of Durham are shown, as well the controversies between Harrington and Milton, and Streater and Hall, respectively. In addition, by analysing the writings of Marchamont Nedham the study will show that the choices were not limited to more, or less, democratic brands of republicanism. Most significantly, the study provides a thorough analysis of the political philosophies behind the various brands of republicanism, in addition to describing them. By means of this analysis, the study shows that previous attempts to assess the role of free speech and public debate, through the lenses of modern, rights-based liberal political theory have resulted in an inappropriate framework for understanding early modern English republicanism. By approaching the topics through concepts used by the republicans legitimate authority, leadership by oratory, and republican freedom and through the frames of reference available and familiar to them roles of education and institutions the study presents a thorough and systematic analysis of the role and function of rhetoric and public speech in English republicanism. The findings of this analysis have significant consequences to our current understanding of the history and development of republican political theory, and, more generally, of the connections between democratic theory and free speech.

The quality of deliberation in Northern Ireland's district policing partnerships

This study uses theoretical based deliberative democratic dimensions to measure the deliberative quality of Northern Ireland’s District Policing Partnership (DPP) meetings in public. The study combines Habermasian, and Young’s deliberative concepts to create an Augmented Discourse Quality Index. This Augmented DQI is employed by this research as am empirical instrument to establish the true deliberative nature of these DPP meetings in public. The overall goal of this study is two-fold. First; to gain an in-depth understanding of Northern Ireland’s DPPs in relation to deliberative democratic theory, specifically regarding how these policing/public partnerships stand up under a deliberative democratic lens. The second goal is to provide a possible framework by which deliberative quality can be more accurately measured. In that frameworks which are designed to measure deliberative quality should include not only the dimensions for rational participation, but also include broader terms of communication such as greeting, rhetoric and story-telling.

A study on the role of the parent in educational decision making from the perspective of parents and teachers

ADeweyan (1916) democratic theoty ofeducation called for the participation ofall citizens in deliberating important educational issues to improve overall student learning. Thus, the move to include parents in educational decision making can be considered to be rooted in democratic principles. To gain greater insight into the issue ofparent involvement in educational decision making, one elementary school was studied and a triangulization method was employed in an attempt to clarify the important issues surrolUlding the move to include parents in the governance ofschools. The three methods to gain information included surveys, interviews, and documentation ofsignificant school events and related work. All ofthe parents and teachers ofthe school were surveyed, 10 parents and 6teachers were interviewed, and related school events were recorded. The survey design was modeled on the Parent Involvement Questionnaire (PIQ) created and reported on by Chavkin and Williams (1987). The results ofthe surveys were used as a guide for the interview questions. An interview outline was developed based on Seidman's (1991) open-ended approach and Patton's (1980) standardized open-ended interview style in which parents and teachers were asked about their experiences and opinions on anmnber ofparent involvement issues. Parents and teachers in this school indicated agreater interest in becoming more aware ofeducational issues such as school budget and school discipline policies. Although the parents indicated agreater interest in school matters and the teachers indicated awillingness to include parents in school matters, both the parents and teachers in this study perceived the role ofthe parent as advisory, not decision making. It was concluded that to ensure ameaningful and functional role for parellts as tlleir p811icipatioll ill educational matters evolves, SCllools must have a clear vision ofthe primary goal ofall schools, namely, to foster and nourish democratic citizens for ademocratic society (Glickman, 1993). Furthennore, intentional practices such as Purkey's (ad) 5-P Relay approach, based on a democratic theory and practice of education, will have to be employed in order to give parents an authentic voice in educational matters and provide an avenue for parents to acquire the necessary skills and lmowledge needed to do so. As schools, school boards, and the Ministry ofEducation implement parent involvement guidelines and policies, developmental needs ofeach school need to be considered to ensure the employment ofdemocratic practices not authoritarian mandates. Parent interest and involvement, at whatever level, should be an important element in the overall move to make schools part ofthe democratic society they were meant to be.