Democratic Participation, Engagement, and Freedom

It is commonly supposed that democracies should encourage greater political participation and civic engagement. This article identifies two distinct perspectives on political participation and civic engagement: a ‘freedom-centred’ model and an ‘ethical’ model. The ‘freedom-centred’ model defended here draws on the republican concept of freedom as non-domination, together with the political liberal notion of fair deliberative proceduralism, while the ethical model draws on Aristotelian, perfectionist, sources. It is argued that the ‘ethical’ model is overly concerned with the ‘moral renewal’ of modern social life, and is insensitive to problems of domination posed by its account of civic reciprocity and trust. By contrast, the ‘freedom-centred’ model developed offers a systematic account of personal and political freedom, which provides qualified support for deliberative modes of participation and engagement.

An Agreed Peace? The Institutions of Democratic Governance in the Belfast Agreement 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998”

(with G. Anthony).

Dirty Hands and the Complicity of the Democratic Public

The alleged problem of the dirty hands of politicians has been much discussed since Michael Walzer’s original piece (Walzer 1974). The discussion has concerned the precise nature of the problem or sought to dissolve the apparent paradox. However there has been little discussion of the putative complicity, and thus also dirtying of hands, of a democratic public that authorizes politicians to act in its name. This article outlines the sense in which politicians do get dirty hands and the degree to which a democratic public may also get dirty hands. It separates the questions of secrecy, authorisation, and wrongfulness in order to spell out the extent of public complicity. Finally it addresses the ways in which those who do and those who do not acknowledge the problem of dirty hands erroneously discount or deny the problem of complicity by an appeal to the nature of democracy, a putatively essential need for political openness or to the scope of ideal theory.

Resident Aliens? Explaining Minority Disaffection with Democratic Politics in the Baltic States

Commentators and scholars alike recognize the important role political dissatisfaction plays in the process of regime change. A considerable body of literature has used dissatisfaction with a regime and distrust in political institutions to explain political dynamics during democratization's initial phase, yet these indicators are rarely used to assess disaffection with politics in established democratic regimes. Recent research on the post-communist region has established that citizens demonstrate high levels of political alienation, and that ethnic minority communities in particular are widely dissatisfied with democratic politics, institutions and regimes. This paper uses the 2004 data from the New Baltic Barometer to analyse individual-level disaffection with politics among the minorities in the Baltic States and explores the structural roots of such disaffection. The paper draws upon interviews with political representatives of minority communities in order to understand their perceptions of opportunities to participate in decision-making. Building on quantitative and qualitative analysis, the paper concludes that disaffection with politics among both the mass of ethnic minorities and their elite groups is best explained by the misrepresentation of minority interests in post-communist Baltic polities.