Bella speaks at rally across the street from the Democratic Convention

General note: Title and date provided by Bettye Lane.

Procéduralisme épistémique et légitimité démocratique : une défense de l'égalité politique

Ce mémoire explore la relation qui lie démocratie et légitimité politique, dans une perspective épistémique. La démocratie, dans son acception la plus générale, confère à chacun la possibilité de faire valoir les intérêts qu'il estime être les siens et ceux de sa communauté, en particulier à l’occasion d’un scrutin. Cette procédure décisionnelle qu’est le vote consacre ainsi en quelque sorte la liberté et l’égalité dont profitent chacun des citoyens, et confère une certaine légitimité au processus décisionnel. Cela dit, si le vote n’est pas encadré par des considérations épistémiques, rien ne garantit que le résultat politique qui en découlera sera souhaitable tant pour les individus que pour la collectivité: il est tout à fait permis d’imaginer que des politiques discriminatoires, économiquement néfastes ou simplement inefficaces voient ainsi le jour, et prennent effet au détriment de tous. En réponse à ce problème, différentes théories démocratiques ont vu le jour et se sont succédé, afin de tenter de lier davantage le processus démocratique à l’atteinte d’objectifs politiques bénéfiques pour la collectivité. Au nombre d’entre elles, la démocratie délibérative a proposé de substituer la seule confrontation d’intérêts de la démocratie agrégative par une recherche collective du bien commun, canalisée autour de procédures délibératives appelées à légitimer sur des bases plus solides l’exercice démocratique. À sa suite, la démocratie épistémique s’est inspirée des instances délibératives en mettant davantage l’accent sur la qualité des résultats obtenus que sur les procédures elles-mêmes. Au final, un même dilemme hante chaque fois les différentes théories : est-il préférable de construire les instances décisionnelles en se concentrant prioritairement sur les critères procéduraux eux-mêmes, au risque de voir de mauvaises décisions filtrer malgré tout au travers du processus sans pouvoir rien y faire, ou devons-nous avoir d’entrée de jeu une conception plus substantielle de ce qui constitue une bonne décision, au risque cette fois de sacrifier la liberté de choix qui est supposé caractériser un régime démocratique? La thèse que nous défendrons dans ce mémoire est que le concept d’égalité politique peut servir à dénouer ce dilemme, en prenant aussi bien la forme d’un critère procédural que celle d’un objectif politique préétabli. L’égalité politique devient en ce sens une source normative forte de légitimité politique. En nous appuyant sur le procéduralisme épistémique de David Estlund, nous espérons avoir démontré au terme de ce mémoire que l’atteinte d’une égalité politique substantielle par le moyen de procédures égalitaires n’est pas une tautologie hermétique, mais plutôt un mécanisme réflexif améliorant tantôt la robustesse des procédures décisionnelles, tantôt l’atteinte d’une égalité tangible dans les rapports entre citoyens.

King Democracy: Do Democratic Nations Mitigate Conflict Over Transboundary Freshwater Resources Better Than Other Nations?

The prospect of water wars and conflict over water are ideas that are frequently dramatized in media and also studied by scholars. It is well-established that bona fide wars are not started over water resources, but conflict over water does exist and is not well understood. One would suppose, as scholars often do, that dyads composed of two democratic nations would be the best at mitigating conflict and promoting cooperation over freshwater resources. General conflict research supports that supposition, as does the argument that democracies must be best at avoiding conflicts over resources because they excel at distributing public goods. This study provides empirical evidence showing how interstate dyads composed of various governance types conflict and cooperate over general water and water quantity issues relative to each other. After evaluating the water conflict mitigating ability of democratic-democratic, democratic-autocratic, and autocratic-autocratic dyads, this study found that democracy-autocracy dyads are less likely to cooperate over general water issues and water quantity issues than the other two dyad types. Nothing certain can be said about how the three dyad types compare to each other in terms of likelihood to conflict over water quantity issues. However, two-autocracy dyads seem to be most likely to cooperate over water quantity issues. These findings support the established belief that democratic-autocratic pairs struggle to cooperate while also encouraging greater scrutiny of the belief that democracies must be best at cooperating over water resources.

DEMOCRACY ISN'T THAT SMART (BUT WE CAN MAKE IT SMARTER): ON LANDEMORE'S DEMOCRATIC REASON

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016In her recent book, Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore argues that, when evaluated epistemically, “a democratic decision procedure is likely to be a better decision procedure than any non-democratic decision procedures, such as a council of experts or a benevolent dictator” (p. 3). Landemore's argument rests heavily on studies of collective intelligence done by Lu Hong and Scott Page. These studies purport to show that cognitive diversity – differences in how people solve problems – is actually more important to overall group performance than average individual ability – how smart the individual members are. Landemore's argument aims to extrapolate from these results to the conclusion that democracy is epistemically better than any non-democratic rival. I argue here that Hong and Page's results actually undermine, rather than support, this conclusion. More specifically, I argue that the results do not show that democracy is better than any non-democratic alternative, and that in fact, they suggest the opposite – that at least some non-democratic alternatives are likely to epistemically outperform democracy.

Spatial structures of manufacturing clusters in Cambodia, Lao People's Democratic Republic, and Thailand

Examining the spatial structure of clusters is essential for deriving regional development policy implications. In this study, we identify the manufacturing clusters in Cambodia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, and Thailand, using two indices—global extent (GE) and local density (LD)—as proposed by Mori and Smith (2013). We also analyze four different combinations of these indices to highlight the spatial structures of industrial agglomerations. Since industrial clusters often spread over administrative boundaries, the GE and LD indices—along with cluster mapping—display how the detected clusters fit into specific spatial structures.

To ISDS or not to ISDS: A question of legitimacy in dispute resolution

Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has gained prominence in recent years with an explosion in the number of investor claims against states. While the evolution of this type of arbitration was expected, its focus and context was not. Investors are currently bringing actions against developed states in unanticipated policy areas. Greece, facing actions from investors challenging its debt haircut and Spain, battling investor challenges to its revamped energy policy are examples of the use of arbitration as a political as well as a dispute resolution tool. It is for this reason why the proposal for the inclusion of ISDS in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has caused so much heated discussion. This paper examines the recent evolution and likely trajectory of investor state dispute settlement, reflecting on consequences for perceptions of arbitration and its links with politics and economics.

Facilitating Inclusion: Austrian Wisdom Councils as Democratic Innovation between Consensus and Diversity

Democratic innovations face the challenge of realizing deliberative democratic ideals in the context of structural inequality. Consensus decision making and expertise have been said to have exclusive effects on marginalized groups like women and ethnic and sexual minorities, which obstructs diversity. Wisdom Councils as practiced in Austria attempt to counter inequalities by including marginalized groups through the moderation technique dynamic facilitation. Exploratory participatory observations and interviews with a moderator and the participants of two Wisdom Councils in Austria provide a deeper understanding of the inclusive processes at work in Wisdom Councils facilitating a productive combination of consensus and diversity.

The State of the Nation Debate as part of the democratic parliamentary ritual: Rajoy and Rubalcaba discourse analysis, 2014

In this article we analyze the Debate on the State of the Nation 2014. The methodology consists in coding the speeches of the prime minister, Mariano Rajoy (PP) and the then opposition leader Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba (PSOE) through extracting word clouds, branched maps and word trees that have shown the most common concepts and premises. This preliminary analysis of two dimensions, quantitative and qualitative, makes it much easier and viable subsequent discourse analysis where we focus on the different types of arguments in the communicative act: claim/solution, circumstantial premises, goal premises, value premises, meansgoal premises, alternative options/addressing alternative options.

El concepto de ciudadanía en la obra de Dominique Schnapper: entre el tipo ideal sociológico y el ideal de sociedad democrática

Este artículo analiza la evolución del concepto de ciudadanía en la obra de Dominique Schnapper como uno de los ejemplos más destacados en la sociología contemporánea de una aproximación completa a la cuestión. A través de un recorrido exhaustivo por su obra, el objetivo es profundizar en la comprensión de la tensión entre la dinámica democrática y la idea de ciudadanía en cuanto que tipo ideal del vínculo social y como principio regulador de las sociedades democráticas. La autora propone en sus primeros trabajos una noción de ciudadanía vinculada al proceso político de construcción de la nación que no distingue entre la definición de un tipo ideal sociológico y la construcción de un ideal de sociedad. Esta confusión se corrige al introducir posteriormente en el análisis la incidencia de la democracia sobre las experiencias individuales de la ciudadanía, aportando una perspectiva de análisis de gran utilidad tanto para la comprensión de la dinámica contemporánea de las sociedades democráticas como para la necesaria defensa de la ciudadanía como vínculo social fundamental y como principio fundador de la legitimidad política.

Do Institutional Participatory Projects Contribute to the Development of Political Capabilities?

Participation usually sets off from the bottom up, taking the form of more or less enduring forms of collective action with varying degrees of infl uence. However, a number of projects have been launched by political institutions in the last decades with a view to engaging citizens in public affairs and developing their democratic habits, as well as those of the administration. This paper analyses the political qualifying capacity of the said projects, i.e. whether participating in them qualifi es individuals to behave as active citizens; whether these projects foster greater orientation towards public matters, intensify (or create) political will, and provide the necessary skills and expertise to master this will. To answer these questions, data from the comparative analysis of fi ve participatory projects in France and Spain are used, shedding light on which features of these participatory projects contribute to the formation of political subjects and in which way. Finally, in order to better understand this formative dimension, the formative capacity of institutional projects is compared with the formative dimension of other forms of participation spontaneously developed by citizens.

Democratic Stability through the Concept of Reasonableness in John Rawls

The paper addresses the question of the stability of a democratic state and shows the shortcomings of the political and institutional structure for this purpose. It argues for the need of an additional factor of reasonableness as defined by John Rawls. We reflect on its articulation with rationality, its role regarding laws and the areas where its presence is crucial to the health and maintenance of a democratic political society. The analysis concludes by justifying the instrumental need of such faculty in the political arena as well as vindicating it as a mandatory civic duty.