Pour une démocratie écologique = For an Ecological Democracy

Notre consommation ne cesse d'augmenter et la planète est exsangue. Confier notre salut au progrès technologique et à l'économie relève de l'illusion.

Towards a Union of Citizens and States: Negotiating Transnational Democracy in Europe

Aquest article dóna un cop d'ull més de prop com les qüestions de legitimitat democràtica es van negociar durant la primera de les tres etapes de la redacció de la Constitució, en la Convenció sobre el Futur d'Europa (febrer de 2002-juliol 2003), i per la posterior Conferència Intergovernamental (juliol de 2003 a juny de 2004). L'objectiu d'aquesta anàlisi és avaluar el grau en què els redactors de la Comissió Europea s'han resolt els problemes de disputes sobre la democràcia postnacional que es van debatre en la Convenció

More than cheap talk? Euro-Mediterranean cooperation on human rights and democracy

Malgrat els esforços de la UE en la promoció de la democràcia i un compromís comú per la democràcia i els drets humans al EMP, no hi ha signes de convergència cap al model liberal democràtic propugnat per la UE. No obstant això, l'abast i la intensitat de la cooperació multilateral, transnacional i bilateral han augmentat constantment en tota la regió des de mitjans de 1990. La cooperació en el camp de la promoció de la democràcia es caracteritza per la forta dinàmica de normativa sectorial, i la diferenciació geogràfica, però està clarament situada en un marc regional i altament estandarditzat. Si bé la convergència política o la política sembla poc probable en el curt o mitjà termini, democràcia i drets humans estan fermament establerts en una agenda regional comú

EU's democracy promotion policy in the Mediterranean: Squaring the stability – democracy circle?

Why does the EU have an ambiguous and inconsistent democracy promotion (DP) policy towards the Mediterranean countries? This paper argues that the EU´s DP is determined by a crucial conflict of interests conceptualised as a stability – democracy dilemma. The EU has been attempting to promote democracy, but without risking the current stability and in connivance with incumbent autocratic regimes. In view of this dilemma, the four main characteristics of the EU´s DP promotion are explored, namely: gradualism, a strong notion of partnership-building, a narrow definition of civil society, and a strong belief in economic liberalisation. A fifth feature, relation of the EU with moderate Islamists, is analysed in the paper as it represents the most striking illustration of its contradictions. The paper concludes by arguing that the definition of a clear DP by the EU that considered engagement with moderate Islamists would represent a major step towards squaring its stability – democracy circle.

Corruption in representative democracy

A parliament with n members, distributed among two parties, decides whether to accept or reject a certain proposal. Each member of the parliament votes in favour or against. If there are at least t members in favour, the proposal is accepted; otherwise it is rejected. A non-member of the parliament, the briber, is interested in having the proposal accepted. To this end, he is willing to bribe members to induce them to vote in favour. It is compared a parliament with party discipline, where members vote according to the party line, and a parliament without party discipline, where members vote according to their own opinion. The paper determines, for given values of n and t , the average number of members that the briber has to bribe in each case (with the average taken with respect to all the possible allocations of members between parties and their votes, and also with respect to those allocations inducing the briber to bribe). The results show that a parliament with parties with party discipline is more costly for the briber to be bribed.

Swiss Democracy on the Web 2010 : Society and Politics in a Connected Age

The rapid adoption of online media like Facebook, Twitter or Wikileaks leaves us with little time to think. Where is information technology taking us, our society and our democratic institutions ? Is the Web replicating social divides that already exist offline or does collaborative technology pave the way for a more equal society ? How do we find the right balance between openness and privacy ? Can social media improve civic participation or do they breed superficial exchange and the promotion of false information ? These and lots of other questions arise when one starts to look at the Internet, society and politics. The first part of this paper gives an overview of the social changes that occur with the rise of the Web. The second part serves as an overview on how the Web is being used for political participation in Switzerland and abroad. Le développement rapide de nouveaux médias comme Facebook, Twitter ou Wikileaks ne laisse que peu de temps à la réflexion. Quels sont les changements que ces technologies de l'information impliquent pour nous, notre société et nos institutions démocratiques ? Internet ne fait-il que reproduire des divisions sociales qui lui préexistent ou constitue-t-il un moyen de lisser et d'égaliser ces mêmes divisions ? Comment trouver le bon équilibre entre transparence et respect de la vie privée ? Les médias sociaux permettent-ils de stimuler la participation politique ou ne sont-ils que le vecteur d'échanges superficiels et de fausses informations ? Ces questions, parmi d'autres, émergent rapidement lorsque l'on s'intéresse à la question des liens entre Internet, la société et la politique. La première partie de ce cahier est consacrée aux changements sociaux générés par l'émergence et le développement d'Internet. La seconde fait l'état des lieux de la manière dont Internet est utilisé pour stimuler la participation politique en Suisse et à l'étranger.

Membership and internal democracy. Immigrant organisations in the city of Oslo

Immigrant organisations in the City of Oslo receive support from the government for their daily operation. In order to receive such support, each organisation must be membership-based and have internal democratic procedures. This paper raises the question of how we can understand this combination of support for ethnic based organisations and requirements of membership and internal democracy. It explores the usefulness of two partly overlapping ways of understanding this policy and discusses their interrelationship. Firstly, within the context of the crisis of multiculturalism, the paper discusses whether this combination is based on the aim of strengthening the organisations’ procedural commitment to liberal-democratic principles. Secondly, the paper analyses whether requirements of membership and internal democracy can mainly be understood within the framework of the Nordic model of voluntary organisation. By comparing the policy at three empirical levels, the paper concludes that this combination can mainly be understood within the framework of the traditional historical Nordic model, but that there is an ambiguity in this policy related to minority rights.

Federalism and democracy. The case of minority nations: a federalist deficit

In this chapter, after pointing out the different logics that lie behind the familiar ideas of democracy and federalism, I have dealt with the case of plurinational federal democracies. Having put forward a double criterion of an empirical nature with which to differentiate between the existence of minority nations within plurinational democracies (section 2), I suggest three theoretical criteria for the political accommodation of these democracies. In the following section, I show the agonistic nature of the normative discussion of the political accommodation of this kind of democracies, which bring monist and pluralist versions of the demos of the polity into conflict (section 3.1), as well as a number of conclusions which are the result of a comparative study of 19 federal and regional democracies using four analytical axes: the uninational/plurinational axis; the unitarianism-federalism axis; the centralisation-decentralisation axis; and the symmetry-asymmetry axis (section 3.2). This analysis reveals shortcomings in the constitutional recognition of national pluralism in federal and regional cases with a large number of federated units/regions with political autonomy; a lower degree of constitutional federalism and a greater asymmetry in the federated entities or regions of plurinational democracies. It also reveals difficulties to establish clear formulas in these democracies in order to encourage a “federalism of trust” based on the participation and protection of national minorities in the shared government of plurinational federations/regional states. Actually, there is a federal deficit in this kind polities according to normative liberal-democratic patterns and to what comparative analysis show. Finally, this chapter advocates the need for a greater normative and institutional refinement in plurinational federal democracies. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to introduce a deeper form of “ethical” pluralism -which displays normative agonistic trends, as well as a more “confederal/asymmetrical” perspective, congruent with the national pluralism of these kind of polities.