Establishing indigeneity in African pluralities using PRO169 parameters and a case study for measuring their inclusivity

The concept of the indigenous person or group in Africa is a contentious one. The current argument is that there exist no indigenous people in Africa because all Africans are indigenous. The obverse considers those Africans who have not been touched by colonialism and lost their traditional cultures commensurate with attachments to the lands or a distinguishable traditional lifestyle to be indigenous. This paper argues in favor of the latter. People who live in the global telos and do not participate in a distinct traditional culture that has been attached to the land for centuries are not indigenous. It is argued that this cultural divergence between modern and traditional is the major identifying point to settle the indigenous-non indigenous African debate. Finally, the paper looks at inclusive development and provides a new political analysis model for quantifying inclusivity so as to measure the inclusivity of indigenous peoples.

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.

On improving the fourth estate

A short discussion concerning the improvement of the media.

On endemic governance problems

A short discussion concerning the theory of endemic governance problems.

Political theory and theoretical physics

This paper argues, somewhat along a Simmelian line, that political theory may produce practical and universal theories like those developed in theoretical physics. The reasoning behind this paper is to show that the theory of ‘basic democracy’ may be true by way of comparing it to Einstein’s Special Relativity – specifically concerning the parameters of symmetry, unification, simplicity, and utility. These parameters are what make a theory in physics as meeting them not only fits with current knowledge, but also produces paths towards testing (application). As the theory of ‘basic democracy’ may meet these same parameters, it could settle the debate concerning the definition of democracy. This will be argued firstly by discussing what the theory of ‘basic democracy’ is and why it differs from previous work; secondly by explaining the parameters chosen (as in why these and not others confirm or scuttle theories); and thirdly by comparing how Special Relativity and the theory of ‘basic democracy’ may match the parameters.

Improving governance : practical methods and an analytic framework for the enhancement of democracy

Seven endemic governance problems are shown to be currently present in governments around the globe and at any level of government as well (for example municipal, federal). These problems have their roots traced back through more than two thousand years of political, specifically ‘democratic’, history. The evidence shows that accountability, transparency, corruption, representation, campaigning methods, constitutionalism and long-term goals were problematic for the ancient Athenians as well as modern international democratisation efforts encompassing every major global region. Why then, given the extended time period humans have had to deal with these problems, are they still present? At least part of the answer to this question is that philosophers, academics and NGOs as well as MNOs have only approached these endemic problems in a piecemeal manner with a skewed perspective on democracy. Their works have also been subject to the ebbs and flows of human history which essentially started and stopped periods of thinking. In order to approach the investigation of endemic problems in relation to democracy (as the overall quest of this thesis was to generate prescriptive results for the improvement of democratic government), it was necessary to delineate what exactly is being written about when using the term ‘democracy’. It is common knowledge that democracy has no one specific definition or practice, even though scholars and philosophers have been attempting to create a definition for generations. What is currently evident, is that scholars are not approaching democracy in an overly simplified manner (that is, it is government for the people, by the people) but, rather, are seeking the commonalities that democracies share, in other words, those items which are common to all things democratic. Following that specific line of investigation, the major practiced and theoretical versions of democracy were thematically analysed. After that, their themes were collapsed into larger categories, at which point the larger categories were comparatively analysed with the practiced and theoretical versions of democracy. Four democratic ‘particles’ (selecting officials, law, equality and communication) were seen to be present in all practiced and theoretical democratic styles. The democratic particles fused with a unique investigative perspective and in-depth political study created a solid conceptualisation of democracy. As such, it is argued that democracy is an ever-present element of any state government, ‘democratic’ or not, and the particles are the bodies which comprise the democratic element. Frequency- and proximity-based analyses showed that democratic particles are related to endemic problems in international democratisation discourse. The linkages between democratic particles and endemic problems were also evident during the thematic analysis as well historical review. This ultimately led to the viewpoint that if endemic problems are mitigated the act may improve democratic particles which might strengthen the element of democracy in the governing apparatus of any state. Such may actively minimise or wholly displace inefficient forms of government, leading to a government specifically tailored to the population it orders. Once the theoretical and empirical goals were attained, this thesis provided some prescriptive measures which government, civil society, academics, professionals and/or active citizens can use to mitigate endemic problems (in any country and at any level of government) so as to improve the human condition via better democratic government.

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).

民主理论和理论上的物理

本文章辩论，在 Simmelian (齐美尔联) 的线之间，民主理论即可能产生实际和普遍理论, 像类似理论物理学的发展。这篇文章背后的推理是要表明，”基层民主“的理论比较于爱因斯坦的狭义相对论可能是实在- 特别关于对称，统一，简单和实用的参数。 这些参数不仅适应当前的知识, 也是作为物理理论的成分之一, 但也产生对测试（应用程序）的路径。一旦“基本的民主“的理论满足这些参数，它可以解决民主定义的争论。首先, 将讨论“基层民主“的理论是什么及为什么它不同于以往的作品;第二，通过解释选择的参数（如为什么这些，而不是其他的证实或天窗理论）;第三，通过比较狭义相对论及”基层民主“理论如何符合这些参数。

La théorie démocratique et La Physique Théorique

Le présent essai soutient, un peu le long d'une ligne simmelienne, que la théorie démocratique peut produire des théories pratiques et universelles, comme celles développées en physique théorique. Le raisonnement qui sous-tend cet essai est de montrer que la théorie de la «démocratie de base" peut-être vrai par le faite si on la comparer à la Relative Spécifique d’Einstein portant spécifiquement sur les paramètres de symétrie, l'unification, la simplicité et l'utilité. Ces paramètres sont ce qui fait qu’une théorie en physique comme ont la rencontre s’adapte non seulement aux connaissances actuelles, mais aussi de produire des chemins vers l'essai (application). Comme la théorie de la «démocratie de base » peut satisfaire ces mêmes paramètres, il pourrait trancher le débat relatif à la définition de la démocratie. Ceci sera d'abord soutenu pour discuter de ce qui est la théorie de la «démocratie de base» et pourquoi cela diffère des travaux précédents, en deuxième lieu, en expliquant les paramètres choisis (comme pour quoi ceux-ci et pas à d'autres confirment ou échouent les théories) et, troisièmement, en comparant comment la relativité et la théorie de la «démocratie de base » peut correspondre aux paramètres.

الديمقراطية ونظرية الفيزياء النظرية

هذا المقال قٌول، إلى حد ما على طول خط س مٌال أن نظر ةٌ الد مٌقراط ةٌ قد تنتج النظر اٌت العمل ةٌ والعالم ةٌ ، مثل تلك الت وضعت ف الف زٌ اٌء النظر ةٌ. الأسباب الكامنة وراء هذا المقال هو لاظهار ان نظر ةٌ "الد مٌقراط ةٌ الأساس ةٌ " قد كٌون صح حٌا عن طر قٌ مقارنتها بنظر ةٌ النسب ةٌ الخاصة بآ نٌشتا نٌ ، ف مٌا تٌعلق على وجه التحد دٌ بمعا رٌ التماثل والتوح دٌ، والبساطة ، والمرافق العامة. هذه المعا رٌٌ ه الت تجعل نظر ةٌ ف الف زٌ اٌء واجتماعههم عل هٌا لا صٌلح إلا مع المعرفة الحال ةٌ، ولكن أ ضٌا إنتاج نحو مسارات الاختبار )التطب قٌ(. وكما مٌكن ان تتطابق نظر ةٌ "الد مٌقراط ةٌ الأساس ةٌ " بهذه المعا رٌٌ نفسها، و مٌكن أن حٌسم الجدل الدابر بشؤن تعر ؾٌ الد مٌقراط ةٌ. و مٌكن القول من خلبل مناقشة ماه ةٌ نظر ةٌ "الد مٌقراط ةٌ الأساس ةٌ " اولا وك ؾٌ ان السبب ف ذلك خٌتلؾ عن الأعمال السابقة، وثان اٌ، من خلبل شرح المعا رٌ الاخت اٌر ةٌ )كما ف لماذا هذه ول سٌ ؼ رٌها تؤكد أو تحبط النظر اٌت(، وثالثا، بمقارنة ك ؾٌ مٌكن للنسب ةٌ الخاصة والنظر ةٌ "الد مٌقراط ةٌ الأساس ةٌ " ان تتطابق مع المعا رٌٌ.

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.

Constitutional legitimacy : an international ill and gap in the literature?

The central argument of this work is that “democratic constitutional legitimacy”[2] probably does not currently exist in the politics of any country internationally. This inherent problem in constitutionalism is an endemic governance problem most citizenries should be dealing with, only that we are not in a large extent doing so and haven’t been historically. This position was ascertained using a form of Beck and Grande’s (2010) cosmopolitan methodology in my doctoral thesis (which we shall return to). It is argued that every constitution is in need of considerable rethinking so as to bring its statutes in line with the interests of the plurality of individuals it oversees. Finally, this work attempts to show that research in this area of democratic constitutional legitimacy is lacking in the literature as only a few scholars presently engage the issue (namely Simone Chambers).