Is Scotland a Westminster-style Majoritarian Democracy or a Scandinavian-style Consensus Democracy? A Comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden

Peer reviewed

Is Scotland a Westminster-style Majoritarian Democracy or a Scandinavian-style Consensus Democracy? A Comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden

Peer reviewed

Is Scotland a Westminster-style Majoritarian Democracy or a Scandinavian-style Consensus Democracy? A Comparison of Scotland, the UK and Sweden

Peer reviewed

New Patterns of Democracy in the Countries of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems

The chapter introduces a new database on political-institutional patterns of democracy used in the contributions to the book. It provides an update and extension of Lijphart’s (1999, 2012) measurement of consensus and majoritarian democracy for the countries of the second wave of the CSES during the period 1997–2006, using 11 partly improved indicators. The chapter explores patterns of democracy by the means of factor analysis, construct additive indices, and present the resulting country scores of consensus and majoritarian democracy graphically. Two variants are presented, one featuring Lijphart’s (1999) classic ‘executives–parties’ and ‘federal–unitary’ dimensions, and another incorporating direct democracy into the framework, yielding an additional ‘cabinets–direct democracy’ dimension

Punitiveness and Political Culture: Notes from Some Small Countries

Green’s (2007, 2008, 2009) recent comparative work on child-on-child homicides in England and Norway has drawn attention to political-cultural explanations to account for differences in levels of state punitiveness. His work finds support for the distinction made by Arend Lijphart (1999) between consensus and majoritarian democracy, through his argument that English majoritarian political culture created powerful incentives to exploit the homicide of James Bulger in ways that were not present in Norway. Drawing on comparative research in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand, this article joins with Green in enlisting political culture as an important explanatory variable yet challenges the usefulness of Lijphart’s typology in explaining penal difference.

Estudio comparado de las barreras o umbrales electorales implícitos y explícitos en el sistema electoral

"...En el presente estudio se parte, en primera instancia, de la necesaria conceptualización del término, en general y particular, y en función de ello, posteriormente, a su tipificación, sistematización y análisis especifico en Latinoamérica, mientras que ofrece un panorama general de la aplicación de las barreras electorales explicitas en diferentes regiones del mundo, para luego analizar el caso colombiano en general y visualizar el impacto de la implementación de las barreras electorales explícitas a través del acto legislativo 01 de 2003 y sus efectos en los comicios nacionales de 2006."--introducción

Los cambios del sistema político colombiano en virtud de los preceptos de Arend Lijphart y sus efectos en la oposición durante el periodo 2006 – 2013

El interés principal de esta monografía es demostrar, cómo dentro del marco institucional colombiano, cambió el tipo de Democracia en dos periodos de gobierno, y cómo dicho cambio afectó negativamente al sistema de partidos y específicamente a los partidos de oposición. Esto será analizado desde la teoría de Arend Lijphart sobre Democracia mayoritaria y Democracia consensual, incluyendo dentro del análisis, el marco institucional donde se desenvuelve el sistema político colombiano. Para un mayor entendimiento de la temática, se realiza un recuento de la institucionalidad de los partidos políticos en Colombia desde su formación hasta el día de hoy, prestando principal interés a los periodos de Gobierno comprendidos entre 2006 y 2013.

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights : A comparative analysis of the conceptual relationship between democracy and rights in contemporary political theories

Democratic Legitimacy and the Politics of Rights is a research in normative political theory, based on comparative analysis of contemporary democratic theories, classified roughly as conventional liberal, deliberative democratic and radical democratic. Its focus is on the conceptual relationship between alternative sources of democratic legitimacy: democratic inclusion and liberal rights. The relationship between rights and democracy is studied through the following questions: are rights to be seen as external constraints to democracy or as objects of democratic decision making processes? Are individual rights threatened by public participation in politics; do constitutionally protected rights limit the inclusiveness of democratic processes? Are liberal values such as individuality, autonomy and liberty; and democratic values such as equality, inclusion and popular sovereignty mutually conflictual or supportive? Analyzing feminist critique of liberal discourse, the dissertation also raises the question about Enlightenment ideals in current political debates: are the universal norms of liberal democracy inherently dependent on the rationalist grand narratives of modernity and incompatible with the ideal of diversity? Part I of the thesis introduces the sources of democratic legitimacy as presented in the alternative democratic models. Part II analyses how the relationship between rights and democracy is theorized in them. Part III contains arguments by feminists and radical democrats against the tenets of universalist liberal democratic models and responds to that critique by partly endorsing, partly rejecting it. The central argument promoted in the thesis is that while the deconstruction of modern rationalism indicates that rights are political constructions as opposed to externally given moral constraints to politics, this insight does not delegitimize the politics of universal rights as an inherent part of democratic institutions. The research indicates that democracy and universal individual rights are mutually interdependent rather than oppositional; and that democracy is more dependent on an unconditional protection of universal individual rights when it is conceived as inclusive, participatory and plural; as opposed to robust majoritarian rule. The central concepts are: liberalism, democracy, legitimacy, deliberation, inclusion, equality, diversity, conflict, public sphere, rights, individualism, universalism and contextuality. The authors discussed are e.g. John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, Seyla Benhabib, Iris Young, Chantal Mouffe and Stephen Holmes. The research focuses on contemporary political theory, but the more classical work of John S. Mill, Benjamin Constant, Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt is also included.

Joseph A. Schumpeter, capitalism, socialism, and democracy

This is a review of "Capitalism, socialism, and democracy", by Joseph A. Schumpeter, New York, Harper Perennial, 1942 (first Harper Colophon edition published 1975). "The public mind has by now so thoroughly grown out of humor with it as to make condemnation of capitalism and all its works a foregone conclusion – almost a requirement of the etiquette of discussion. Whatever his political preference, every writer or speaker hastens to conform to this code and to emphasize his critical attitude, his freedom from ‘complacency’, his belief in the inadequacies of capitalist achievement, his aversion to capitalist and his sympathy with anti-capitalist interests. Any other attitude is voted not only foolish but anti-social and is looked upon as an indication of immoral servitude." We might easily mistake this for a voice weary of contemplating the implications for neo-liberal nostrums of our current global financial crisis were it not for the rather formal, slightly arch, style and the gender exclusive language. It was in fact penned in the depths of World War II by Harvard economist Joseph Schumpeter, who fell off the map only to re-emerge from the 1970s as oil shocks and stagflation in the west presaged the decline of the Keynesian settlement, as east Asian newly industrialising economies were modelling on his insistence that entrepreneurialism, access to credit and trade were the pillars of economic growth, and as innovation became more of a watchword for post-industrial economies in general. The second coming was perhaps affirmed when his work was dubbed by Forbes in 1983 – on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the birth of both men – as of greater explanatory import than Keynes’. (And what of our present resurgent Keynesian moment?)...

Democracy, participation and convergent media : case studies in contemporary online news journalism in Australia

The shift from 20th century mass communications media towards convergent media and Web 2.0 has raised the possibility of a renaissance of the public sphere, based around citizen journalism and participatory media culture. This paper will evaluate such claims both conceptually and empirically. At a conceptual level, it is noted that the question of whether media democratization is occurring depends in part upon how democracy is understood, with some critical differences in understandings of democracy, the public sphere and media citizenship. The empirical work in this paper draws upon various case studies of new developments in Australian media, including online- only newspapers, developments in public service media, and the rise of commercially based online alternative media. It is argued that participatory media culture is being expanded if understood in terms of media pluralism, but that implications for the public sphere depend in part upon how media democratization is defined.