Refine
Document Type
- Article (7)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (10)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (10)
Keywords
- democracy (3)
- representation (3)
- representative claim (3)
- Europe (2)
- constructivist turn (2)
- direct democracy (2)
- equality (2)
- Arbeit (1)
- Demokratie (1)
- Geschlechterforschung (1)
- Kritische Theorie (1)
- Politische Wissenschaft (1)
- Saward (1)
- authorization (1)
- citizens (1)
- comparative analysis (1)
- deliberative democracy (1)
- deliberative system (1)
- democratic commitments (1)
- democratic innovation (1)
- democratic system (1)
- democratic theory (1)
- direct democratic instruments (1)
- political capacity (1)
- political participation (1)
- quality of democracy (1)
- systems theory (1)
- typology (1)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (10)
- Präsidium (1)
Within the last decades, western democracies have experienced a rise of inequality, with the gap between lower and upper class citizens steadily increasing and a widespread sentiment of growing inequalities also in the political sphere. Against this background, and in the context of the current “crisis of democracy”, democratic innovations such as direct democratic instruments are discussed as a very popular means to bring citizens back in. However, research on direct democracy has produced rather inconsistent results with regard to the question of which effects referenda and initiatives have on equality. Studies in this field are often limited to single countries and certain aspects of equality. Moreover, most existing studies look at the mere availability of direct democratic instruments instead of actual bills that are put to a vote. This paper aims to take a first step to fill these gaps by giving an explorative overview of the outputs of direct democratic bills on multiple equality dimensions, analyzing all national referenda and initiatives in European democracies between 1990 and 2015. How many pro- and contra-equality bills have been put to a vote, how many of those succeeded at the ballot, and are there differences between country groups? Our findings show that a majority of direct democratic bills was not related to equality at all. Regarding the successful bills, we detect some regional differences along with the general tendency that there are more pro- than contra-equality bills. Our paper sheds new light on the question if direct democracy can serve as an appropriate means to complement representative democracy and to shape democratic institutions in the future. The potential of direct democracy in fostering or impeding equality should be an important criterion for the assessment of claims to extend decision-making by citizens.
This article advances the argument that quality of democracy depends not only on the performance of democratic institutions but also on the dispositions of citizens. We make three contributions to the study of democratic quality. First, we develop a fine-grained, structured conceptualization of the three core dispositions (democratic commitments, political capacities, and political participation) that make up the citizen component of democratic quality. Second, we provide a more precise account of the notion of inter-component congruence or "fit" between the institutional and citizen components of democratic quality, distinguishing between static and dynamic forms of congruence. Third, drawing on cross-national data, we show the importance of taking levels of inter-dispositional consistency into account when measuring democratic quality.
Recently, many democracies have developed towards more citizens’ involvement in direct democracy or public deliberation. Are these developments linked to different types of democracy? Can public deliberation be mainly found in consensus democracies, whereas direct democracy prevails in majoritarian democracies? By analysing OECD countries around the year 2012, we examine these assumptions. The answer is surprisingly clear. The choice of a democracy to opt for direct democratic instruments or for public deliberation is neither dichotomous nor is it related to the respective pattern type of democracy. Based on these findings, a new typology with four participatory models of democracy is suggested.
Despite the popularity of direct democracy in recent decades, research on the actual output effects of popular decision-making is rare. This is especially true with regard to equality, where there are at least three major research gaps: 1) a lack of cross-national analyses; 2) insufficient investigation of the differential effects of different direct democratic instruments on equality; and 3) a failure to distinguish between different aspects of equality, i.e., socioeconomic, legal and political equality. This article takes a first step to tackle these shortcomings by looking at all national referenda in European democracies between 1990 and 2015, differentiating between mandatory, bottom-up and top-down referenda. We find that a large majority of successful direct democratic bills—regardless of which instrument is employed—are not related to equality issues. Of the remaining ones, there are generally more successful pro-equality bills than contra-equality ones, but the differences are rather marginal. Mandatory referenda tend to produce pro-equality outputs, but no clear patterns emerge for bottom-up and top-down referenda. Our results offer interesting, preliminary insights to the current debate on direct democracy, pointing to the conclusion that popular decision-making via any type of direct democratic instrument is neither curse nor blessing with regard to equality. Instead, it is necessary to look at other factors such as context conditions or possible indirect effects in order to get a clearer picture of the impacts of direct democracy on equality.
Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.
The established notion of political representation is challenged on multiple accounts—theoretically, conceptually, and empirically. The contributions to this thematic issue explore the constructivist turn as the means for rethinking political representation today around the world. The articles included here seek to reconsider representation by theoretically and empirically reassessing how representation is conceptualized, claimed and performed—in Western and non-Western contexts. In recognition that democratic representation in Western countries is in a process of fundamental transformation and that non-Western countries no longer aim at replicating established Western models, we look for representation around the world—specifically in: Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, China, and India. This enables us to advance the study of representative democracy from a global perspective. We show the limits and gaps in the constructivist literature and the benefits of theory-driven empirical research. Finally, we provide conceptual tools and frameworks for the (comparative) study of claims of representation.
The notion that democracy is a system is ever present in democratic theory. However, what it means to think systemically about democracy (as opposed to what it means for a political system to be democratic) is under-elaborated. This article sets out a meta-level framework for thinking systemically about democracy, built upon seven conceptual building blocks, which we term (1) functions, (2) norms, (3) practices, (4) actors, (5) arenas, (6) levels, and (7) interactions. This enables us to systematically structure the debate on democratic systems, highlighting the commonalities and differences between systems approaches, their omissions, and the key questions that remain to be answered. It also enables us to push the debate forward both by demonstrating how a full consideration of all seven building blocks would address issues with existing approaches and by introducing new conceptual clarifications within those building blocks.
Prof. Brigitte Geißel und ihr Team von der Forschungsstelle Demokratische Innovationen an der Goethe-Universität beschäftigen sich mit der Krise der repräsentativen Demokratie, wie sie im Augenblick unter dem Eindruck der letzten Bundestagswahl verstärkt auch in der Öffentlichkeit diskutiert wird. „Wahlen und Parteienwettbewerb sind lediglich die Form, die wir heute am besten kennen; dieses institutionelle Set ist aber nicht der innerste Kern von Demokratie“, so das Team der Forschungsstelle in seinem folgenden Beitrag.
In allen Demokratien geht (idealiter) die Herrschaft aus dem Volk hervor und wird unter Berufung auf seine Interessen ausgeübt. 1 Aus dieser allgemeinen Definition lässt sich allerdings kaum das ideale Ausmaß der politischen Beteiligung des Volkes ableiten. Es ist daher nicht erstaunlich, dass politische Partizipation in unterschiedlichen Demokratietheorien höchst divergent bewertet wird. Das Spektrum der als ideal erachteten Partizipation bewegt sich zwischen den elitetheoretischen Ansätzen à la Schumpeter (1950), die politische Partizipation in periodisch stattfindenden Wahlen der Eliten erschöpft sehen2 , und den partizipativen Ansätzen im Sinne Rousseaus, die eine aktive Rolle der BürgerInnen in (fast) allen Phasen des Willensbildungs- und Entscheidungsprozesses fordern (z.B. Barber 1984; Pateman 1974; HollandCunz 1998; Barnes 2000). Die Debatte, welche Partizipationsmöglichkeiten und welches Ausmaß an politischer Mitbestimmung der BürgerInnen ideal sind, ist bis heute in der Wissenschaft und der Politik aktuell (z.B. Welzel 2000; Patzelt 2000; Schmidt 2000). ...
This article seeks to build a bridge between the empirical scholarship rooted in the traditional theory of political representation and constructivist theory on representation by focusing on the authorization of claims. It seeks to answer how claims can be authorized beyond elections - selecting three democratic innovations and tracing claims through the claim-making process. Different participatory democratic innovations are selected - providing various claims and taking place in different institutional contexts, i.e., (elected) members of the Council of Foreigners Frankfurt; individual citizens in participatory budgeting procedures in Münster; and citizen’s associations elected politicians in the referendum campaign in Hamburg. We first analyze the claims raised by the different claim-makers to identify their claimed constituency eligible to authorize claims. In the second step, we focus on the authorization by the claimed constituency and the relevant decision-making authority. The article finds that claim-making in democratic innovations is fractured and incomplete. Nevertheless, this is not the reason to dismiss democratic innovations as possible loci of representation; on the contrary, seen through the prism of claim-making, all representation – electoral and nonelectoral – is partial. Focusing on the authorization of claims in democratic innovations provides novel inferences about the potential and limits of democratic innovations for broadening democratic representation.