Search

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls's notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of "human nature" - the so-called bad facts - do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund's search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper focuses on the "spillover thesis" which constitutes a pillar of much of contemporary participatory democratic theory; specifically, we assess the claim that workplace democratization leads to a higher degree of political participation amongst labourers. The paper analyses the thesis as formulated by Carole Pateman, including its later revisions triggered by ambiguous results of empirical studies aiming to (dis)prove it. The spillover thesis is then confronted with important methodological and theoretical critiques, the upshot being that in order to be able to arrive at determinate conclusions, more carefully designed empirical studies are needed. Normatively speaking, however, blame can always be laid on the wider environment of market economy and/or representative democracy, to the effect that the spillover thesis is both difficult to disprove and radically subversive. Given the recent dominance of deliberative democratic theory which incorporates a strong participatory element, we finally discuss whether a recent innovation - namely, the concept of deliberative systems - could be fruitfully employed as a flexible umbrella-type framework for the spillover thesis and the participatory ideals related to it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political Representation: Individual and Collective. On the Theoretical Foundations of Democracy on the Transnational Level The article deals with the question of who is to be represented within the institutions of modern representative democracy and systemizes the answers on the basis of fundamental approaches in political theory which address this problem. The exploration is contextualized within recent debates on transnational democracy, where the issue of political representation acquires renewed relevance. The article first outlines the liberal theory of representation, identified primarily as having an individualistic nature although it does incorporate certain elements of group representation in the setting of the modern state. Subsequently, the article explores the conservative and communitarian theory of representation, which builds upon the notions of representation of collectivities as morally relevant subjects endowed with distinct interests of their own. Finally, it covers the radical democratic theory of representation, which emphasizes chiefly the themes of acknowledging group difference and the necessity of recognizing the claims of disadvantaged groups in the area of political representation. The article concludes by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the respective approaches with regard to democratic functioning on the transnational level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper shall introduce the concept of negative voting, which is based on an endeavor to more freely show our personal preference during elections. A theoretical principle is derived from perception of Dahl's democratic process criteria, liberal concepts of freedom, equality and justice. In particular situations, this principle increases the rate of formal freedom for individual voter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article represents a contribution to discussions about the basis, motives, and goals of European integration stimulated by the recent "normative turn" in EU studies. My aim is threefold: By addressing the issue of internal legitimacy in EU decision-making, I wish to show that the European Union is in need of a public "story" of European integration; however, a closer analysis suggests that there is much normative disagreement on the values and principles that are supposed to define such "Europeanness". This is also relevant for Europe's role within the scene of international or global politics, where the EU aspires to become a leading actor or is supposed to do so by cosmopolitan-minded authors. Lastly, the text defends the usefulness of the traditional conceptual apparatus of political theory, which has - in relation to European integration - in recent times come under attack. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]