possible to justify democratic procedures by relying exclusively on a set of “purely procedural” values ( Dahl 1998 ; Estlund 1997 ; Fabienne 2007 ; Habermas 1994 ; Rawls 1993 ; Shapiro 2003 ; Urbinati and Saffon 2013 ). For the purposes of this
Grounds for a Purely Procedural Defense of Majority Rule
A Case Study of German History Textbooks
Lucas Frederik Garske
has turned into the “subject of ‘historical thinking.’” 6 Within this new subject of historical thinking, scholars and teachers alike have differentiated between “substantive” and “procedural” concepts, with the former referring to the “content of
Ehsan Nouzari, Thomas Hartmann, and Tejo Spit
The underground provides many spatial planning opportunities as it offers space for structures, but also functions as a resource for energy. To guide developments and use the capabilities the underground provides, the Dutch national government started a policy process for the Structuurvisie Ondergrond (a master plan). Stakeholders are involved in the policy process because of the many interests linked to underground functions. However, past policy processes related to the underground dealt with lack of stakeholder satisfaction. This article explores a quantitative approach by focusing on (a) statistical testing of four criteria of interactive governance and (b) using said criteria to evaluate the satisfaction of stakeholders in a policy process. This article highlights the usefulness of a more quantitative approach and provides new insights into the relation between interactive governance and the procedural satisfaction of stakeholders. It also provides insights that help to improve interactive governance in terms of process management to achieve greater procedural satisfaction.
Democracy and Democide in the Weimar Republic and Beyond
That all democracies have, by their very nature, the potential to destroy themselves is a fact too rarely documented by the acolytes of democracy. Indeed, in the brief decades since Joseph Goebbels, then as Reich Minister of Propaganda, reminded the world that it 'will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed', democrats have quickly forgotten just how precarious a thing democracy can be. The objective of this article is to entertain the underexplored notion that democratic failure is a possibility that remains very much entrenched within the idea and ideal of democracy itself. Using the breakdown of democracy during the Weimar Republic as a brief illustrative example, the article first describes the process through which a democracy can self-destruct before offering a theoretical explanation of why this is so - one which draws its inspiration from the dual notions of autonomy and tragedy. By doing this, it will hope to have shown just how a democracy can, in the course of being democratic no less, sow the seeds of its own destruction.
Magnus Boström, Åsa Casula Vifell, Mikael Klintman, Linda Soneryd, Kristina Tamm Hallström, and Renita Thedvall
The synergies and trade-offs between the various dimensions of sustainable development are attracting a rising scholarly attention. Departing from the scholarly debate, this article focuses on internal relationships within social sustainability. Our key claim is that it is difficult to strengthen substantive social sustainability goals unless there are key elements of social sustainability contained in the very procedures intended to work toward sustainability. Our analysis, informed by an organizing perspective, is based on a set of case studies on multi-stakeholder transnational sustainability projects (sustainability standards). This article explores six challenges related to the achievement of such procedures that can facilitate substantive social sustainability. Three of these concern the formulation of standards and policies, and three the implementation of standards and policies. To achieve substantive social sustainability procedures must be set in motion with abilities to take hold of people's concerns, frames, resources, as well as existing relevant institutions and infrastructures.
Dannica Fleuß and Gary S. Schaal
The article analyzes the (often implicit) understanding of democratic theory that is presupposed by scholars who engage in this practice and provides an answer to the question: “What are we doing when we are doing democratic theory?” We flesh out the core features of this scholarly activity by relating it to and differentiating it from assessments made from the perspective of political philosophy and political science. We argue that democratic theory aims at proposing institutional devices that are (a) problem-solving approaches and (b) embodiments of normative principles. This two-faced structure requires democratic theorists to engage in feedback loops with political philosophy on the one hand and empirical political science on the other. This implies that democratic theorists must adopt a dynamic approach: democratic theories must “fit” societal circumstances. In consequence, they must be adapted in case of fundamental societal transformations. We exemplify this dynamic character by referring to digitalization-induced changes in democratic societies and their implications for democratic theorists’ practice.
the necessary requirement that responsibility ought to be recognised and, as a result of this recognition, that some reparations be made. This payment of reparations can be related to retributivism, as well as to distributive and procedural justice
Procedure and Substance in Direct Democracy
introduced in the initial wave of deliberative democracy theory: as aggregative institutions, these mechanisms would all implement a purely procedural view of democracy incompatible with the deliberative democratic ideal. On the question of procedure and
Jacob Grimm on Blood Money and Concrete Quantification
received ample recognition ( Renner 2012 ; Schmidt-Wiegand 1999 ; Wyss 1979 ), their metrological core remains under-studied. Grimm approaches the monetary sphere in a remarkably procedural way. In the rural settings he investigates, measures are
Helen A. Robbins and Leigh Kuwanwisiwma
(NAGPRA) in 1990. 5 The purpose of the NAGPRA legislation was both ideological and procedural. As a form of reconciliation, it was meant to redress historic wrongs by promoting cultural and religious renewal in Native American and Native Hawaiian