Search results

Open Access (free)
Rainer Bauböck in dialogue
Series: Critical Powers
Editor: Rainer Bauböck

This book addresses the major theoretical and practical issues of the forms of citizenship and access to citizenship in different types of polity, and the specification and justification of rights of non-citizen immigrants as well as non-resident citizens. It also addresses the conditions under which norms governing citizenship can legitimately vary. The book discusses the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic inclusion. The book proposes that democratic inclusion principles specify a relation between an individual or group that has an inclusion claim and a political community that aims to achieve democratic legitimacy for its political decisions and institutions. It contextualizes the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which provides the best answer to the question of democratic boundaries of membership, by applying it to polities of different types. The book distinguishes state, local and regional polities and argues that they differ in their membership character. It examines how a principle of stakeholder inclusion applies to polities of different types. The book illustrates the difference between consensual and automatic modes of inclusion by considering the contrast between birthright acquisition of citizenship, which is generally automatic, and naturalization, which requires an application.

Open Access (free)
A pluralist theory of citizenship

democratic inclusion. Some theorists argue that the only democratically legitimate demos is a global one (Goodin 2007 ); others suggest that the demos ought to change depending on who will be affected by a particular decision (Shapiro 2000 ); still others regard democratic inclusion principles as norms that allow us to contest exclusion while not necessarily providing positive guidelines on how to construct alternative

in Democratic inclusion
Some questions for Rainer Bauböck

, empirical researchers and policy-makers alike. Those gifts are clearly on display here as Bauböck explores the virtues and limitations of three different principles of democratic inclusion: all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). Bauböck argues that the three principles complement one another, with each providing legitimation for a different set of democratic institutions and practices

in Democratic inclusion

Rainer Bauböck's essay argues persuasively that our account of democratic inclusion needs to be more complex than is usually recognized. Whereas most authors attempt to identify a single fundamental principle of democratic inclusion – whether it is the all affected interests principle or the all subjected to coercion principle or some social membership/stakeholder principle – Bauböck shows that there are different types

in Democratic inclusion
Open Access (free)

comprehensive conception of democratic inclusion for democratic polities. Projecting such a comprehensive conception to the global level is in my view deeply problematic. However, this does not rule out a thinner conception of global democracy that relies only on the principle of including affected interests without aiming to build a global government and to forge humanity into a single political community. Global democracy in this sense should be

in Democratic inclusion

democratic inclusion. They “cannot be accepted as comprehensive answers to the democratic boundary problem, since they fail to provide a principle for the legitimate constitution of such polities and claims to inclusion in them” (p. 27). Thus they are to be seen less as rival alternative justifying principles for defining the demos than as complementary to the more comprehensive citizen stakeholder approach. Thus, in his account

in Democratic inclusion

stakeholder (ACS) principle as the main plank of his theory of democratic inclusion, with AAI and ASC both relegated to supporting roles. The best succinct statement of ACS is found in another of his papers: “Those and only those individuals have a claim to membership whose individual autonomy and well-being is linked to the collective self-government and flourishing of a particular polity” (Bauböck 2015 : 825). 8 Since this principle is

in Democratic inclusion

Introduction Rainer Bauböck's “Democratic Inclusion: A Pluralistic Theory of Citizenship” is characteristically incisive. In this essay and elsewhere (e.g. Bauböck 2003, 2007 ), he has liberated normative political theory from the girdle of territorial boundary conditions. If ever it was, it is obviously no longer possible to posit a world of perfectly segmented national communities. For normative theory to remain

in Democratic inclusion

Rainer Bauböck's work on popular sovereignty, citizenship and the demos problem is an important touchstone for contemporary political, and especially democratic, theory. In this chapter, the author aims to put some pressure on the relationship between populus and demos in Bauböck's account. It is an important strength of Bauböck's argument that his account articulates complementary relations of the all affected interests (AAI) principle, the all subjection to coercion (ASC) principle and the all citizenship stakeholders (ACS) principle. The author focuses on the authorial membership of the demos. He endorses Bauböck's proposal of ASC as the best principle, under contemporary political conditions, for determining access to national citizenship. The author also explains his incorporation of AAI, ASC and ACS into an account of democratic legitimacy.

in Democratic inclusion
Open Access (free)
Piercing the politics of silencing

of deliberation, ensures democratic inclusion. Mouffe (2005: 3) argues that understanding politics as the search for a universal rational consensus can reduce it to attempts to design institutions capable of reconciling all conflicting interests and values, when the essence of democratic politics is, in fact, the legitimate expression of such conflict. Theorists who want to eliminate passions from politics and envisage democratic politics only in terms of reason, moderation and consensus, she argues (2005: 24), fail to understand the dynamics of the political

in Loud and proud