Search Results

Open Access (free)

Democratic inclusion

Rainer Bauböck in dialogue

Series:

Edited by: 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)

Series:

Rainer Bauböck

“considers as relevant cases where interests are affected negatively , cases where the setback to interests is serious and cases where the setback cannot reasonably be avoided by prudent action on the affected agent's part” (p. 131). As I acknowledged in chapter 1 , my discussion of the all affected interests and all subject to coercion (ASC) principles is certainly incomplete. My intention was to give these principles their due while

Open Access (free)

The boundaries of “democratic inclusion”

Some questions for Rainer Bauböck

Series:

Joseph H. Carens

, 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

Open Access (free)

Democratic inclusion

A pluralist theory of citizenship

Series:

Rainer Bauböck

allow for identifying contexts where mixed principles apply or where polities are of mixed types. The core normative argument of this essay is developed in section 3 , where I discuss the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). I claim that these principles are not rivals but friends. They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic

Open Access (free)

Series:

Iseult Honohan

combines arguments associated with membership of the demos with others concerning the grounds for citizenship. Bauböck proposes that ACS is better able than two other principles advanced in democratic theory – the all affected interests (AAI) and all subject to coercion (ASC) principles – to subsume a range of justified claims to membership. Those norms are depicted not so much as wrong but as incomplete to cover all claims for

Open Access (free)

Series:

David Miller

correct, but the principle that delivers it is GHP, not the wildly over-inflated AAI. Let me turn, then, to the second principle of inclusion that Bauböck considers sympathetically (but ultimately rejects, at least as a comprehensive solution): the principle that all subject to coercion (ASC) by a democratic institution are entitled to participate in that institution. What does it mean to be subject to coercion? As Bauböck's discussion makes

Open Access (free)

Series:

David Owen

all subjection to coercion (ASC) principle and the all citizenship stakeholders principle. His position is summarized thus in section 3.4 of his essay. It is, however, an equally important feature of his argument that it draws attention to the normative political challenge that this argument poses for contemporary polities. In addressing Bauböck's argument, I will begin by developing the claim that ACS specifies who is entitled to be a part

Open Access (free)

Series:

Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson

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

Open Access (free)

Afterword

Enthusiasm and audit

David Herd

, and once having seen it to pass it on in the form most appropriate to its transmission. It would be to ignore, also, the novel’s generous and unforbidding circulation of other texts. And above all it would be to ignore the fact that in Ahab what Melville presents is an enthusiast who has become, among other things, a bureaucrat, who uses form and ritual as a mode of coercion, whose relation to things involves constantly converting them into what they are not. Ahab, as generations of commentators have rightly observed, is a proto-dictator, and unquestionably his

Open Access (free)

Where the buck stops

Governmental power and authority in democratic ecological governance

Series:

Lennart J. Lundqvist

governance is closely linked to that of integration. Enabled to legitimately use (the threat of) coercion through some form of delegation of political authority from elected representatives, agencies and bureaucrats may gain or lose legitimacy – and thus the foundation of authority – depending on how the quality, consistency and transparency of their decisions and actions are conceived by those affected and by the general public. After all, people may reject governmental authority because of ‘objections to specific policies pursued by the government’ (Birch 1993:36). There