Democracy’s crisis has long been predicted by political theorists and sociologists such as Michels,Weber and Ortega y Gasset. It is thus a matter of interpretation whether we see our current and possible (near) future(s) as a crisis of unprecendented seriousness. Yet, because of the level of our technological development and globalisation, crises undeniably effect the globe and its inhabitants faster than ever before.
One question arising, is whether democracy really is a superior or even ’real’ political system at the age in which, e.g. AI of different types and other technological means, e.g. enable a near total surveillance of (all) states’ citizens. Additionally, development of ’extended’ humanness by means of connecting people to virtual reality is making a rapid breakthrough. Further, dystopic visions of states and their allicances are convincing, but technology also makes it possible to both envision and practice a better future basically for all, in case vanguards of thought and practioners of authority and power so wish.
In this workshop, the heuristic idea is to understand crises as an inherent part of modern mass democracies and call for new kinds of ideas and conceptions of democratic systems and their developments. We wish to receive paper proposals in which these questions are examined in a politico-philosophical, historical or case study perspective.
Working languages of the workshop are English and Finnish.
Chairs: Oili Pulkkinen, Kone Foundation (pulkkinenoili2014@gmail.com) & Suvi Soininen, Kone Foundation (smsoin@utu.fi)
Papers
Crisis Government in Political Thought
Lagerspetz Eerik, University of Turku (eerlag@utu.fi)
Kriisien hallinta poliittisen ajattelun perinteessä.
Pitkän historiallisen perinteen mukaan kriisit ja poikkeustilanteet edellyttävät poikkeuksellisia vallankäyttötapoja. Tämän ajatuksen historialliset juuret juontuvat ainakin Rooman tasavallan diktaattori-instituutioon. Termillä ”diktaattori” viitattiinkin pitkään erityisillä poikkeusvaltuuksilla varustettuun, mutta säännöllistä menettelyä noudattaen valittuun virkamieheen. Vasta 1900-luvulla termiä ryhdyttiin käyttämään kaikesta lakeihin sitomattomasta vallasta. Erityisesti demokratiaa, tai laajemmin, tasavaltaa tai ”monien” valtaa, on pidetty erityisen kyvyttömänä hallitsemaan kriisitilanteita. Tätä ajatusta on pidetty niin itsestään selvänä, että sen takana olevia perusteluja ei yleensä ole vaivauduttu analysoimaan sen tarkemmin.
Tämä esitys on osa laajempaa tutkimusta, jossa tarkastellaan (1) yleensä poliittisten kriisien hallintaa koskevaa ajattelua, ja (2) erityisesti sitä ajattelua, joka liittyy demokratian kriiseihin. Varhemman historian tulkintoja on hallinnut Carl Schmittin Die Diktatur (1921), joka on ensimmäinen ja luultavasti edelleenkin kattavin aiheen tarkastelu. Valtiosääntöhistoriallisista ansioistaan huolimatta Schmittin esityksessä on myös puutteita; monet filosofisesti kiinnostavat seikat jäävät siinä vähemmälle. Schmittin kirja on itsessään puheenvuoro ensimmäisen maailmansodan jälkeiseen kriisikeskusteluun. Erityisesti 1900-luvun ensimmäisinä vuosikymmeninä käytiin kiivasta keskustelua siitä, miten demokratian on mahdollista varautua sitä kohtaaviin uhkiin, millaiset demokratian itsepuolustusmuodot ovat sopusoinnussa demokratian vaatimusten kanssa, ja miten demokraattisia muotoja – mukaan lukien demokratian itsepuolustuskeinot! – voidaan väärinkäyttää demokratiaa itseään vastaan. Nämä erityisesti valtiosääntöjuristien käymät keskustelut joihin Saksassa osallistuivat esimerkiksi Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt ja Karl Loewenstein, Ruotsissa Herbert Tingsten, Ranskassa Émile Giraud ja Yhdysvalloissa Frederick M. Watkins, painuivat välillä lähes unohduksiin. 2000-luvulla yhtäältä erilaiset kriisit, toisaalta autoritaarisen ajattelun nousu ovat tehneet nämä keskustelut uudelleen ajankohtaisiksi. Kuten 1930-luvulla, demokratian itsepuolustus poikkeuksellisin toimin näyttää toisinaan välttämättömältä; samalla demokratia voi myös kaventua ja jopa tuhoutua näiden toimien seurauksena. Olennainen kysymys on: miten demokratian on mahdollista vastata kriiseihin tuhoamatta samalla itseään?
The presentation will be delivered in English.
From the Democracy of Opinions to the Democracy of Procedures
Palonen Kari, University of Jyväskylä (kari.i.palonen@jyu.fi)
What is represented in the democratic style of politics? There are two opposed visions to this question. The one regards the opinions of the citizens as they are the given basis that is then transferred to political decisions in elections and parliamentary decisions. The opposite view takes the questions on the political agenda as the point of departure and regards both the election campaign and the parliamentary debate as procedures to modify the given opinions towards forming political alternatives to the questions on the agenda. For the former view, the latter might appear a disturbance of citizens opinions, for the latter the former appears as a lack of political literacy in the face of the issues on the agenda. For the former view political questions are simple and immediately decidable, for the latter, on the contrary, political questions are complex and require both time for reflection and willingness to consider opposed alternatives. In this paper I practice a thought experiment with historical references and take a clear stand in favour of the procedural style of democracy.
Democracy, Opposition and Non-Democracy
Roman-Lagerspetz Sari, Kone Foundation & University of Turku (Sari.Roman-Lagerspetz@utu.fi)
“Thinking publicly otherwise” is one of the foundations of democracy. The task of the opposition in a democratic system is to express distrust, to criticize the actions of the government and to provide an alternative. The opposition institutionalizes distrust and, paradoxically, the presence of this institutionalised distrust is, for the citizens, one important reason to trust the democratic system. The institutionalized role of distrust and criticism is the main reason why democracy remains superior to its non-democratic alternatives.
The claim defended here is that the relationship between the government and the opposition can be understood in terms of Hegel’s dialectics. Although Hegel’s political theory, as formulated in his Philosophy of Right, emphasises the unifying role of the State, his earlier philosophy contains more democratic potential. In this presentation, I criticize some contemporary theories of democracy, including the model of “left populist democracy” by Chantal Mouffe. I try to formulate an alternative view, inspired by Hegel’s ideas of recognition and dialectics.
On the Outskirts of Democratic Justifiability
Sandelin Johan, University of Helsinki (johan.sandelin@helsinki.fi)
Since the 1970s, humanity has been in an increasing ecological overshoot, with annual demand on resources now far exceeding Earth’s biocapacity. The highest price for this will be paid by the future generations and the wild animals.
It is often assumed, that democracy somehow could solve the problem. This despite that both international agreements and national political measures so far have failed to revise the trend. This also despite that the future people and animals impossibly could take part in or influence our democratic system which from their perspective could not be anything but a kind of dictatorship.
This paper argues, that how Earth’s natural resources are distributed among the different generations and animal species including human, is an ethical issue which relates to property rights. As virtually no progress has been made in improving upon John Locke’s arguments for natural property rights, it seems that private property—and the right to exclude all others—only can be justifiable as an element in a theory of distributive justice that is democratically grounded. Such a justification is, however, only valid inside the realm of contemporary human. In the broader realm encompassing both contemporary humans, the future generations and other animal species, no justification for property rights, that would give the right to exclude all others, seems available.
This would imply that foremostly usufructuary rights are morally justifiable and that exploitive activities should by law be phased out as soon as alternative more sustainable practices are available—which should actively be sought. Our behavior should be constrained by a legal ethical framework, inside of which democracy and economy could freely flourish.
Dissatisfaction with the United States Democracy
Fatemeh Shayan, PhD, assistant professor, University of Isfahan, f.shayan@ase.ui.ac.ir
This paper investigates whether the United States (US) democracy can break under the pressure of the nation’s current events regarding the democracy and future generation, amongst other factors. The economic and health impacts of COVID-19, as well as those of the presidential election’s tensions, remain insufficiently explored. Hence, the analyses in this paper focus on the course of events in the last several years, which overall represent a full-on descent into what is called quiet Australianism. In recent years, many people have taken to the streets to protest against systematic racism and policing for black lives; moreover, when Trump publicly said that he did not accept the election results and stayed in power, it showed just how much the general public’s understanding of democracy has shifted. Trump additionally did not plan the COVID-19 mismanagement crisis that occurred in the US that ultimately disregarded human life and dignity. Many lost their jobs as a result of the pandemic, and it has thrown many working-class people into poverty. The findings reveal that democracy, as an institution, has become dysfunctional, particularly in the US: it has not yet broken but is bending.
EU Energy Integration, Finland and Dependency on Russia
Fatemeh Shayan, PhD, assistant professor, University of Isfahan, f.shayan@ase.ui.ac.ir
This study explores natural gas (NG) relationships between Finland and Russia in the Finnish gas market and the European Union (EU) integration. This study will elucidate the policy problems involved in their relationships and thus facilitate development of energy business. The interdisciplinary methodology adopted in this project is grounded in the actor-structure analysis informed by Aalto et al.’s (2012) social structuration. This approach allows examining energy policies of Finland and Russia against the constraints and opportunities that the actors need to consider when making choices. The data required for these analyses will be sourced from 60 expert interviews conducted in both Russia and Finland and EU. A case study based on qualitative analyses and interviews will also be conducted to examine the constraints and opportunities implicit in Finnish and Russian energy policies in the Finnish gas market. The novel contribution of this study stems from the diverse discussions within the fields of international relations, economics, geography and environment, which are interrelated to fully comprehend NG relationships.
The growth in the demand for the natural gas (NG) has been linked to the importance of this energy source, which has prompted a significant increase in the Asian and European inter-regional gas transactions in the recent decade. Conducting this project is necessary, given that most of the extant studies on the subject approached the gas transactions Russia conducted with the European countries such as Germany at a general level and its role on EU integration. Thus, as comprehensive studies are presently lacking, this study aims to fill this gap in the extant knowledge by examining not only their energy relationships in relation to the EU but also compare their policies, find solutions for their constraints in the Finnish gas market and draw a roadmap for development of energy relationships between Finland and Russia in the Finnish gas market.