Democracy\u2019s crisis has long been predicted by political theorists and sociologists such as Michels,Weber and\u00a0Ortega\u00a0y Gasset. It is thus\u00a0a matter of interpretation whether we see our current and possible (near) future(s)\u00a0as a crisis of unprecendented seriousness.\u00a0 Yet, because of the level of our technological development and globalisation,\u00a0crises\u00a0undeniably\u00a0effect the globe and its inhabitants faster than ever before.<\/p>\n
One question arising, is whether democracy really is a superior or even \u2019real\u2019 political system\u00a0at the age\u00a0in which, e.g. AI of different types and other technological means, e.g. enable a near total surveillance of (all) states\u2019 citizens.\u00a0Additionally, development of \u2019extended\u2019 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\u00a0for\u00a0all, in case vanguards of thought and practioners of authority and power so wish.<\/p>\n
In this workshop, the heuristic idea is to understand crises as an inherent part of modern\u00a0mass\u00a0democracies\u00a0and 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.<\/p>\n
Working languages of the workshop are English and Finnish.<\/p>\n
Chairs: Oili Pulkkinen, Kone Foundation (pulkkinenoili2014@gmail.com<\/a>) & Suvi Soininen, Kone Foundation (smsoin@utu.fi)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Papers<\/strong><\/p>\n Crisis Government in Political Thought<\/strong><\/p>\n Lagerspetz Eerik, University of Turku (eerlag@utu.fi)<\/p>\n Kriisien hallinta poliittisen ajattelun perinteess\u00e4.<\/p>\n Pitk\u00e4n historiallisen perinteen mukaan kriisit ja poikkeustilanteet edellytt\u00e4v\u00e4t poikkeuksellisia vallank\u00e4ytt\u00f6tapoja. T\u00e4m\u00e4n ajatuksen historialliset juuret juontuvat ainakin Rooman tasavallan diktaattori-instituutioon. Termill\u00e4 \u201ddiktaattori\u201d viitattiinkin pitk\u00e4\u00e4n erityisill\u00e4 poikkeusvaltuuksilla varustettuun, mutta s\u00e4\u00e4nn\u00f6llist\u00e4 menettely\u00e4 noudattaen valittuun virkamieheen. Vasta 1900-luvulla termi\u00e4 ryhdyttiin k\u00e4ytt\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4n kaikesta lakeihin sitomattomasta vallasta. Erityisesti demokratiaa, tai laajemmin, tasavaltaa tai \u201dmonien\u201d valtaa, on pidetty erityisen kyvytt\u00f6m\u00e4n\u00e4 hallitsemaan kriisitilanteita. T\u00e4t\u00e4 ajatusta on pidetty niin itsest\u00e4\u00e4n selv\u00e4n\u00e4, ett\u00e4 sen takana olevia perusteluja ei yleens\u00e4 ole vaivauduttu analysoimaan sen tarkemmin.<\/p>\n T\u00e4m\u00e4 esitys on osa laajempaa tutkimusta, jossa tarkastellaan (1) yleens\u00e4 poliittisten kriisien hallintaa koskevaa ajattelua, ja (2) erityisesti sit\u00e4 ajattelua, joka liittyy demokratian kriiseihin. Varhemman historian tulkintoja on hallinnut Carl Schmittin Die Diktatur<\/em> (1921), joka on ensimm\u00e4inen ja luultavasti edelleenkin kattavin aiheen tarkastelu. Valtios\u00e4\u00e4nt\u00f6historiallisista ansioistaan huolimatta Schmittin esityksess\u00e4 on my\u00f6s puutteita; monet filosofisesti kiinnostavat seikat j\u00e4\u00e4v\u00e4t siin\u00e4 v\u00e4hemm\u00e4lle. Schmittin kirja on itsess\u00e4\u00e4n puheenvuoro ensimm\u00e4isen maailmansodan j\u00e4lkeiseen kriisikeskusteluun. Erityisesti 1900-luvun ensimm\u00e4isin\u00e4 vuosikymmenin\u00e4 k\u00e4ytiin kiivasta keskustelua siit\u00e4, miten demokratian on mahdollista varautua sit\u00e4 kohtaaviin uhkiin, millaiset demokratian itsepuolustusmuodot ovat sopusoinnussa demokratian vaatimusten kanssa, ja miten demokraattisia muotoja \u2013 mukaan lukien demokratian itsepuolustuskeinot! \u2013 voidaan v\u00e4\u00e4rink\u00e4ytt\u00e4\u00e4 demokratiaa itse\u00e4\u00e4n vastaan. N\u00e4m\u00e4 erityisesti valtios\u00e4\u00e4nt\u00f6juristien k\u00e4ym\u00e4t keskustelut joihin Saksassa osallistuivat esimerkiksi Hans Kelsen, Carl Schmitt ja Karl Loewenstein, Ruotsissa Herbert Tingsten, Ranskassa \u00c9mile Giraud ja Yhdysvalloissa Frederick M. Watkins, painuivat v\u00e4lill\u00e4 l\u00e4hes unohduksiin. 2000-luvulla yht\u00e4\u00e4lt\u00e4 erilaiset kriisit, toisaalta autoritaarisen ajattelun nousu ovat tehneet n\u00e4m\u00e4 keskustelut uudelleen ajankohtaisiksi. Kuten 1930-luvulla, demokratian itsepuolustus poikkeuksellisin toimin n\u00e4ytt\u00e4\u00e4 toisinaan v\u00e4ltt\u00e4m\u00e4tt\u00f6m\u00e4lt\u00e4; samalla demokratia voi my\u00f6s kaventua ja jopa tuhoutua n\u00e4iden toimien seurauksena. Olennainen kysymys on: miten demokratian on mahdollista vastata kriiseihin tuhoamatta samalla itse\u00e4\u00e4n?<\/p>\n The presentation will be delivered in English.<\/p>\n From the Democracy of Opinions to the Democracy of Procedures<\/strong><\/p>\n Palonen Kari, University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4 (kari.i.palonen@jyu.fi)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Democracy, Opposition and Non-Democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n Roman-Lagerspetz Sari, Kone Foundation & University of Turku (Sari.Roman-Lagerspetz@utu.fi)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>\u201cThinking publicly otherwise\u201d 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.<\/p>\n The claim defended here is that the relationship between the government and the opposition can be understood in terms of Hegel\u2019s dialectics. Although Hegel\u2019s 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 \u201cleft populist democracy\u201d by Chantal Mouffe. I try to formulate an alternative view, inspired by Hegel\u2019s ideas of recognition and dialectics.<\/p>\n On the Outskirts of Democratic Justifiability<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong>Sandelin Johan, University of Helsinki\u00a0 (johan.sandelin@helsinki.fi<\/a>)<\/p>\n Since the 1970s, humanity has been in an increasing ecological overshoot, with annual demand on resources now far exceeding Earth\u2019s biocapacity. The highest price for this will be paid by the future generations and the wild animals.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n This paper argues, that how Earth\u2019s 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\u2019s arguments for natural property rights, it seems that private property\u2014and the right to exclude all others\u2014only 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2014which should actively be sought. Our behavior should be constrained by a legal ethical framework, inside of which democracy and economy could freely flourish.<\/p>\n Dissatisfaction with the United States Democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n Fatemeh Shayan, PhD, assistant professor, University of Isfahan, f.shayan@ase.ui.ac.ir<\/a><\/p>\n This paper investigates whether the United States (US) democracy can break under the pressure of the nation\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n