Democracy, formally known as the “rule by the people” is seen a form of governance which is ruled by the people, for the people. Modern civilization views democracy as an ideal, but many people forget that this ideal is very difficult to achieve. The creation of the public sphere, as well as communicative technologies intended to achieve one of the most important goals: to enhance democracy. The public sphere was created in order to have an area where people could meet and freely discuss issues within society (Ironstone March 21, 2014). On the other hand, the emergence of communicative technologies ties in with the idea of communicative capitalism, which emphasizes that the market is the “site of democratic aspirations” (Dean 2005, p. 54). Using Nancy Fraser, Jürgen Habermas, and Jodi Dean’s ideas, this essay will argue that nor the public sphere or societies endless access to communicative technologies actually enhance democracy as it promises.
The idea of the public sphere was originated in the 18th century by a German Philosopher, Jürgen Habermas. Habermas explains that the goal of the public sphere was for private individuals to come together to form a public body (Habermas 1974, p.49). Doing so, it would enable private individuals to identify and discuss societal problems thus finding a way to influence political action. The idea of forming a public body was important to Habermas because it separated the state from the work place, and rejected hierarchy (Habermas 1974, p.49). It promised access to autonomy, inclusivity, and a place to discuss common concerns.
Habermas believed that there is a connection between the public sphere and the ideals of a democratic society. In order to have a functioning democratic society, al...
... middle of paper ...
...cal leaders not only carry additional power, but as well as more importance over its citizens. The public sphere was created in order for citizens to be active with their opinions, ideas and beliefs to peruse change even if it resisted state power. Fraser throughout this essay proves that the public sphere did not enhance democracy as had it many flaws such as being not inclusive and biased. On the other hand, Dean in this essay proves that communicative technologies have not enchaced democracy. Instead it has created the idea of communicative capitalism in which technology serves as a fetish, and creates a fantasy of participation. It is clear that democracy is an ideal which is hard to achieve. Dean and Fraser would agree that in order for the public sphere and our current political system to achieve the characteristics of democracy, a structural change is needed.
1. Janda, Kenneth. The Challenge of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston, MA. 1999. (Chapter 3 & 4).
Janda, Kenneth. Berry, Jeffrey. Goldman, Jerry (2008). The Challenge of Democracy (9th ed.). Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
The first point of mutual agreement that can de drawn upon relates to the people and their rights to themselves and others. Both Meiklejohn (1948) and Habermas (1964) mutually agreed upon the fact that democracy could not be achieved without acknowledging that each and every person has first and foremost a high degree of respect for each other. The need for mutual respect for one another can be seen at various times throughout their texts under closer inspection when analysizing their displayed arguments.
“Constructing Canada: Do we need a public broadcaster to enhance democracy?” written by David Taras, a professor at the University of Calgary and director of Alberta Global Forum. Taras reinstates the turning point of Canada Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and their relationship with the Canadian parliament. He addressed on the developments and struggles Public Service Broadcasters (PSB), specifically CBC, encounter in order to continue to telecast. Lastly, he explains that PSB has a major role in maintaining the balance of power between the government and the mass media. PSB were created by the public for the public because a democracy can only happen if everyone cooperates.
The first section is ‘Public Interest’. He looks at Aristotle’s era for a “basic analysis of democracy” (5). Democracy, in Greek, meant rule by the masses (kratein demos). The word Demos was not a positive outlook at the people, but meant their worst form and depicted them as selfish and only interested in achieving their own goals. Aristotle believed that “governments are problematic when people rule with their self-interest in mind” (5). However, we are all selfish, and what matters is how our self-interest impacts the rest of society. Plato, a philosopher before Aristotle’s time, explains in his book The Republic, that we are inherently selfish and the only thing that keeps chaos out of reach are the rules we abide by. As selfish humans, we look for like minded people and proceed to give them the power to make their selfish desires acceptable by law - we call them governments. However the difference between a bad government and a good one is one that can distinguish our desires from the bad and the good and make good decisions for the greater number of
The first, and possibly most difficult concept to define ¬¬¬¬¬is democracy itself. Beetham[1] suggests that in order to reach a definition from the many contested options, one must understand that there are core principles of democracy, which can be used to create a definition concurrent with the majority of those posed in the academic field. He identifies these principles as being those of majoritarian rule, consensual rule, representation of ‘public good’ or ‘popular will.’ He also identifies the importance of political equality and the furthering of public good over private interests. The ability to express counter-arguments to pose different points of view are also said to be integral to democratic processes. Representative democracy, Beetham says, goes further requiring the equal opportunity of all citizens to stand for election, the equal accountability of those elected, that the democracy must be representative of the electorate and that citizens are able to participate in political processes through organizations and access to their representatives.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Sirianni in his book “Investing in Democracy” has examined how government can serve as a civic enabler of productive engagement and collaborative problem solving among civic associations, ordinary citizens, and stakeholder groups. He also tried to find out how the public policy and administration can be designed to help the involvement of the government. Siriannni has argued on the view that in recent era the government’s role is becoming more important due to the increasing complexity of public problems, diversity among the stakeholders, and continued erosion of civic life by the deep cultural and institutional trends. Sirianni tried to reflect the image of the government, local, state, and federal as civic enabler whose work should be to design policy and invest strategically, systematically, and effectively in building civic capacity to enable the daily public life of the citizens. Sirianni has focused on many reasons to argue why government should be the civic enabler. Firstly, due to the long term changes in the civic organization and culture, the capacities for self-government will not simply bubble up from the wellsprings of civic society, and certainly they will not come out through the invisible hand of the market. “Civic changes have been propelled in many cases by profound and irreversible socioeconomics shift, such as the replacement of the highly civic-minded World War II generation, increased female participation in the labor force, and continual spread of technologies that encourage individualized leisure.” [Sirianni. C]. Secondly, it has been often found that government policies and administrative have often tried to disable effective and responsible civic action. So by involving the government the policies can be ...
In making this argument this essay seeks to five things. Firstly, to define democracy within the contemporary context offering the key characteristics of a modern re...
“We have had the habit of thinking of democracy as a kind of political mechanism that will work as long faithful as citizens were reasonably in performing their duties” (Dewey 1939, 2).
The Public Sphere has become the center of thought and the forum in which people can freely communicate their views, though it is important to realize that not always have the two been intertwined. Though today the Public Sphere is thought to have originated during the French Revolution, but it is much older than that, it held an important aspect in the Hellenistic Greek era. Because free speech and Public Sphere were not combined back then many philosophers found themselves in a tough spot when they spoke out against the norm in favor of change.
The public sphere has been falsely represented as a virtual place where one can share and debate opinions; ...
Lastly Mills highlights how a truly democratic state can be achieved. There is a need for a public that acts a medium for true political change, skilled men who form the higher powers of the state and have no vested corporate interests, dependable parties that debate openly and lucidly the problems faced by the world and finally liberated institutions between the public and the elite that act as proponent for the public opinion.
The nature of a good life and its relation to political legitimacy is a subject which both Thomas Hobbes and Emma Goldman examine in their writings. Hobbes claims that only basic survival is necessary to live a good life because ultimately life is more valuable than comfort. Goldman on the other hand claims that freedom is far more important than simply living and a good life can only be lived by someone who is free to do as they please. In order for a political theorist to understand how legitimate governments and communities aught treat their citizens these theories are essential. For example, if a community holds a Hobbesian view than they will have a strong authoritarian leadership, whereas in a Goldman inspired community would have no coercive government except in times of crisis. Of the two views of a good life Goldman presents a more compelling answer to the question of what makes a good life and her theories regarding political legitimacy are sounder than those of Hobbes.
Civic Culture is regarded by many political scientists as the most important factor for a nation to possess to maintain healthy a democracy. However, while scholars like Robert D. Putnam agree with this assertion, Civic culture is not enough to sustain a healthy democracy in a country, it must be paired with the ‘right’ of the four aspects of civic culture (unbiased media, cross cutting cleavages with memberships, etc.) as well as paired with a dependable economy, I will show this through an examination of cases studies of Italy and Germany.