Search

The political, organizational, and ideological deadlock that European social democracy has gone through in recent decades is obvious and much discussed. This impasse is indirectly expressed by the weakness of social democratic parties in maintaining their electoral clientele and social base of workers, employees, and pensioners. This means that the crisis of social democracy is becoming more permanent. This article attempts to analyze these characteristics.

Este artículo es un primer paso hacia la comprensión del uso de los medios sociales por parte de las cortes constitucionales y supremas de América Latina. Algunas de estas cortes se han destacado a nivel mundial como precursoras en el uso de tales medios. Se realizó un análisis sistemático y comparativo de 17 cortes durante el lapso de un año, con el foco en dos cuestiones: por un lado, en la intensidad con que utilizaron las plataformas más relevantes -Twitter, Facebook y YouTube- y, por otro, en el nivel de influencia de cada corte. Como resultado, se presenta una clasificación de las cortes que enfatiza que existen diferencias de desempeño: las cortes más influyentes no son necesariamente las más activas, pero hacen un uso muy diferenciado de las redes sociales. En cambio, las menos influyentes muestran gran dispersión en torno al nivel de actividad. Asimismo, exploramos de manera preliminar la relación entre el nivel de confianza en los poderes judiciales y la intensidad del uso e influencia de las cortes en las redes. Observamos que las cortes que enfrentan mayor desconfianza son moderadamente más activas y tienden a tener menos influencia. Dos motivos podrían explicar este comportamiento: la búsqueda de autopromoción estratégica; y un ideal de transparencia institucional., In this article we take a first step towards understanding the use of social media by constitutional and supreme courts in Latin America. Some Latin American courts stand out worldwide for their active online presence. We present the first comparative evaluation of the social media presence of 17 Latin American high courts. We evaluate the intensity of the current use of the most relevant online platforms - Twitter, Facebook and YouTube - and explore the level of influence each court has developed in these networks. As a result, we present a classification of the courts that emphasizes that there are performance differences: the most influential courts are not necessarily the most active ones, but they make a very differentiated use of social media. In contrast, the least influential ones show great dispersion around the level of activity. Additionally, we present a preliminarily evaluation of the relationship between the level of trust in the judiciaries and both the intensity of the use and the level of influence of courts in social networks. We see that courts with higher levels of distrust are moderately more active and tend to have less influence. Two motivations could explain the court behavior in social media: First, the search for strategic self-promotion. Second, an ideal of institutional transparency.

Based on extensive ethnographic fieldwork in Uzbekistan, this article looks at the way official state narratives are challenged by silent, unorganised, often unaware gestures of resistance at the bottom of a society. Footing on a framework suggested by Scott's definition of infrapolitics (2012), we propose to incorporate informal practices in a definition of informality that is more inclusive and better explains the anatomy of a modern state, whose functioning rests on a combination of formal and informal practices. We suggest that this everyday dimension is of particular importance here when trying to understand the governance trajectories, as it allows to look critically, and from a broader perspective, at situations where individual and state perception of events, but also individual and state morality, diverge. By doing this, we propose that governance in transition states and societies may be regarded as a space where formal institutions and citizens (or informal institutions) compete for power and resources and thereby produce informal, alternative "legal orders" and mechanisms that regulate public life in a given area. We will suggest that such a space of informal negotiation is vital in contexts where collective mobilisation and public articulation of social claims is not a preferred, or even available, strategy for citizens.

This short article aims to question some of the arguments advanced in recent democratic theory that use a certain understanding of the science-politics relation in order to advocate for participatory procedures at the expense of political representation. It critically examines the conceptual and normative assumptions of a certain framing of the legitimacy problem that is based on Science and Technology Studies (STS) findings, and offers an argument for a renewed interest in the complex yet rich normative potential of political representation.

The goal of the following article is to provide an interpretation of the 72nd anniversary celebration of the Slovak National Uprising in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia). Our paper stands as a dramaturgical and discursive analysis of this occasion. More specifically, our effort is focused on two main lines of interpretation. The first line of interpretation is called the "organizational line". In this branch of argumentation, we attempt to present the results of a complex dramaturgical analysis of this occasion and also try to provide an example and characteristics of strategies and practices that can be utilized by state apparatuses to create their perception as the guarantor of security of the event’s observers. In the second strain (called the "production of discourse"), we attempt at analyzing the processes of (re)production of political discourse related to this public occasion and the Slovak National Uprising. In this strain, we also try to identify the main discourse that was produced or reinforced during the celebration. The main finding of our paper is based on the fact that public ceremonies can fulfill the role of medium, which in turn serves to spread the current political discourse, adoration of actual societal normative order, and the positive portrayal of state apparatuses. Our article can thus be viewed as a contribution to the debate concerning the issues of political discourse reproduction from the public's perspective.

The poor performance of the political system in Romania, still marked by disaffection and pervasive corruption, may be shaped by the lack of control from the citizens. Much more responsible towards its electoral basis, the Romanian political system would be more legitimate. The political performance and legitimacy would in turn make citizens more satisfied and eager to defend democratic values. The happy circle of civic control, responsivness, satisfaction and political performance may be started somehow. The research paper is an attempt to evaluate political culture in urban Romania as a source of political legitimacy and performance. We focus on the civic culture, this special association of knowledge and feelings about the political system that settle citizens to political communication, partisanship, social cooperation, political competence and, in the end, political action. By analysing survey data, we outline a meager civic culture in Romania, but also the hope for a future civic competence.

This paper posits that the concept of European identity is an important indicator of the legitimacy of the European Union (EU). It further assumes that the exposure to EU related media content can influence the feeling of European identity. In order to verify this assumption, we combined the mere-exposure-theory and the hostile media phenomenon. We assume that these theoretical concepts could help to understand the influence of media on people's levels of attachment to the EU. Regression analyses are performed on secondary data that were collected in a Eurobarometer survey in 2013. Our findings revealed that media exposure affected the respondents' identification with Europe, as well as the modifications of this effect based on their assessments of EU media coverage. The results of the current study not only validate assumptions about the mere-exposure effects on identity but also confirm the theoretical assumption that perceived hostility reduces such effects, whereas exposure to information that is perceived as neutral promotes the effects of media exposure on the feeling of European identity.

Global governance is frequently criticised because of major legitimacy deficits, including lack of public accountability and democratic control. Within this context, questions about the legitimacy of non-state governance actors, such as non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations and private security companies, are neither an exception nor a surprise. Many actors have, therefore, turned to the measurement of performance, defined as publicly beneficial outcomes, in order to gain legitimacy. However, the rise of performance assessments as legitimizing practice is not without problems. Taking global security and health interventions as examples, this article contends that the immaterial, socially constructed and inherently contested nature of such public goods presents major obstacles for the assessment of performance in terms of observable, measurable and attributable outcomes. Performance is therefore frequently replaced by performativity, i.e. a focus on the repetitive enactment of specific forms of behaviour and capabilities, which are simply equated with the intended results. The implications for how global public goods are conceptualized and, ultimately, implemented are profound.

This article addresses concerns that the growth in global governance may be bringing with it a decline in the significance of democratic sources of political legitimacy. One approach in evaluating such concerns is to ask whether the respective patterns of legitimation for private and public authority differ or whether they refer to a similar set of normative standards. Private transnational governance regimes provide useful contexts in which to assess the presumed democratic erosion. They seem, almost of themselves, to make the case for such a decline: in them regulatory authority is exercised by non-state actors who, by their very nature, lack the kind of authorization afforded by the democratic procedures that legitimize state-based regulation; in addition, they are intrinsically linked to the notion of politics as a form of problem-solving rather than as the exercise of power. Given these characteristics, when governance arrangements of this kind are subjected to criticism, one would expect justificatory responses to relate primarily to performance, with normative criteria such as fundamental individual rights and the imperative for democratic procedure playing only a minor role. On the basis of a qualitative content analysis, the study tests three ideal-type patterns of legitimation for plausibility. The case selected for examination is the recent controversy surrounding the hybrid governance regime that operates to prevent the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. The debate offers the possibility of a ‘nutshell’ comparison of the respective patterns of legitimation used in criticizing and justifying state and non-state regulatory authority. This comparison yields two findings. The first is that the values used to appraise the state-based components of the sporting world’s hybrid regulatory regime do not differ systematically from those used to appraise the private elements: contestation and justification in both cases are founded on normative criteria r

Like any regulatory effort, private transnational standard-setters need to legitimate themselves to the audiences from which they seek support or obedience. While early scholarship on private transnational governance has emphasized the centrality of democratic legitimation narratives in rendering private governance socially acceptable, evidence from more recent standard-setting schemes suggests a declining relevance of that narrative over time. In my analysis of private sustainability regulation, I identify a combination of two factors that jointly contribute to this diminished role of democratic legitimation. First, private transnational governance has become a pervasive phenomenon. This means that new entrants to the field no longer face the same liability of newness that required first movers to make an extra effort in legitimation. Second, private standard-setting has moved from areas characterized by 'governance gaps' to areas in which meaningful intergovernmental regulation already exists. In these areas, however, the 'state prerogative' in legitimating governance holds. As a result, transnational standard-setters rely not so much on stressing their democratic credentials, but instead emphasize their contribution to achieving internationally agreed goals.

Transparency has been a central issue in the debate regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), especially on the side of the European Union (EU). The lack of transparency in the negotiating process has been one of the main criticisms of civil society organizations (CSOs). The European Commission (EC) has tried to gain support for the negotiations through various ‘transparency initiatives’. Nonetheless, criticism by CSOs with regard to TTIP in general and the lack of transparency in specific remained prevalent. In this article, we explain this gap between various transparency initiatives implemented by the EC in TTIP and the expectations on the side of European CSOs. We perform a content analysis of position papers on transparency produced by CSOs, mainly in response to a European Ombudsman consultation, complemented by a number of official documents and targeted interviews. We find that the gap between the TTIP transparency initiatives and the expectations of CSOs can be explained by different views on what constitutes legitimate trade governance, and the role of transparency, participation, and accountability herein.

This thematic issue brings together research from political science and legal history about legitimacy discourses covering different forms of public-private co-regulation and private self-regulation, domestic and transnational, past and present. These forms of governance highlight the important role of non-state actors in exercising public authority. There has been a growing debate about the legitimacy of non-state actors setting and enforcing norms and providing public goods and services. However, the focus of this thematic issue is not on developing abstract criteria of legitimacy. Rather, the authors analyze legitimacy discourses around different cases of privatized or partly privatized forms of governance from the early 20th century until today. Legitimacy is subject to empirical and not normative analysis. Legitimacy discourses are analyzed in order to shed light on the legitimacy conceptions that actors hold, what they consider as legitimate institutions, and based on what criteria. The particular focus of this thematic issue is to examine whether the significance of democratic legitimacy is decreasing as the importance of regulation exercised by private actors is increasing.

The European Parliament is the only source of direct legitimacy of the European Union, as it is the only body directly elected by the citizens. Politics within the European Parliament has increasingly grown in importance, as its powers expanded progressively with each European Union treaty. The opposite happened with voter turnout. This paper builds on the idea that the European elections are perceived as less important by the voters’ parties and the media, and are in general characterized by a lower electoral participation with respect to National elections. We analyze turnout from two perspectives: individual and aggregate level. Individual electoral models are estimated using data from the European Social Survey and Standard Eurobarometer Survey, referring at electoral turnout at National and Supranational level, respectively. From an individual level perspective, we test if unequal participation exists concerning socioeconomic categories across “firstorder” National elections and “second-order” European elections in order to understand if a potential representation bias might exist. Empirical evidence highlights that inequality in participation exists only for the European Parliament elections. From the aggregate level side, an original panel data is used in order to understand the turnout gap across elections and test the “second-order” theory concerning the European Parliament elections as an opportunity to contest governing parties. Evidence shows that a vote share gap across the two election types exists, and that large as well as extremist and parties from European Monetary Union Member States lose votes across elections. Being an EMU member as well as being a net-payer at the European Union budget increases the electoral gap.

I argue that the transparency reforms that have been implemented in the Council of the EU in the last decades are unlikely to change the perception of the Council as a non-transparent institution. My argument is based on three distinctions: the distinction between transparency (availability of information) and publicity (spread and reception of information); between transparency in process and transparency in rationale; and between plenary and committee decision-making arenas in legislatures. While national parliaments tend to have all these features, the Council of the EU only has two (transparency in process and committee decision-making). As a consequence, publishing ever more documents and detailed minutes of committee meetings is unlikely to strengthen the descriptive legitimacy of the Council. Furthermore, I argue that the democratic transparency problem is the reverse of what is most often argued: It is not the lack of transparency that causes a democratic deficit, but the (perceived) lack of a democratic infrastructure that makes more serious transparency reforms unthinkable to government representatives.

Although federalism of various types has existed throughout history, ancient and medieval federations were, on the whole, short-lived.1 Most federations were non-existent by the time of the enlightenment and the rise of nation-states. So-called modern federalism stems from the American republic founded in 1787, which in many ways is the archetypal one, representing the creation of a federal government by compact among several previous constituent units – e pluribus unum. The federalist structure is becoming increasingly popular as 90 percent of states today contain a plurality of national, ethnic or linguistic groups.2 Nevertheless, a normative theory of federalism has not been fully developed.3 Indeed, Wayne Norman notes that in the history of modern political philosophy, questions of federalism have generally attracted no more than a footnote or a chapter, although cursory discussion can be found in the writings of such luminaries as J.S. Mill, Bodin, Grotius, Montesquieu, Bentham, Constant and Sidgwick.4 Such a theory will aid in setting standards with which we can we assess, evaluate, justify, defend or attack the structure and operation of the federal system. Although I do not attempt in this paper to elucidate a complete theory of federalism through a normative lens, I will attempt to demonstrate one of the primary means by which citizens in a federal state (in particular, Canada) evaluate the legitimacy of government action. (author's abstract)

The article examines the way Romanian political thought in the early 19th century connected with the major trends of Western political thought. Romanian political thought was often reluctant to adopt the mainstream liberal ideas, forged in reaction to the French Revolution, as well as to synchronize with the pace of political change it set. Hence, concepts like constitutional regime, rule of law, liberty and order are to be read as indicators of the Romanian definition of political modernity as shown by several texts of that time. Their authors combined several themes and concepts as sovereignty or political legitimacy in a hesitating philosophical context, drawing a thin line between Ancient and Modern.

Media and surveillance scholars often comment on the purported empowering quality of transparency, which they expect participatory media to promote. From its Enlightenment origins, transparency is related to accountability and legitimacy: its increase is believed to promote these. It has earned a position as an unassailed, prime normative value in contemporary liberal and social democracies. Though still valued, transparency is undergoing change in an era of ubiquitous surveillance. Publics still anticipate governmental and corporate self-disclosure and for such entities to operate visibly; but increasingly, deliberate and incidental surveillance by a range of sources, both institutional and informal, documents the activities of such authorities. More often, civilians participate in producing or amplifying transparency. This article explores this new transparency through a study of U.S. police, focusing on the discourse of police accountability activists and cop watchers to describe how their work adapts traditional notions of transparency. Recognizing the resilience of the police institution despite the new visibility of its violence, the article challenges the presumption that increased transparency will promote institutional reform or crisis. It concludes with a critical comment on prominent expectations that promoting the visibility of police can protect publics and ensure police accountability. This conclusion has implications for other forms of the new transparency, including whistleblowing (e.g., Edward Snowden) and leaking (e.g., WikiLeaks).

Turnout levels in the European elections have been substantially declining over the past decades. The entry into force of new sets of rules and EP prerogatives provided the MEPs with the power to break the chain of dissatisfaction with the EU institutions. The nomination procedure of the Commission Presidency, based on the EP directly elected majorities, brought more legitimacy to the electoral competition. From a symbolic perspective, the Commission became a functional equivalent of a European executive. However, the recent political reforms, instead of boosting political participation and public interest in the EU race, were of little consequence to the electoral mobilization. Moreover, the macro-level electoral results did not particularly alter the balance of power on the European arena. Conversely, the 2014 electoral race brought significant political gains for Eurosceptic or euro-critical parties. The article revisits the main explanatory factors behind the EU "legitimacy crisis": (1) the specificity of the European institutions and the lack of clear and significant choices at the EU level; (2) the "second order" elections thesis and the hybrid articulation of the EU regime (3) the inherent problem of the EU institutional design and political representation. The analysis of the 2014 elections suggests the emergence of a failed "foundational moment" in bringing more legitimacy and political participation at the EU level.

With the increasing "agencification" of policy making in the European Union (EU), normative questions regarding the legitimacy of EU agencies have become ever more important. This article analyses the role of expertise and legitimacy with regard to the European Chemicals Agency ECHA. Based on the REACH regulation, so-called Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) are subject to authorisation. The authorisation procedure aims to ensure the good functioning of the internal market, while assuring that risks of SVHCs are properly controlled. Since ECHA has become operational in 2008, recurring decisions on SVHCs have been made. The question posed in this article is: to what extent can decision making in the REACH authorisation procedure be assessed as legitimate? By drawing on the notion of throughput legitimacy, this article argues that decision making processes in the authorisation procedure are characterized by insufficient legitimacy.

This case study explores how the Korea Leukemia Patient Group (KLPG) uses social media in its internal communication strategy and how that empowers its relationship with external counterparts. This study's findings indicate that the communication strategy of the local health Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) is changing in response to the increased effectiveness and impact of social media. Using social media (e.g., Twitter) the KLPG can quickly and effectively construct an issue-based advocacy group. Consequently, more legitimacy and representativeness through collected support from the general public have further empowered the KLPG. Yet, the sustainability component in the relationships built through social media use was not evidenced in the current findings. The effects of social media use were analyzed based on data from interviews with top-level KLPG executive members and general members, and from documentation and archival materials. Limitations and suggestions for future research are included.

Expert advice in political processes is supposed to improve decisions. If expertise fails in this function, a legitimacy problem occurs: granting political power to experts may be defensible, but only on the grounds that it contributes to enlightening political processes and facilitate problem-solving. The paper provides a theoretical exploration of four variables that are key when assessing the epistemic quality of expert deliberations: the degree to which these deliberations are 1) informed by technical expertise, 2) regulated by epistemically optimal respect and inclusion norms, 3) focused on politically relevant and applicable knowledge, and 4) approaching questions involving moral judgment and standard setting competently. Previous research on the European Commission's use of expert advice has more or less overlooked the question of experts' epistemic performance, and this paper discusses the possible reasons for this in light of well-known methodological challenges in studies of elite behaviour; access and bias problems. A discussion of the merits and limitations of different available data on the Commission experts shows that the biggest obstacle in the study of experts' epistemic performance is rather the problem of epistemic asymmetry, i.e. of how researchers as non-experts can assess the epistemic quality of experts' contributions and behaviour. The paper offers, finally, a set of strategies to get research going despite this problem.

The presence of distrust in the police and how they perform their work among ethnic minority youths in socially underprivileged areas is well established. Experiences of, or beliefs about, unfair treatment from the police can be viewed both as an indicator and a consequence of exclusion. It is well-known that negative experiences of the police are more significant for trust in the police and their legitimacy than positive ones, with some even suggesting that positive experiences do not matter at all. However, from a procedural justice perspective it has been suggested that some positive experience do matter, particularly if the police are considered to perform their work in line with procedural fairness. On the basis of a participant observation study, this article discusses situations in which youths express complaints about the police in different ways. In response to such situations, the police can act in both exclusionary and inclusive ways. It is argued that youths' complaints can be used as an opportunity for change if the police treat the youths concerned with fairness and in inclusive rather than exclusionary ways.

Existing research on inclusion and exclusion processes in physical education (PE) has particularly focused on exclusion from PE as something being done to students and attributed to specific social categories such as (female) gender, (low) physical skills or (minority) ethnic background. This article aims to develop a social-relational perspective on inclusion and exclusion processes defined as students' participation or non-participation in PE interpreted as a community of practice. In so doing, the article examines how students' experiences of participation and non-participation in PE are influenced by complex interactions within the group of students and in negotiations with teachers about the values and practices of PE. The article is based on an embedded single-case study carried out over the course of 6 months through weekly observations of PE classes in a multi-ethnic school, as well as focus group interviews with students and teachers. Using Etienne Wenger's conceptual tools, we show that a student's degree of participation in the community of practice of PE-classes is closely related to the legitimacy of the student and the extent to which the student experiences PE as meaningful. Some students were excluded from PE because they did not have the physical skills and social relations necessary to gain legitimacy from other students. Others chose not to participate because PE was not meaningful to them. This latter type of non-participation from students who experienced lacking meaningfulness was evident in PE classes that had little transfer value and limited prospect for students to develop the knowledge, skills or the understanding necessary to move towards full participation in the classes. Thus, the article argues that an understanding of the variety in students' participation or non-participation is important not only in terms of how we talk about students as passive victims or active agents, but also in terms of future intervention aimed at promoting in

"The paper in front of you presents an attempt to give an answer to the hypothesis -is the use of force in accordance with the public international law and several issues arising from it- if the use of force is allowed then when it receives international legality and legitimacy? If it's legally prohibited, whether such prohibition is general rule without any derogations or there is an exception to that rule? The research was done using the method of contextual analysis of international documents (UN Charter, relevant UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly resolutions, and court cases from the practice of International Court of Justice). Some of the main conclusions are: UN member states are obligated to refrain from threat or use of force against territorial integrity and political independence of another state. The exclusive right of using force is situated only in the Security Council." (author's abstract)

In federal polities citizens have multiple public identities: they are addressed as members of the federal polity and as members of a sub-federal polity. Consequently, citizens are represented at the federal level through two channels of democratic representation: federal representation and sub-federal representation. Although this is a crucial element in the set-up of a federal system, the existing literature on representation hardly touches upon this and hence we introduce an approach to systematically compare these channels of representation. In this paper we conceptualize and operationalize the new concepts and apply our approach to democratic representation in 13 federal polities, including the EU, EU member states and non-EU member states. Our analysis shows that the EU has the highest degree of sub-federal representation (i.e. representation of the member states), but also shows that the EU stands not alone among federal polities. Belgium, Canada and Switzerland are clearly characterized by a high level of sub-federal representation as well, while countries such as the US and Australia are much more based upon federal representation. We also show that the variance between the countries can be understood by looking at the systemic features of the states.

The present text, derived from a research process, seeks to allow aims to leave elements to the debate over the construction of the deliberative democracy managing to establish, which the theoretical framework could be, in which the Colombian case can be adjusted. For such a purpose, the text will introduce, first, the debate over the deliberative democracy as legitimacy of decision-making procedures, establishing what the role played by the Constitutional Court, in the construction of this type of democracy, is. Second, to deepen, with special emphasis, on the decisions of the Constitutional Court, whether they allow it or not, an open space for the deliberative democracy, and third, it introduces a contribution to the academic debate over the current situation in Colombia in the construction of a deliberative democracy., El presente texto, derivado de proceso de investigación, busca dejar elementos para el debate en torno a la construcción de la democracia deliberativa procurando establecer cuál podría ser el marco teórico en el que se puede ajustar el caso Colombiano. Para tal fin, el texto presentará: Un aparte para el debate en torno a la democracia deliberativa como procedimientos de legitimación de decisiones, estableciendo cuál es el papel de los tribunales constitucionales en la construcción de este tipo de democracia; segundo, ahondar con especial énfasis en las decisiones de la Corte Constitucional, si permiten o no, un espacio abierto para la democracia deliberativa; y tercero, se presenta un aporte al debate académico, en torno a la situación actual en Colombia en la construcción de una democracia deliberativa.

We have analyzed the political legitimacy of democracy in Latin America with Latinobarometro’s data, which is a survey about attitudes and values that has been applied annually since 1996 in 18 countries of the region, in two axes: one methodological and the other theoretical. On the one hand, we contribute to the empirical validation of the concept and its differents operationalizations, while aligning our results to the wider debate. And, in the theoretical field, our results allow us to broaden the debate on the relationship between legitimacy and democratic stability.

A comprehensive theory of politics is outlined. In the first part of the book the logic of competitive politics is analyzed and the political parties, the political ideologies, the role of mass media and the political intellectuals are outlined. In the second part of the book the constitutional frame of the political democracy is analyzed and the parliament, the government, the head of state, the constitutional court are outlined in every detail.