Eva Erman
Stockholm University
Institutional suggestions for how to rethink democracy in response to changing state responsibilities and capabilities have been numerous and often mutually incompatible. This suggests that conceptual unclarity still reigns concerning how the normative ideal of democracy as collective self-determination, i.e. ?rule by the people?, might best be brought to bear in a transnational and global context. The aim in this paper is twofold. First, it analyses some consequences of the tendency to smudge the distinction between democratic theory and moral theories of legitimacy and justice. Second, it develops a conceptual framework that distinguishes between necessary conditions, aspects and aims of democracy. On this basis it specifies three objectives of democracy, some of which may also hold for multilevel governance. It is argued that there are in principle at least three reasons to value democratic institutions: they are intrinsically justified to the extent that they distribute fair shares of political influence over decision-making; they are instrumentally justified to the extent that they secure several of our other best interests, one of which is our interest in non-domination; and finally, they are also instrumentally justified insofar as they secure the just distribution of other goods. The aim of this framework is not to develop a specific theory of multilevel governance but to point at important distinctions to be made and normative criteria to be specified. The intention is to take the debate forward by noting some of the issues that any satisfactory account must address. The framework lays out the grounds for analysing the institutional challenges facing legitimate multilevel governance through what is speculatively called ?multiple citizenship?, understood in explorative terms, opening the door for the manifold roles that citizens could and ought to play in multilevel governance, not only as democratic agents, but also as agents of democracy and agents of justice
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13698230.2011.640484
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,089
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Justice as Fairness: A Restatement.John Rawls (ed.) - 2001 - Harvard University Press.
The Problem of Global Justice.Thomas Nagel - 2005 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2):113-147.
Democratic Theory and Border Coercion.Arash Abizadeh - 2008 - Political Theory 36 (1):37-65.
Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.Robert E. Goodin - 2007 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1):40–68.

View all 29 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Human Rights Do Not Make Global Democracy.Eva Erman - 2011 - Contemporary Political Theory 10 (4):463.
Institutionalizing Global Governance: The Role of the United Nations Global Compact.Andreas Rasche & Dirk Ulrich Gilbert - 2012 - Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 21 (1):100-114.
In Search for Democratic Agency in Deliberative Governance.Eva Erman - 2013 - European Journal of International Relations 19 (4).
Democracy as Music, Music as Democracy.Clifton Sanders - 2009 - Radical Philosophy Review 12 (1-2):219-239.
Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship.Ronald Jeurissen - 2004 - Journal of Business Ethics 53 (1-2):87-96.


Added to PP index

Total views
32 ( #354,303 of 2,499,052 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #419,059 of 2,499,052 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes