Tocqueville pessimistically predicted that liberty and equality would be incompatible ideas. Robert Dahl, author of the classic _A Preface to Democratic Theory,_ explores this alleged conflict, particularly in modern American society where differences in ownership and control of corporate enterprises create inequalities in resources among Americans that in turn generate inequality among them as citizens. Arguing that Americans have misconceived the relation between democracy, private property, and the economic order, the author contends that we can achieve a society (...) of real democracy and political equality without sacrificing liberty by extending democratic principles into the economic order. Although enterprise control by workers violates many conventional political and ideological assumptions of corporate capitalism as well as of state socialism. Dahl presents an empirically informed and philosophically acute defense of "workplace democracy." He argues, in the light of experiences here and abroad, that an economic system of worker-owned and worker-controlled enterprises could provide a much better foundation for democracy, political equality, and liberty than does our present system of corporate capitalism. (shrink)

Written by the preeminent democratic theorist of our time, this book explains the nature, value, and mechanics of democracy. In a new introduction to this Veritas edition, Ian Shapiro considers how Dahl would respond to the ongoing challenges democracy faces in the modern world. “Within the liberal democratic camp there is considerable controversy about exactly how to define democracy. Probably the most influential voice among contemporary political scientists in this debate has been that of Robert Dahl.”—Marc Plattner, (...) _New York Times_ “An excellent introduction for novices, as well as a trusty handbook for experts and political science mavens.”—_Publishers Weekly_. (shrink)

Tocqueville pessimistically predicted that liberty and equality would be incompatible ideas. Robert Dahl, author of the classic _A Preface to Democratic Theory,_ explores this alleged conflict, particularly in modern American society where differences in ownership and control of corporate enterprises create inequalities in resources among Americans that in turn generate inequality among them as citizens. Arguing that Americans have misconceived the relation between democracy, private property, and the economic order, the author contends that we can achieve a society (...) of real democracy and political equality without sacrificing liberty by extending democratic principles into the economic order. Although enterprise control by workers violates many conventional political and ideological assumptions of corporate capitalism as well as of state socialism. Dahl presents an empirically informed and philosophically acute defense of "workplace democracy." He argues, in the light of experiences here and abroad, that an economic system of worker-owned and worker-controlled enterprises could provide a much better foundation for democracy, political equality, and liberty than does our present system of corporate capitalism. (shrink)

This article is based on an exchange between Peter Kemp and Jacob Dahl Rendtorff on the occasion of Peter Kemp’s seventieth birthday in 2007. It presents the development of Kemp’s ethical philosophy from his philosophy of technology and technology ethics to his philosophy of bioethics and biolaw. It also discusses Kemp’s relation to Existentialism, hermeneutics, phenomenology, and Marxism with the development of a critical hermeneutic philosophy of engagement. This is related to Kemp’s work on humanistic ethics of technology in (...) his book on the ethics of the irreplaceable. The article presents Kemp’s long discussion with Paul Ricœur about the ethics of the good life and about narrative ethics. Finally, it elaborates on the bioethical turn towards an ethics for the living world and discusses the role of basic ethical principles of autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability in relation to cosmopolitan and global responsibility for sustainability and humanity. (shrink)

Research in neurocriminology has explored the link between neural functions and structures and the psychopathic disposition. This online experiment aimed to assess the effect of communicating the neuroscience of psychopathy on the degree to which lay people exhibited attitudes characteristic of psychopathy in particular in terms of moral behaviour. If psychopathy is blamed on the brain, people may feel less morally responsible for their own psychopathic tendencies. In the study, participants read false feedback about their own psychopathic traits supposedly inferred (...) from their Facebook likes, described either in neurobiological or cognitive terms. Participants were randomly allocated to read that they either had above-average or below-average psychopathic traits. We found no support for the hypothesis that the neuroscientific explanation of psychopathy influences moral behaviour. This casts doubt on the fear that communicating the neuroscience of psychopathy will promote psychopathic attitudes. (shrink)

Written by the preeminent democratic theorist of our time, this book explains the nature, value, and mechanics of democracy. This new edition includes two additional chapters by Ian Shapiro, Dahl’s successor as Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale and a leading contemporary authority on democracy. One chapter deals with the prospects for democracy in light of developments since the advent of the Arab spring in 2010. The other takes up the effects of inequality and money in politics on (...) the quality of democracy, a subject that was of increasing concern to Dahl in his final years. “The late Robert Dahl’s _On Democracy_ is _the_ source for how to govern democratically. Following the methods and channeling the insight of Dahl, Ian Shapiro’s new edition completes Dahl’s project and is must reading for the next generation and essential re-reading for the present.”—Michael Doyle, Columbia University “Dahl’s tersest summary of the lessons of his profoundly influential interrogation of democracy’s strengths and weaknesses. Ian Shapiro shows forcefully what we have learned since its initial publication.”—John Dunn, author of _Breaking Democracy’s Spell_ “Robert A. Dahl’s _On Democracy_ admirably synthesized the contributions of the world’s leading democratic theorist of the twentieth century. Now Ian Shapiro intelligently carries Dahl’s queries and concerns into our own century.”—Robert D. Putnam, author of _Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis_. (shrink)

Written by the preeminent democratic theorist of our time, this book explains the nature, value, and mechanics of democracy. This new edition includes two additional chapters by Ian Shapiro, Dahl’s successor as Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale and a leading contemporary authority on democracy. One chapter deals with the prospects for democracy in light of developments since the advent of the Arab spring in 2010. The other takes up the effects of inequality and money in politics on (...) the quality of democracy, a subject that was of increasing concern to Dahl in his final years. “The late Robert Dahl’s _On Democracy_ is _the_ source for how to govern democratically. Following the methods and channeling the insight of Dahl, Ian Shapiro’s new edition completes Dahl’s project and is must reading for the next generation and essential re-reading for the present.”—Michael Doyle, Columbia University “Dahl’s tersest summary of the lessons of his profoundly influential interrogation of democracy’s strengths and weaknesses. Ian Shapiro shows forcefully what we have learned since its initial publication.”—John Dunn, author of _Breaking Democracy’s Spell_ “Robert A. Dahl’s _On Democracy_ admirably synthesized the contributions of the world’s leading democratic theorist of the twentieth century. Now Ian Shapiro intelligently carries Dahl’s queries and concerns into our own century.”—Robert D. Putnam, author of _Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis_. (shrink)

Robert Dahl's democratic theory has been remarkably consistent over the course of his long career. While Dahl has maintained a markedly un‐romantic view of modern democracy, and can best be read as an immanent critic of its liberal variant, he has steadily clung to certain radical aspirations, even as their prospects have waned. Dahl's often‐unnoticed radicalism lies in his desire to see democracy break out of the institutional bonds of the liberal state. Reviewing his career forces (...) one to consider the ultimately Utopian character of his quiet radicalism and the significance of its apparent failure. Paradoxically, Dahl's call for the extension of democracy into the economic sphere would be less Utopian if it were more radical at its foundation—that is, if his basic premises would lead him to seriously question citizens’ existing preferences. (shrink)

O propósito deste artigo é comparar duas perspectivas analíticas que interpretaram as possibilidades de democra-tização das organizações internacionais (OIGs) nos anos 1990 e 2000. A primeira dessas perspectivas é sustentada por autores como Robert Dahl e Philippe Schmitter que consideram improvável a realização da democracia fora do espaço dos Estados nacionais. Eles seriam “céticos”, para empregar o termo utilizado por Dahl para se referir à sua perspectiva. De outro lado, David Held sustentou uma interpretação mais otimista ao (...) defender que a natureza da democracia contemporâ-nea sofreu alterações resultantes do processo de globalização econômica. Por essa razão, Held considerou possível tanto a democratização das OIGs como o desenvolvimento de uma “cidadania cosmopolita”, situada acima dos limites dos Estados. Para desenvolver o contraponto entre estas duas perspectivas, este artigo realizará uma revisão bibliográfica da produção dos dois autores e estará dividido em duas seções principais. A primeira delas examinará a perspectiva “cética” de Robert Dahl com relação à possibilidade de democratização das organizações internacionais. A segunda seção examinará a pers-pectiva cosmopolita de David Held. Nas considerações finais, o artigo identificará os elementos de reflexão gerados pelas duas perspectivas a respeito do sentido da democracia no contexto da globalização. (shrink)

There is no question, of course, that music is a temporal art. Stravinsky, noting that it is inconceivable apart from the elements of sound and time, classifies it quite simply as "a certain organization in time, a chrononomy."1 His definition stands as part of a long and honored tradition that encompasses such diverse figures as Racine, Lessing, and Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer, putting the case in its strongest terms, remarks that music is "perceived solely in and through time, to the complete exclusion (...) of space," thus making explicit the opposition between time and space and ruling out the latter as a possible area for legitimate musical experience. Yet anyone familiar with the philosophical and theoretical literature dealing with music must be struck by the persistence with which spatial terminology and categories appear. Indeed, it would seem to be impossible to talk about music at all without invoking spatial notions of one kind or another. Thus in discussing even the most elementary aspects of pitch organization—and among the musical elements, only pitch, we should remember, is uniquely musical—one finds it necessary to rely upon such spatially oriented oppositions as "up and down," "high and low," "small and large" , and so on. Space, then, pace Schopenhauer, apparently forms an inseparable part of the musical experience. · 1. Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans, Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl , p. 28. Robert P. Morgan is active as both a music composer and theorist. A professor of music at the University of Chicago, he is currently composing a concerto for flute, oboe, and string orchestra to be performed at Swarthmore College. His previous contribution to Critical Inquiry, "On the Analysis of Recent Music," appeared in the Autumn 1977 issue. Anthony Gilbert responds to the current essay in "Musical Space: A Composer's View". (shrink)

This book is devoted to the work of Robert A. Dahl, who passed away in 2014. Dahl was one of the most important American political scientists and normative democratic theorists of the post-war era, and he was also an influential teacher who mentored some of the most significant academics of the next two generations of American political science. As an incredibly productive scholar he had a career that spanned more than half a century, his first book was (...) published in 1950 his last was in 2007 at the age of 92. As a political scientist, he was respected even by those who were critical of his works. This theoretical significance and profound influence is reflected in the collection of chapters in this volume, which reads like a ‘who’s who’ of the contemporary US political science scene. His co-author Bruce Stinebrickner documents the evolution of his and Dahl’s seminal text, _Modern Political Analysis_ and how it became the standard introduction to American political science for nearly fifty years. Katharine MacKinnon’s chapter is of significance for its insights upon Dahl and also represents a succinct statement of a feminist reading and critique of contemporary political science. Steven Lukes contributes a highly concise statement of the difference between one-dimensional and three-dimensional power. This work will be a standard reference work for any researchers or those interested in the work of Robert Dahl, among both established academics and students. This book was originally published as a special issue of the _Journal of Political Power_. (shrink)

Taking his work as the point of reference, this book not only provides an illuminating history of political science, told via Dahl and his critics, it also ...

달(Robert Dahl)은 플라톤의 수호자 주의가 대다수 시민이 스스로 통치할 정치적 능력이 없음을 가정하며, 시민의 참여를 통한 자율적 능력 개발을 차단한다고 비판한다. 다른 한편, 『국가』 제5권에서 여성수호자를 인정한 것에 대해 오킨(S.M. Okin)은 플라톤을 남녀평등을 주장한 여성주의자로 분류한다. 달의 비판대로 플라톤의 수호자집단에 의한 지배는 민주적인 정치체제라고 보기 어렵다. 한편, 플라톤이 말하는 수호자집단을 보면, 당시 배제된 집단인 여성을 수호자로 받아들이고 있다. 그렇다면 그 집단의 여성은 통치할 정치적 능력을 가진 존재로 인정되어 집단 내에서 평등한 대상으로 여겨진 것이고, 또한 실행가능한 자유를 최대한 실현하는 (...) 기회의 평등이 주어진다는 점에서 비민주적이지 않다고 볼 수 있지 않을까?BR 이와 같이 『국가』를 둘러싼 여러 논의들 가운데 민주주의 논의와 여성수호자 논의를 함께 구성하여 접합지점을 찾아서 플라톤의 여성수호자를 통해 그가 반민주주의자라는 혐의를 벗을 수 있는 가능성을 찾고자 하는 것이 이 글의 목적이다. 이러한 목적을 위해 플라톤의 『국가』 제5권과 제8권을 주요 텍스트로 하여 2절에서는 플라톤의 여성에 대한 입장과 그를 둘러싼 여러 학자들의 논의를 우선 살펴보겠다. 3절에서는 달이 비판하는 수호자주의에 대해 그 비판의 근거와 이에 대한 반론을 살펴보겠다. 4절에서는 플라톤의 수호자 집단이 당시 그리스 아테네 민주주의에서 배제한 여성을 수호자로 받아들이고 있다는 점을 중심으로 하여 이 여성 수호자가 갖는 민주적 함의를 찾아볼 것이다. (shrink)

Despite Jon Elster’s caveat that the market potentially endangers the forum, Goodin insists that commercial innovations, such as the focus group and the market test, would actually strengthen democracy and citizen engagement. His thesis in this book is that governments should task members of smallscale deliberative bodies — or what he calls, in the singular, a ‘micro-public’, and what Robert Dahl before him termed a ‘mini-populus’ — to experiment with alternative solutions to public problems. While the book is (...) a collection of previously published essays, many are extensively altered and rewritten to support this thesis and to round out a literature that has recently become increasingly oriented toward deliberative practice. Indeed, Goodin is more circumspect than some of the less praxis-focused deliberative theorists — for instance, Jürgen Habermas — concerning the capacity of deliberative forums to displace traditional democratic institutions: ‘Inevitably . . . deliberative democracy can only supplement rather than supplant the institutional apparatus of representative democracy as we know it’ (7-8). The book is organized into two sections, one concerning the design and function of small-scale deliberative bodies or micro-publics, and the other devoted to deliberative activities in macro-political institutions, including the translation of micro-public recommendations into sound public policy (what is often called ‘uptake’). (shrink)

Vem har rätt att delta i vilka beslut? Det torde vara uppenbart att svaret på denna fråga är en viktig del av en teori om demokrati; ty är det något som alla uppfattningar om demokrati har gemensamt så är det en referens till en mängd individer, ett samhälle eller ett »folk» som är, i någon mening, självstyrande. Därför är det överraskande att inte mycket har skrivits om detta problem i de klassiska verken om demokrati. Som Robert Dahl uttrycker (...) det, »hur man ska avgöra vilka som legitimt utgör »folket» … och i kraft av detta har rätt att styra sig själva … är ett problem som nästan totalt har försummats av alla de stora politiska filosoferna som skrivit om demokrati.» (Dahl, 1970, s. 60). (shrink)

Este artigo aborda a democracia a partir das contribuições teóricas de Eric Weil, especialmente em seus escritos “Limites da democracia” e “A democracia em um mundo de tensões”. Weil critica definições do termo e busca estabelecer as condições gerais para um sistema político verdadeiramente democrático. O artigo está estruturado em três partes. Primeiramente, discute o panorama atual das percepções das crises democráticas. Em seguida, trata das condições para a participação nos processos democráticos, adotando a concepção weiliana da democracia como um (...) “sistema de livre discussão em evolução”. Por fim, o texto se volta às inconsistências dos discursos que, dentro de um contexto democrático, defendem um Estado autoritário. Esse problema será analisado à luz do “paradoxo da tolerância” de Karl Popper, e com o apoio dos argumentos de Robert Dahl. (shrink)

In this major intellectual history, Ira Katznelson examines the works of Hannah Arendt, Robert Dahl, Richard Hofstadter, Harold Lasswell, Charles Lindblom, Karl Polanyi, and David Truman, detailing their engagement with the larger project of reclaiming the West's moral bearing.

The relationship between knowledge and values, experts and lay people, represents a major issue of the debate involving environment and technology. There is a growing awareness that the connection between value commitments and technical solutions, scientific expertise and lay competence, is much more entangled than once was believed. The article deals with this issue by analysing Robert Dahl's `minipopulus' and Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz's `extended peer communities' arguments. They are subsequently inserted into the sociological debate which is, (...) at present, considerably influenced by the reflexive modernization framework. As a result, Ulrich Beck's and Anthony Giddens' theories appear as one of four ideal-typical approaches to the social construction of the issues that can be outlined, according to the priority assigned to knowledge versus power and nature versus society. The idea of an `extended peer review' of problems and solutions is remarkably close to the deliberative democracy concept. However, the high level of uncertainty characterizing major environmental and technological questions suggests that a `strong' version of deliberative democracy, such as the Discourse Ethics proposed by Habermas, is untenable in its search for a universal, rational consensus on the normative grounds of action. Thus it is necessary to develop a `weak' interpretation of the extended peer review, exploring the possibility of fair and stable agreements on bounded, practical solutions to bounded, practical problems. (shrink)

One of the most basic questions facing democratic theory is who ought to be included in political participation. Most recent discussions of this question have focused on the wrongful exclusion of those who ought to be included. Less attention has been paid to the question of whether political participation can be objectionably over-inclusive. Robert Dahl insists that it can; a claim to inclusion, he writes, “cannot be justified if it is advanced by persons whose interests are not significantly (...) affected by the decisions of that unit.” This essay is a moral defense of what Dahl would consider political over-inclusion, of empowering those entirely unaffected by a given political decision to participate in the making of that decision. My argument is not that the unaffected have a right to participate or that they are somehow wronged by political exclusion in a manner analogous to how the affected may be wronged when excluded. What matters morally is not what a proper resolution to a specific political conflict will do for the unaffected—by definition, it can do nothing for them. What matters is what the inclusion of the unaffected can do to improve the quality of the decision being made, and hence to benefit those affected by this decision. My focus will be on one particular manner in which the inclusion of the unaffected can improve political decision-making: namely, by increasing impartiality. As I argue in the first section of this essay, whereas the affected can only possess what I call “artificial impartiality,” the unaffected possess what I call “natural impartiality.” . (shrink)

We have long been accustomed to thinking of democracy as a major selling point of Western institutions. That a set of political institutions should be democratic is widely regarded as the sine qua non of their legitimacy. So widespread is this belief that even those whose institutions do not look very democratic to us nevertheless insist on proclaiming them to be such. Meanwhile, an adulatory attitude toward democracy has arisen in many quarters, and many theorists have taken up anew the (...) idea that if democracy is the way to go in political institutions, then it must also be the way to go in “other” areas, notably in economic and social institutions. So there has arisen a call for “economic democracy” — which is taken to mean, especially, that the “means of production” should be managed by their constituent workers in concert rather than by some few who own, or act for the owners of, those enterprises. Robert Dahl, in his influential Preface to Economic Democracy, sums it up nicely when he proclaims a “stronger justification” for worker participation: “ If democracy is justified in governing the state, then it must also be justified in governing economic enterprises; and to say that it is not justified in governing economic enterprises is to imply that it is not justified in governing the state.”. (shrink)

According to Rainer Forst, a critical theory of power must break with the tendency of political theorists to conceive of power in opposition to normativity. Appropriately, Forst proposes a noumenal definition according to which power is normative: It works through recognition of reasons and is thereby open to critical assessment. In this discussion note, I first clarify the normativity of power in Forst’s noumenal theory by means of Donald Davidson’s theory of action and then explain how theory of action leads (...) to a different understanding of force and violence from Forst’s noumenal theory. In doing this, I find reason to endorse a non-normative definition of power on the lines proposed by Robert Dahl and endorsed by most authors in analytical political theory. This definition nevertheless remains faithful to Forst’s methodological guideline that a theory of power must keep in view the relations between power and normativity. (shrink)

One of Prof. Walzer's most fascinating contributions to the field of political theory is his introduction of the concept of `complex equality'.In Spheres of Justice, he defines this concept as follows: “In formal terms, complex equality means that no citizen's standing in one sphere or with regard to one social good can be undercut by his standing in some other sphere, with regard to some other good. Thus, citizen X may be chosen over citizen Y for political office, and then (...) the two of them will be unequal in the sphere of politics. But they will not be unequal generally so long as X's office gives him no advantage over Y in any other sphere – superior medical care, access to better schools for his children, entrepreneurial opportunities, and so on” .To achieve a situation of complex equality, Prof. Walzer proposes a system of blocked exchanges: it should be avoided that goods obtained in one sphere are exchanged to obtain goods in another sphere. For instance, the money person X has acquired in the economic sphere should not be used to `buy' power and influence in the political sphere.Prof. Walzer states that this system of complex equality will lead to a more egalitarian distribution of social goods. Maybe in each sphere distinct inequalities will persist, but given the plurality of spheres, eventually every person will acquire goods in one sphere or another. This line of reasoning reminds us to some extent of the traditional pluralist argument as it was formulated by Robert Dahl .Dahl asserts that in contemporary American society, no single group actually dominates political decision-making, since the power of even very influential groups is limited to a few policy arenas. Even underprivileged groups have enough access to proper channels to let their voice get heard in political decision-making. (shrink)

William Connolly has made important interventions in political theory over a period of four decades, and the past few years have seen a surge in recognition of his contribution. Those who are familiar with Connolly’s ideas will know the role that continental theorists—especially Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Gilles Deleuze—have played in the development of his thought, and more recently the uses he has made of advances in the natural sciences, for example in complexity theory, in the work of the (...) neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, and the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Ilya Prigogine. With reference to these innovations, a consensus has emerged in recent discussions, that there is a basic discontinuity between Connolly’s “postmodern” theory of pluralism and the “old” pluralism of the generation of post-war political scientists. By way of contrast, in this essay I outline the congruity between Connolly’s ideas and earlier iterations of pluralism. I trace the essential continuities between Connolly and the leading post-war writers, especially Robert Dahl, Charles Lindblom, David Truman, and David Easton, and also his proximity to a tradition of pluralism that flourished in the early part of the twentieth century and was exemplified in the work of Arthur Bentley. Indeed, I make the case that Connolly’s work is best understood as the resumption and enhancement of a distinct canon of pluralism in American political thought. (shrink)

William Connolly has made important interventions in political theory over a period of four decades, and the past few years have seen a surge in recognition of his contribution. Those who are familiar with Connolly’s ideas will know the role that continental theorists—especially Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Gilles Deleuze—have played in the development of his thought, and more recently the uses he has made of advances in the natural sciences, for example in complexity theory, in the work of the (...) neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, and the Nobel Prize–winning chemist Ilya Prigogine. With reference to these innovations, a consensus has emerged in recent discussions, that there is a basic discontinuity between Connolly’s “postmodern” theory of pluralism and the “old” pluralism of the generation of post-war political scientists. By way of contrast, in this essay I outline the congruity between Connolly’s ideas and earlier iterations of pluralism. I trace the essential continuities between Connolly and the leading post-war writers, especially Robert Dahl, Charles Lindblom, David Truman, and David Easton, and also his proximity to a tradition of pluralism that flourished in the early part of the twentieth century and was exemplified in the work of Arthur Bentley. Indeed, I make the case that Connolly’s work is best understood as the resumption and enhancement of a distinct canon of pluralism in American political thought. (shrink)

In his thoughtful Commentary on my article, “Should Corporations Have the Right to Vote? A Paradox in the Theory of Corporate Moral Agency,” Kenneth Silver incorrectly asserts that I endorse Robert Dahl’s Principle of Affected Interests and social contract theory. To the extent that Silver’s criticism of my argument is based on the claim that I appeal to either theory as the ground for my claim that corporate moral agency entails a corporate right to vote, it is misguided. (...) I rely only on the Rawlsian equal participation principle that invests those subject to the law with the right to vote. To the extent Silver’s criticism is directed to that assertion, it is on point. (shrink)

O artigo trata de um déficit teórico presente no pensamento neo-republicano dos últimos anos, a saber a falta de qualquer discurso relativo à concentração de poder econômico e político nas mãos de uma minoria. Depois de uma breve exposição de algumas variantes do republicanismo contemporâneo , se analisam algumas críticas formuladas por Robert Dahl e Kenneth Baynes . Finalmente, são consideradas as posições de Robert Putnam e Benjamin Barber, a fim de desenvolver algumas considerações sobre a questão (...) de se a responsabilidade pela crise atual da democracia deva ser procurada nas atitudes e nos hábitos individuais, ou, antes, em fatores impessoais como os arranjos institucionais e o contexto social, econômico e político no qual os indivíduos se encontram .This paper is about a theoretical deficit in the neo-republican thought of the last years, namely: the lackof any consideration for the concentration of economic and political power in the hand of a minority.After a short exposition of some versions of contemporary republicanism , the paper will analyzesome critiques advanced by Robert Dahl and Kenneth Baynes . Finally it will consider the positionsof Robert Putnam and Benjamin Barber in order to develop some remarks on the question whether theresponsibility for the present crisis of democracy is to be sought in individual attitudes and habits orrather in impersonal factors such as institutional arrangements and the social, economic, and politicalcontext individuals live in. (shrink)

This article deals with democratic constitutionalism in order to investigate the proper nature of constitutionalism, by wondering about its peculiarities and specific objects. Against this background, this essay aims at providing a paradigmatic definition of constitutional theory, for more specifically exploring its different undertones. For this reason, the first section of the article offers an analysis of the most relevant theoretical contributions within modern and contemporary constitutionalism. Thus, the first section explores Carl Schmitt’s, Hans Kelsen’s and Robert Dahl’s (...) definition of constitutional democracy. The second section then focuses with more attention on contemporary liberal-democratic constitutionalism, manly on one of the most debated issues: the dichotomy between legal and political models of constitutionalism, which goes hand in hand with a distinction between dualist and monistic accounts of democratic theory. The last section proposes an insight into the Italian constitutional system, by comparing it with the U.S. model, by especially focusing on the functioning and structure of the Constitutional Court compared to the U.S. Supreme Court. (shrink)

The paper proposes a guide to understand the idea of democracy that underlies the Inter-American Human Rights System. Based on the notion of polyarchy from Robert Dahl it highlights the principles of participation and opposition. Both reveal the egalitarian and liberal ascendancy of democracy that should orient the interpretive activity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, independently it refers to cases related with political rights. The main purpose is to make visible the inescapable public-political role of the (...) courts. This implies reviewing the quality of their reasons, the correctness of their justification procedures, and the nature of its authority. Due to the nature of the judicial function, the idea of democracy is revisited together with the human right of access to justice. (shrink)