Democratic Norms and Means of Communication: Public Sphere,Fourth Estate,Freedom of Communication

Abstract

This article assesses some major democratic norms commonly invoked in relation to means of communication or ‘media’, especially in the context of ‘media policy’. The paper argues that freedom of communication provides the most appropriate normative discourse in which to re-articulate the case for the European policy practice of ‘regulated pluralism’ outside Europe. Recent developments in Australia provide a brief case-study of this thesis.     

Thinking for Thousands: Emerson's Theory of Political Representation in the Public Sphere

This article develops Emerson's theory of representative democracy as it applies to a deliberative public sphere. By highlighting the democratic content of Emerson's thought, this article challenges tradition readings of Emerson that claim his thought to be elitist or antipolitical. According to Emerson, the public sphere is structured by representative individuals who are analogous to those representatives found in electoral institutions. These representatives make public the beliefs and values present in their "constituencies." They deliberate in the name of their constituencies, saying what their constituencies could and would say, were they to also directly engage in such deliberations. Representative individuals are tied to their constituencies through bonds of "sympathy and likeness." The moral consequences of a representative public sphere include the development of a sense of deliberative justice on the part of the citizenry and the reduction of the possibility of domination and oppression by ideologically oriented elites.     

科学技术、公共领域与和谐社会

就科学技术发展来说,“和谐社会”这一概念不仅直接强化了科技对经济社会发展的积极推动作用,而且在其涉及新型工业化道路、环境保护、安全生产、网络伦理等问题方面又显现出了对科技发展的公共价值的相应反思。这意味着可以通过公共领域来把握科技与社会的协调关系问题。科技进步无疑推动了公共领域的兴起和发展,但科技发展及其生态和社会效应本身也可以作为公共问题在公共领域层面获得政治伦理考量。也就是说,在公共领域中通过建构科技公共交往机制,确保公众最大程度地参与科技发展的公共决策,进而推动权力、资本和知识精英围绕着科技与人、自然和社会之间的持续协调发展问题,提出适合公共利益的解决方案,从而促进和谐社会的逐步生成。     

Citizen,Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management

Scholars and practitioners have long debated what role the public should play in public management. When members of the public interact with the administrative side of government, should they be treated as customers, as citizens, or in some other manner? This article takes as its premise that members of the public assume three principal roles relative to public management: as customers, as partners, and as citizens. After placing these roles in the context of the history of public administration, the article draws from recent research to recommend guidelines for how public managers can work effectively with the public in these several capacities.     

论公共权力、公共管理与有效政府的范式界定

当前世界各国都迫切需要解决这样一个问题在社会经济的发展进程中,政府该发挥一种什么样的作用,以及如何使这一作用得到有效发挥?本文从公共权力的视角入手,通过对公共权力基本内涵的分析,界定了"有效政府"的范式,为我国行政改革提供了有益的借鉴.     

Political Ambivalence as Praxis: The Limits of Consensus in Habermas's Theory of the Public Sphere

This paper argues that ambivalence can serve as a proxy for consensus-based debates in public discourse as it allows for individuals to maintain flexible and analytic perspectives on matters that otherwise appear contradictory. In particular, an affirmative understanding of ambivalence will be presented to supplement the highly influential Habermasian approach by drawing from sociological theories of ambivalence found in the work of Simmel, Bauman and Ko?akowski. While the theme of ambivalence is not completely absent from Habermas’s work on the public sphere, it is typically described as a structural consequence of contradiction rather than a form of action that is capable of working with and around inconsistencies in ethics, knowledge and social values. This allows for participation to be sustained through contradiction, rather than being withdrawn in frustration, while also encouraging open-minded judgements capable of avoiding forms of fanaticism.     

Deliberation and Forgiveness in the Public Sphere

A common objection to the argument for deliberative democracy is that it cannot provide mechanisms for achieving its ideal of all-inclusiveness. This does, however, not in itself refute the deliberative ideal. In a reading of Hannah Arendt and Jacques Derrida’s writings on forgiveness, we argue that forgiving involves a renegotiation of our enemies and of ourselves. Hereby a renegotiation of the seemingly unbridgeable understandings of who our enemies are can be achieved. Forgiving involves a realisation that we have something in common with our foes. This opens the question: Why did our paths separate? We become puzzled and start to search for reasons. This does not mean that we have to accept ways of life that we detest. But it does mean that we need to be able to articulate counter arguments. Hereby limitations of prevailing understandings of who to include in deliberative processes can be overcome.     

Public Meetings and the Democratic Process

Public meetings are frequently attacked as useless democratic rituals that lack deliberative qualities and fail to give citizens a voice in the policy process. Do public meetings have a role to play in fostering citizen participation in policy making? While many of the criticisms leveled against public meetings have merit, I argue that they do. In this article, I explore the functions that city council and school board meetings serve. While they may not be very good at accomplishing their primary goal of giving citizens the opportunity to directly influence decisions made by governing bodies, they can be used to achieve other ends, such as sending information to officials and setting the agenda. As a complement to deliberative political structures, public meetings have a role to play by offering a venue in which citizens can achieve their political goals, thereby enhancing governmental accountability and responsiveness.     

Critical Theory,Democratic Justice and Globalisation

Abstract

One way of providing a focus for critical theory today is to articulate those substantive and robust norms of egalitarian justice that would appear to be presupposed by the idea of a republican and democratic constitutional order. It is suggested here that democratic justice requires the equalisation of effective communicative freedom among all structurally constituted social groups (SCSGs) and that this will have far-reaching implications that entail the deconstruction of all social hierarchies in both domestic and global orders. This argument is presented in three sections. The first defends the focus on groups rather than individuals in theorising democratic justice. The second intervenes critically in contemporary debates surrounding the theoretical relation between various aspects of justice including the demands of redistribution, recognition and political empowerment. The third turns to the challenges for critical theory presented by a complex and multifaceted process of globalisation and it defends a qualified form of cosmopolitanism and high lights the need for a radical democratisation of the international order.     

GIS, Public Service, and the Issue of Democratic Governance

Geographic information systems (GIS) provide unparalleled power to examine social, economic, and political circumstances. As this technology becomes more prominent in the public sector, it brings new challenges to democratic decision making. How we choose to apply this technology will determine the relationship between those who control technology and those who engage in governance. This article provides examples of how GIS is being used for policy implementation and then explores the democratic implications of GIS.     

Public Administration as Pragmatic, Democratic, and Objective

In the foregoing essay, Patricia M. Shields argues that public administration and administrators should support a much greater incorporation of classical pragmatism than has been the case to date. This paper supports that conclusion by focusing on classical pragmatism's central benefit to public administration: its ability to provide the field with a claim to objectivity that it badly needs, but which Shields barely mentions. It shows how objectivity is closely connected to a pragmatic conception of democracy, and how this conception of democracy is diametrically opposed to one built on a fact/value (or administration/politics) dichotomy.     

Beyond the Social Market: Rethinking Capitalism and Public Policy

Despite its worthy motives, social market philosophy provides neither a useful analytical framework for understanding modern capitalism, nor the policy tools to address our present economic and social predicament. The concept of ‘market failure’, with its underlying assumption of market equilibrium, does not capture the systemically adverse outcomes of collective market forces. A more sophisticated understanding of capitalist economies, and the societies in which they exist, would recognise that the market economy is a dynamic but not self‐regulating system. It is embedded in, and impacts on, four other economies – of the natural environment, of family and care, of voluntary association, and of the public sector – which operate under different motivations and allocative principles. The role of government is central, to balance the values created by different kinds of institutions and to constrain the dynamic impacts of market forces. A number of policy conclusions are offered arising from this framework.     

The Modern Slaves: Specialized Knowledge and Democratic Governance

This article examines widely held assumptions among scientific elites positing that there is an increasing discrepancy between those with specialized knowledge and laypersons, that governmental policy is increasingly shaped by scientific research and its practitioners, and that these trends pose a threat to representative democracy. This article asserts that modern liberal democratic societies are characterized by enabling structural changes that have expanded the forms of and means for citizen action, and simplified civil society’s access to specialized knowledge.     

Democratic Legitimacy, Public Justification and Environmental Direct Action

This article addresses the question of whether environmental direct action against policies or institutions that are recognised as democratically legitimate can be justified. Arguments that seek to tie environmental outcomes to stipulated requirements of either the democratic process or distributive theories of justice are found wanting in this regard. However, one of the central justifications for the losers in a democratic settlement accepting defeat is policy reversibility. The non-reversible element in significant areas of environmental change entails that environmentalists are forced to play a 'one-shot' political strategy. This fact lends support to the justification of environmental direct action in such cases, although it may also apply beyond the sphere of environmental politics.     

微博设置大众议程及对公共领域建构的研究

主要立足于新的媒介生态环境,从微博在设置大众之议程方面所表现出的强大影响力这一事实出发,探讨微博对公共领域建构的可能性。由于传统媒体受制于单向传播的局限性,其议程设置功能相对于新媒体在逐渐减弱,而微博在设置大众议程上的功效则日益突出。议程设置作为舆论导向的第一个阶段,最终造就了公众舆论,而公共领域就是独立于政治权利之外的公共交往和公共舆论。所以说,微博所表现出的社会公器职能和权力制衡作用使得其具有重新建构哈贝马斯所言之公共领域的可能性。