| Abstract: | My critical assessment of competing views on the marching controversy at Drumcree is found wanting by Glen Newey for at least three reasons. The Habermasian approach I adopt is alleged to be motivationally deficient, politically ineffectual and blind to its own decisionistic partiality. Here I indicate that the force of Newey's critique is neutralised once one attends to the important differences between Habermas' moral theory and his discourse theory of law and democracy. I argue, furthermore, that Newey's critique is insufficiently attuned to the institutional context of my argument, and that his line of reasoning has troubling political implications. |
