Lectures contemplating democracy & the rule of law
2020-2021
,Lecture 1: why do people disagree about democracy and the rule of
law?
The course outline: many issues, but not deeply.
- Why do we keep disagreeing about democracy and the rule of law?
o What is the reason why we understand it differently.
o Can we explain and solve it?
o Are we bound to disagree, or is there light at the end of the tunnel?
- What is democracy, and why do we believe that it is the best form of government?
o Theory about democracy;
o We believe it is the best system: why is that?
o What makes it the best?
o Different faces and manifestation of democracy, it has many.
- What is the function and the content of the rule of law and why does it matter?
o It is very contested conception.
o Two main traditions to understand it.
Formal legality: Rule is stable and universal; says nothing about content of
rules.
Does a state that does not respect human rights have a rule of law?
Does look at the content of rules.
- How does the Internet shape our views on democracy and what went wrong? (guest lecture)
o Internet: how it came to shape democracy and what went wrong.
o When it became about, it was so promising.
o It is a key threat to democracy.
o Threat of polarisation.
- Is there an inherent connection between political legitimacy, democracy and the rule of law?
o Legitimacy at the core of democracy and rule of law.
o What makes political institutions legitimate?
When do we have to obey, and when not.
What are the standards?
o Why does the absence of democracy means illegitimacy?
- What are the reasons for the rise of populism, and is it necessarily a bad thing? (guest
lecture)
o Populism: risks but also benefits for democracy.
- Can there be democracy and the rule of law beyond nation-states?
o Globalised world: how do we hold the global institutions accountable?
o Can we bring democracy to a global level and can we use the Rule of Law on a global
level?
Since the rule of law was developed for a nation state.
Why do we disagree?
We disagree about a lot of things in life: movies, food, music but also social institutions.
That is the same with democracy:
- You have a certain taste; but the scale and weight is much bigger.
o Some disagreements are more important.
- Also a difference between the intrinsic nature of things.
o They are qualitative different.
Freedom
- Freedom is a key political value;
, o It is essential.
o We all understand what it is, that is has something to do with us having control over
our lives. We have preliminary ideas.
- Freedom as an emancipatory idea (for some it is emancipatory);
o We all understand what it means, but at the same time it is not such a simple idea.
o Away from injustices, from being oppressed (BLM).
- Freedom is about enhancing people’s voice in the government;
- Marginalised groups, civil rights activists picture freedom as a goal in their fight for a better
society;
o Freedom as an ideal, what we want to strive.
- Freedom is not always about collective control over government;
o It can mean other things to other people.
- Freedom consists in private enjoyment of one’s life and property;
o Stay away from me: fear for government control.
- The sphere of government should be shrunk as much as possible;
o We want to protect our autonomy, to stay away and no one is allowed to interfere.
- Laissez fair — ‘mind your own business’;
Two versions of the same idea?
- Freedom as the aspiration to participate and to be heard, as a move against the oppression;
o When freedom is a tool for a fight.
- Freedom as the defence of one’s life and values, as a sphere in which no-one can control;
o Freedom as a tool for safety.
- Freedom for vs. freedom from.
o For: to do something; for being heard, participate.
o From: other people intervening in your life, being spied upon, government
controlling you.
These different ideas on freedom clash with each other.
o It is important to know about what they are protesting, their reason is important.
Like protesting against wearing a face-mask or the Berlin wall.
Painting: the black square
Discussion about what is art: it has different meaning for different people.
It is subjective, it is about how we perceive it. There are co-existing two different meanings, but they
are both there.
Essential contested concepts
- Art;
- Democracy;
- Justice;
- Virtue;
- Rule of Law;
They are both channels and products of our communication, they are intersubjective.
What is special about such concepts?
- They are evaluative, and therefore deliver value-judgments;
o They bare normative standards, criteria what you can use.
We assume there are normative standards for art, when we see things as art
and others as not.
o They can be very vague; difficult to grasp.
, You probably can’t even name them.
But you do assume them.
- They denote greatly complex social phenomena;
o They are difficult to define. Like what is art?
o There are thousands definitions. But not one is perfect, there all elements that do
not cover your definition.
- Different people would likely interpret them differently;
o There can deeper layers, about why we see them differently.
- Elements of these concepts are often essentially contested themselves;
o Not only the concept itself, but also the elements of that concept.
o Arts: creativity: what is it, when is there creativity?
You can disagree about the elements of art.
o Justice: equality, also contested.
Where we start (opportunities) but for some reason also where we end.
o We move from one contested conception to another, we can not solve it like that.
- Such concepts do not have an exemplary instantiation;
o We cannot point to something and say this is democracy, freedom, rule of law, etc.
They don’t exists in the objective reality. You can’t really be objective about social
reality.
- Disputes around such concepts are hardly resolvable by argument;
o Because people see it differently and have different ideas about it. There is no
definition you can use to help your argument.
o Unlikely that people find an common ground. The disagreements are always in a
balance, unlikely that they will fall one way or another.
- The use of these concepts is always either aggressive or defensive; example freedom
o Aggressive (in our rhetoric’s): demand political change
o Defensive: don’t touch me! Stay away! (more like privacy, to be left alone)
Freedom (again)
- ‘Freedom’ conceals different values (autonomy or absence of constraints or participation,
etc.);
o Depends on which value we put in the middle. Than the definition of freedom would
change.
- ‘Freedom’ for a conservative is not the same as ‘freedom’ for a liberal;
- People attribute different weight to different ‘aspects’ of freedom;
o Autonomy, constraints, participation.
o With that the meaning of freedom changes.
- There is nothing we could point at and say: ‘This is freedom’;
- Political use of ‘freedom’ is either aggressive/defensive
Democracy and the rule of law
- Democracy and the rule of law are focal points of disagreement; we use these concepts to
present our view on how society should be;
o What is the true democracy? There are many different forms and conceptions. They
belong to different views people have.
o Our views and representation can differ.
o Like what the ‘true’ democracy is.
- Even if we share a meaning of democracy or the rule of law, we may still disagree on how
they should be implemented;
o We can disagree about the implementation of democracy.
o Disagreement on the practical issues.
2020-2021
,Lecture 1: why do people disagree about democracy and the rule of
law?
The course outline: many issues, but not deeply.
- Why do we keep disagreeing about democracy and the rule of law?
o What is the reason why we understand it differently.
o Can we explain and solve it?
o Are we bound to disagree, or is there light at the end of the tunnel?
- What is democracy, and why do we believe that it is the best form of government?
o Theory about democracy;
o We believe it is the best system: why is that?
o What makes it the best?
o Different faces and manifestation of democracy, it has many.
- What is the function and the content of the rule of law and why does it matter?
o It is very contested conception.
o Two main traditions to understand it.
Formal legality: Rule is stable and universal; says nothing about content of
rules.
Does a state that does not respect human rights have a rule of law?
Does look at the content of rules.
- How does the Internet shape our views on democracy and what went wrong? (guest lecture)
o Internet: how it came to shape democracy and what went wrong.
o When it became about, it was so promising.
o It is a key threat to democracy.
o Threat of polarisation.
- Is there an inherent connection between political legitimacy, democracy and the rule of law?
o Legitimacy at the core of democracy and rule of law.
o What makes political institutions legitimate?
When do we have to obey, and when not.
What are the standards?
o Why does the absence of democracy means illegitimacy?
- What are the reasons for the rise of populism, and is it necessarily a bad thing? (guest
lecture)
o Populism: risks but also benefits for democracy.
- Can there be democracy and the rule of law beyond nation-states?
o Globalised world: how do we hold the global institutions accountable?
o Can we bring democracy to a global level and can we use the Rule of Law on a global
level?
Since the rule of law was developed for a nation state.
Why do we disagree?
We disagree about a lot of things in life: movies, food, music but also social institutions.
That is the same with democracy:
- You have a certain taste; but the scale and weight is much bigger.
o Some disagreements are more important.
- Also a difference between the intrinsic nature of things.
o They are qualitative different.
Freedom
- Freedom is a key political value;
, o It is essential.
o We all understand what it is, that is has something to do with us having control over
our lives. We have preliminary ideas.
- Freedom as an emancipatory idea (for some it is emancipatory);
o We all understand what it means, but at the same time it is not such a simple idea.
o Away from injustices, from being oppressed (BLM).
- Freedom is about enhancing people’s voice in the government;
- Marginalised groups, civil rights activists picture freedom as a goal in their fight for a better
society;
o Freedom as an ideal, what we want to strive.
- Freedom is not always about collective control over government;
o It can mean other things to other people.
- Freedom consists in private enjoyment of one’s life and property;
o Stay away from me: fear for government control.
- The sphere of government should be shrunk as much as possible;
o We want to protect our autonomy, to stay away and no one is allowed to interfere.
- Laissez fair — ‘mind your own business’;
Two versions of the same idea?
- Freedom as the aspiration to participate and to be heard, as a move against the oppression;
o When freedom is a tool for a fight.
- Freedom as the defence of one’s life and values, as a sphere in which no-one can control;
o Freedom as a tool for safety.
- Freedom for vs. freedom from.
o For: to do something; for being heard, participate.
o From: other people intervening in your life, being spied upon, government
controlling you.
These different ideas on freedom clash with each other.
o It is important to know about what they are protesting, their reason is important.
Like protesting against wearing a face-mask or the Berlin wall.
Painting: the black square
Discussion about what is art: it has different meaning for different people.
It is subjective, it is about how we perceive it. There are co-existing two different meanings, but they
are both there.
Essential contested concepts
- Art;
- Democracy;
- Justice;
- Virtue;
- Rule of Law;
They are both channels and products of our communication, they are intersubjective.
What is special about such concepts?
- They are evaluative, and therefore deliver value-judgments;
o They bare normative standards, criteria what you can use.
We assume there are normative standards for art, when we see things as art
and others as not.
o They can be very vague; difficult to grasp.
, You probably can’t even name them.
But you do assume them.
- They denote greatly complex social phenomena;
o They are difficult to define. Like what is art?
o There are thousands definitions. But not one is perfect, there all elements that do
not cover your definition.
- Different people would likely interpret them differently;
o There can deeper layers, about why we see them differently.
- Elements of these concepts are often essentially contested themselves;
o Not only the concept itself, but also the elements of that concept.
o Arts: creativity: what is it, when is there creativity?
You can disagree about the elements of art.
o Justice: equality, also contested.
Where we start (opportunities) but for some reason also where we end.
o We move from one contested conception to another, we can not solve it like that.
- Such concepts do not have an exemplary instantiation;
o We cannot point to something and say this is democracy, freedom, rule of law, etc.
They don’t exists in the objective reality. You can’t really be objective about social
reality.
- Disputes around such concepts are hardly resolvable by argument;
o Because people see it differently and have different ideas about it. There is no
definition you can use to help your argument.
o Unlikely that people find an common ground. The disagreements are always in a
balance, unlikely that they will fall one way or another.
- The use of these concepts is always either aggressive or defensive; example freedom
o Aggressive (in our rhetoric’s): demand political change
o Defensive: don’t touch me! Stay away! (more like privacy, to be left alone)
Freedom (again)
- ‘Freedom’ conceals different values (autonomy or absence of constraints or participation,
etc.);
o Depends on which value we put in the middle. Than the definition of freedom would
change.
- ‘Freedom’ for a conservative is not the same as ‘freedom’ for a liberal;
- People attribute different weight to different ‘aspects’ of freedom;
o Autonomy, constraints, participation.
o With that the meaning of freedom changes.
- There is nothing we could point at and say: ‘This is freedom’;
- Political use of ‘freedom’ is either aggressive/defensive
Democracy and the rule of law
- Democracy and the rule of law are focal points of disagreement; we use these concepts to
present our view on how society should be;
o What is the true democracy? There are many different forms and conceptions. They
belong to different views people have.
o Our views and representation can differ.
o Like what the ‘true’ democracy is.
- Even if we share a meaning of democracy or the rule of law, we may still disagree on how
they should be implemented;
o We can disagree about the implementation of democracy.
o Disagreement on the practical issues.
