English Many proponents of interactive policy making view citizen consultations as a ‘rational deliberation between equals’. Power, authority, rhetoric and emotions are considered to be obstructive factors. In this article it is argued that interactive policy settings are characterised by status and authority hierarchies and affect dynamics. First, two types of deliberative bodies are introduced: citizen forums and stakeholder committees. Next, eight possible power and emotion dynamics are distinguished, including problems maintaining facilitative authority, trust-building work of experts, occurrence of charisma, persisting fear and distrust, hope turning into disappointment, and increasing mutual recognition. The last sections examine in which respects these dynamics occur in the two types of deliberative organisation.

For the past two or three decades many jurisdictions have experienced a pluralisation of policing. In addition to the regular public police, in most countries new providers have become involved in policing public and semi-public places. This paper deals with the differences in the ways that plural policing and its consequences are defined and assessed in different countries. The paper focuses on two countries that differ considerably in the impact of neoliberalism, Austria and Canada-Ontario. In these countries different discourses are used to assess plural policing and its potential negative impact. In Canada the public good is the central concept in discussions of plural policing. This often refers to instrumental goals such as value for money and service delivery to consumers. In Austria plural policing is generally discussed in terms of the tasks and position of the state, the monopoly of violence, and by referring to constitutional and fundamental legal perspectives. This study shows that international comparative research on (plural) policing cannot be based on the tacit assumption that central concepts such as public good have universal relevance. On the contrary, these normative concepts are highly context dependent, an important conclusion for future international comparative research on policing and security.

No abstract

No abstract

There seems to be a pervasive trend towards public apologies, forms of national introspection and appeals to grant forgiveness. Archbishop Tutu’s motto that 'there is no future without forgiveness' is well known. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission has become an important model and source of inspiration for many other countries that want to deal with their past grievances and internal conflicts. This book discusses the role of forgiveness within processes of peace building and transitional justice. Does ‘forgiveness’ enable a public or political use of the term? Is it possible to forgive on behalf of others, and if so, under what conditions? These conceptual questions are related to reflections on the cultural and religious contexts of expressing forgiveness. Do forgiving words promote a willingness to look ahead and prevent a relapse into conflicting views on the poisonous past? Or do they bring along aversion? Maybe the ‘push’ towards forgiveness is experienced as highly unfair.