Systemic Representation: Democracy, Deliberation, and Nonelectoral Representatives

Kuyper, Jonathan W.

doi:10.1017/s0003055416000095

Cited by 65 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…He identifies "recognition", "deliberation", and "representation" as among the "generic practices that serve democratic functions". We suggest that in mass democracies with a complex field of electoral and non-electoral representation (Kuyper 2016), the voicing of political positions and agenda-preferences, as well as "representative claims" (Saward 2006) by many actors in the system, all contribute to a citizen's evaluation of the degree and quality of recognition, deliberation, and representation in the polity.…”

Section: Authority Voice and Democratic Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Merkley¹,

Cutler²,

Quirk³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As studies using macro-level evidence have shown, citizens are more satisfied with democracy when they feel that their instrumental preferences are represented in government, and this feeling is more likely in non-majoritarian institutional contexts. Scholars have given less attention to whether such institutions also increase satisfaction by providing more inclusive political discourse. Citizens may value having their voice represented in politics, regardless of the resulting authority. This paper presents the first micro-level evidence of this mechanism by having subjects experience a simulated election campaign that manipulates both the political discourse and the outcome independently. We find that subjects were less satisfied with democracy when their party lost the election; but this effect disappeared when the campaign discourse had featured thorough discussion of an issue they felt was important. The findings suggest that institutions and party systems that provide more diverse voices may soften the blow of losing elections.

show abstract

Section: Authority Voice and Democratic Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Merkley¹,

Cutler²,

Quirk³

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whereas actors in both spaces may not harm those they affect, according to Jonathan Kuyper, they only owe democratic standing to those affected if they become subjected to coercive decision-making in the empowered space. This is so because only actors who can make coercive rules, laws, and decisions should become legitimate by being held responsible to deliberative capacity in a demanding sense, which requires the fulfillment of three criteria: inclusivity, authenticity, and consequentiality (Kuyper 2016, drawing heavily on Dryzek 2009). First, inclusion is considered essential, since without equal inclusion we may have 'deliberation but not deliberative democracy,' according to Kuyper (2016, p. 313).…”

Section: Competing Accounts: the Transmission Belt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, the criterion of consequentiality requires that the outcomes of deliberation 'reflect the process of deliberative preference formation' (Kuyper 2016, p. 313). In sum, insofar 11 Non-electoral representation usually refers to all actors who are not elected but still make representative claims (Kuyper 2016;Saward 2010). …”

Section: Competing Accounts: the Transmission Belt Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But even if certain feasibility constraints are implicitly presumed by the transmission belt model, these are never articulated and defended. The usual claim is that since global governance in our current world lacks electoral mechanisms, civil society may well act as nonelectoral representatives and pursue equivalent functions (Dryzek 2006(Dryzek , 2011Stevenson and Dryzek 2012;Kuyper 2016;Macdonald 2008;Scholte 2002Scholte , 2005Scholte , 2014. However, not only is this claim unsupported, the electoral/ non-electoral framework misses the essence of what is at stake, since it is not electoral mechanisms as such that are crucial from the standpoint of democracy, but political equality, i.e.…”

Section: What Is Wrong With the Transmission Belt Model?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This model depicts civil society as a transmission belt between the public sphere and decision-making loci-or in the terminology used by its proponents, between the public space and the empowered space-where it is assumed that civil society actors contribute to the strengthening of political legitimacy by transmitting peoples' preferences, beliefs, and opinions from the public space to the empowered space by either indirectly or directly influencing the decision-making Steffek 2004, 2008;Dryzek 2006Dryzek , 2011Stevenson and Dryzek 2012;Kuyper 2016;Bäckstrand 2006;. According to the function-sensitive approach, this picture is misleading and generates erroneous prescriptions of how civil society actors should act to increase political legitimacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Political Legitimacy of Global Governance and the Proper Role of Civil Society Actors

Erman

2017

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, two claims are made. The main claim is that a fruitful approach for theorizing the political legitimacy of global governance and the proper normative role of civil society actors is the so-called 'function-sensitive' approach. The underlying idea of this approach is that the demands of legitimacy may vary depending on function and the relationship between functions. Within this functionsensitive framework, six functions in global governance are analyzed and six principles of legitimacy defended, together constituting a minimalist account of political legitimacy. This account suggests that civil society actors may strengthen political legitimacy by performing five of these functions under certain conditions and insofar as the proposed normative political principles are fulfilled: problem identification, agenda-setting, implementation, enforcement and monitoring, and evaluation. The second claim is critical and is chiselled out against the backdrop of this function-sensitive account, through which I demonstrate that much vagueness and confusion with regard to the proper role of civil society actors for strengthening the political legitimacy of global governance could be traced to the so-called 'transmission belt' model, which has gained popularity in international political theory. This model depicts civil society as a transmission belt between the public sphere and decision-making loci, where it is assumed that civil society actors contribute to the strengthening of political legitimacy by transmitting peoples' preferences, beliefs, and opinions from the former to the latter space by indirectly or directly influencing the decision-making. It is argued that this picture is misleading and generates erroneous prescriptions of how civil society actors should act to increase political legitimacy.

show abstract

Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era

Kuyper

Linnér

Schroeder

2017

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we outline the multifaceted roles played by non-state actors within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and place this within the wider landscape of global climate governance. In doing so, we look at both the formation and aftermath of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We argue that the Paris Agreement cements an architecture of hybrid multilateralism that enables and constrains non-state actor participation in global climate governance. We flesh out the constitutive features of hybrid multilateralism, enumerate the multiple positions non-state actors may employ under these conditions, and contend that non-state actors will play an increasingly important role in the post-Paris era. To substantiate these claims, we assess these shifts and ask how non-state actors may affect the legitimacy, justice, and effectiveness of the Paris Agreement. © 2017 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Clim Change 2018, 9:e497. doi: 10.1002/wcc.497 INTRODUCTIONT he Paris Agreement now stands at the center of efforts by the international community to address the threats associated with climatic change. Within this Agreement-built upon the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)-non-state actors will play an increasingly important role. The presence and prominence of non-state actors within the Paris Agreement mirrors a broader shift across the international climate governance landscape in which nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business groups, think tanks, trade unions, private governance arrangements, transnational networks, and substate authorities assume active roles in limiting the negative effects of global warming. 1,2 This conceptualization of non-state actors includes civil society, business, research groups, and substate authorities. We prefer this expansive definition as it fits alongside the definition of nonparty stakeholders employed by the UNFCCC (see also Ref 3).In this article, we focus on how the Paris Agreement further deepens and complicates the connections between multilateralism and non-state action. It does so by creating an architecture that we call 'hybrid multilateralism' that splices together state and nonstate actors (on the usage of this term, see traits: state-led action defined and stipulated by the parties through their own nationally determined contributions (NDCs) as well as efforts by the UNFCCC to orchestrate transnational climate efforts. In both instances, non-state actors are formally and informally woven into the Paris Agreement performing a range of different and increasingly important functions. Non-state actors will act as watchdogs of the NDCs enhancing transparency, facilitating the stocktakes, and pressuring for the ratcheting up of NDCs every 5 years. Likewise non-state actors will act as contributors and governing partners through orchestration as they are encouraged by the Agreement 'to scale up their climate actions, and [register] those actions in the Non-State A...

show abstract

Systemic Representation: Democracy, Deliberation, and Nonelectoral Representatives

Cited by 65 publications

References 41 publications

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

Having their Say: Authority, Voice, and Satisfaction with Democracy

The Political Legitimacy of Global Governance and the Proper Role of Civil Society Actors

Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About