Theme 1 Conceptual Basis PDF

Theme 1 CONCEPTUAL BASIS  CONCEPTS:  DEMOCRACY: TYPES OF DEMOCRACY, AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION  GLOBALIZATION, PUBLIC SPACE  E-GOVERNMENT Snow, D.A.; Soule, S.A.; Kriesi, H. (2004). Mapping the Terrain. En Snow, D.A.; Soule, S.A.; Kriesi, H. (Eds.). The Blackwell Companionto Social...

Theme 1 CONCEPTUAL BASIS  CONCEPTS:  DEMOCRACY: TYPES OF DEMOCRACY, AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION  GLOBALIZATION, PUBLIC SPACE  E-GOVERNMENT Snow, D.A.; Soule, S.A.; Kriesi, H. (2004). Mapping the Terrain. En Snow, D.A.; Soule, S.A.; Kriesi, H. (Eds.). The Blackwell Companionto Social Movements. Oxford.Blackwell. pp. 3-16. 1. Concepts:  Our societies could be defined as movement societies (Meyer and Tarrow, 1998).  Democracy is in the Streets, (James Miller, 1994). Historical account of ideas and movement in the 60’s  Increase of participation on demonstrations and social movements in western societies between 80-90’s  Naturally, increase from academic /scholar lenses (journals, volumes …) and extensive literature.  But there are several concepts:  Collective/Joint action: any goal-directed activity engaged in jointly by two or mode individuals. A common objective through joint action. institutionalized or not.  Tarrow (1998:3):Collective action which no only “takes many forms- brief or sustained , institutionalized or disruptive, humdrum or dramatic “but most of it occurs within institutions on the part of constituted groups acting in the name of goals that would hardly raise an eyebrow”  Collective behavior, extra-institutional/non-institutionalized activity in which several people voluntarily engage for changed-oriented goals.  Group-problem solving behavior ranging from protest demonstrations, behavior in disasters, to mass or diffuse phenomena ()fads, crazes…) to social movements and even revolutions.  There are four primary forms of collective behavior: The crowd, The mass, the public, the SMs.  The crowd: a large number of people in close proximity. Examples include a group of people attending a Neil Young concert, attending Canada Day festivities, or joining a worship service.  Turner and Killian (1993) identified four types of crowds.  Casual crowds consist of people who are in the same place at the same time, but who are not really interacting, such as people standing in line at the post office.  Conventional crowds are those who come together for a scheduled event, like a religious service or rock concert.  Expressive crowds are people who join together to express emotion, often at funerals, weddings, or the like.  The final type, acting crowds, focus on a specific goal or action, such as a protest movement or riot.  The mass: a relatively large and dispersed number of people with a common interest, whose members are largely unknown to one another and who are incapable of acting together in a concerted way to achieve objectives. In this sense, the audience of the television show Game of Thrones or of any mass medium (TV, radio, film, books) is a mass. SHARED INTERESTS  The public: an unorganized, relatively diffused group of people who share ideas on an issue, such as “social conservatives”. SHARED IDEAS  While these two types are similar, they are not the same. To distinguish between them, remember that members of a mass share interests whereas members of a public share ideas. Ex. Mass media vs Public Opinion Interest Groups: Lobbys  In the European Union, by 2015, an estimation of 20.000 y 30.000 lobbys  They are working in Brussels in favor of large European corporations  There are 11,327 organizations registered in this institution, the Transparency Register of the European Union.  Mostly based in Belgium (2,187), Germany (1,503), United Kingdom (1,156), France (1,121) and Italy (841).  United States has 379 companies registered in  In this registry there are also Canadian (24), Turkish (24), Japanese (21), Russian (14) and Brazilian (10) companies. China, Australia and Israel are the non-European countries that have fewer companies in Linkthe to registry, and their number is nine. transparency: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/es/transparency/lobby-gro  Interest Groups: Overlapping with social movements, but with important differences. INTEREST GROUPS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS Generally defined in relation to Beyond polity and to other geverment o polity authorities , spheres… Embedded within the political arena Tipically outside polity, Legitimate actors Less access or recognition Use of institutional means for their Use of mainly noninstitutional goals means Lobbying, Soliciting campaign Boycotts, Sit-ins, Conducting contributions marches However, they may overlap at times:  SM and Interest groups might even form alliances to press their joint interests  SM might evolved into interest groups and even into political parties Social movements as challengers to or defenders of existing authority:  They may attempt to promote or resist change in a society or group “fostering or halting change”  Social Movements: are also considered as a variant of “contentious politics” Collective political struggle, disruptive techniques, that is episodic, in the sense of not being regularly scheduled on the political docket Public, in the sense of excluding claim-making that occurs within well bounded organizations Manifestly political as the goverment is involved as claimant, target o mediator Some example…. And much better alligned with influential actors SOCIAL MOVEMENT: Degree of organization: There is absolute no question about the fact that SMO (social movement organization) activity is organized in some way or another There are different forms and (single SM, Networked SMO), degrees of organizations from tightly couple to loosely coupled This form organization changes in relation to its temporal evolution Degree of temporal continuity: There is a great variability in the SMO careers or life course , some last for a very short time, while other endure for decades, and even they alternated from periods of heightened activisms and dormancy   Today’s sessión: Definition of  Give examples of social movements: social movement Let’s try Anarchism Anti-nuclear Disarmament movements Civil rights Women liberation Disability rights Environmental Gay/les/Bi/Queer Nationalism AIDS Activism SMs Definitions: Let’s try!!  Collectivities acting with some degree of organization and continuity outside of institutional or organized channels for the purpose of challenging or defending authority, whether it is institutionally or culturally based, in the group organization, society, culture or world order of which they are part SMs Definitions: Let’s try!!  Collectivity having a group identity and a set of constitutive ideas. Social movement attempts to bring about fundamental changes in the social order especially in property and labour relations.  Insum, social movements derive from institutional inadequacies in a given society (Heberle, R. (1951). Social Movements: An Introduction to Political Sociology, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts). SMs Definitions: Let’s try!! A large grouping of people who have become involved in seeking to accomplish, or to block, a process of social change. Social movements normally exist in relations of conflict with organizations whose objectives and outlook they frequently oppose. However, movements which successfully challenge for power, once they become institutionalized, can develop into organizations (Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology. London: Polity Press). Identifying types of collective action/behavior/SMO ( class activity with images) 2. DEMOCRACY AND POLITICAN PARTICIPATION Fuchs, D.; Zittel, T. (2007). Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back in?. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.  Legitimacy crisis of occidental democracies : Liberal democracy Diminishing participation rates in election Citizenship frustration  Political system complexity, institutional limitations to grassroots initiatives  Our societies’ sizes  Political class alienation Why?  There is not one-size-fits all approaches to addressing the challenges of democracy (a complex society)  Emergence of new forms to get over the lack of legitimacy in occidental democracies based on the benefits of greater citizens’ participation  Social movements have develop a new conception of democracy, shifting their endeavors from politics to meta-politics. What kind of society do we want? https://infographics.economist.com/2018/ And currently?? https ://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/?utm_source=economist-dai ly-chart&utm_medium=anchor&utm_campaign=democracy-index-2020&utm_con tent=anchor-1 Different links to look through Democracy Index https:// www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/09/a-new-low-for-global-democracy https:// www.economistgroup.com/press-centre/economist-intelligence/eius-2023-democr acy-index-conflict-and-polarisation-drive-a-new-low-for European Values Survey https://europeanvaluesstudy.eu/about-evs/research-topics/politics/ https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSEVSjoint2017.jsp https://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/ Gallup Podcast on US decline on trust https:// news.gallup.com/podcast/398246/driving-declining-trust-institutions.aspx Representative democracy vs Participative democracy LIBERAL/REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:  Freedom with economic roots  Delegation to representative who can be controlled only at the moment of election, and who have total authority to decide between one election and another  Democracy as a system of aggregated individual preferences  Dismiss the popular voice, in favor of mass political parties  Itconceives the citizens as individuals to be educated /socialized in a given social order DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: (Della porta, D., Diani, M. (2006).Social Movements and Democracy. En Della porta, D., Diani, M. Social Movements. An Introduction. BLACKWELL PUBLISHING. Pp. 223-243).  This links with the greater interest in deliberative democracy , meaning also a better quality of communication  Habermas: double track process, with informal deliberation taking place outside institutions and then, as it becomes public opinion, affect institutional deliberation.  Social movements could build deliberative spaces that can keep a critical eye upon public institutions. And if SMOs are committed to this role, then deliberative democracy requires citizens “embedded” in associative networks DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY: (Della porta and Diani,2006).  A deliberative process takes place under conditions of plurality of values, and perspective but with common problems  A process by which initial preferences are transformed in order to take into account the points of view of the others “While not giving up my perspective I might learn it I listen to another” (Young, 1996).  It replace the language of interest with the language of reason (rational argumentations)  The consensus takes place upon common /shared values  It should allow the acquisition of better information and produce more efficient decisions, fostering participation and institutional trust PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY:  DIRECT DEMOCRACY FROM ATHENA’S ORIGIN  There is a broad range of practices within this ideal: REFERENDUMS, POPULAR ASEMBLIES, DIGITAL DEMOCRACY, ETC. the idea of the Agora Participatory democracy  Direct democracy: 3 desirable characteristics : participación , deliberation, equality,  It provides channels for democractic participation: improving people’s possiblities to participate in policy making  Citizens benefit from being politically active  It is a long-standing project  Increase confidence and abilities of those who take part , and a suitable arena for the development of social movements  Increases social integration and legitimacy  Della porta, D., Diani, M. (2006).Social Movements and Democracy. (Della porta and Diani,2006). Liberal, organized democracy Direct democracy,, collective decision Realist, liberal, elite, republican or making representative democracy… Classical, populist, communitarian, strong, grassroots… Mediation by political parties Authority is delegated on an “issue by Structuring and representation of the issue” basis “strong interest” Inclusive: individual plurality of Delegation of power preferences and interest on common problems reach decisions oriented to the public good Oligarchy power on a whole range of All participants are equals matters, different hierarchy of powers Direct rank-and-file participation Aggregation of preferences Citizen elect their representatives and Political Responsiveness exercise control through the vote, by Principles of accountability the threat of not being reelected at next elections Liberal, organized democracy Direct democracy,, collective decision Realist, liberal, elite, republican or making representative democracy… Classical, populist, communitarian, strong, grassroots… Language of interests by the position of Language of reason: convincement by power the better argument Formal equality (one person, one vote) Participatory (being recognized by one’s commitment to the public cause) Bureaucratic top “specialized body of Decentralised as near as possible to representatives ordinary peoples’ lives Vertical flow of communication Horizontal flow of communication Unidirectional communication Quality of communication: interactive Few (oligarchic) producers of content Multiple producers of content Mistrust, political alienation Generates trust in institutions Participation vicious circle Font y col (2006) People will only participate if the Difficult to see the participatory process is widely impact, visible, if they it does not imply a results loss waste of time, if they can express their opinions freely and if they perceive that effectively, Does not promote greater Lack of motivatio Participation is based activism or SMOs n on a education/socializatio n process. CRITICS TO/DOUBTS ABOUT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: (Fuchs and Zittel, 2007).  It can be an initiative of the elite to recuperate the loose of legitimacy  The creation of new bottom-up initiatives will spur mainly those who are already political active. Assemblies tend to be dominated by small minorities that often strategically exploit the weaknesses of direct democracy with open manipulation.  Equality is distributed among the most committed or better organized and even solidarity links tend to exclude newcomers (Della porta and Diani,2006). CRITICS TO/DOUBTS ABOUT PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: (Fuchs and Zittel, 2007).  Therelation between the institutional frame and the possible outputs is complex. For instance: In Switzerland or California the greater opportunities for political participation has not provoked higher rates of participation  Greater political participation does not bring greater quality of political institutions or system.  Thepractical functioning of participatory organizational structures is much less than perfect. Slowdown in management And what about E- government? Soon, Shulman, Sandoval and Hovy, 2010. Government 2.0: Making Connections between Citizens, Data and Government. nformation Polity 15(1,2):1-9.  Digital government or e-government is a new form of public organization that supports and redefines the existing and new information, communication and transaction-related interactions with stakeholders (citizens, business, etc) through ITC with the purpose of improving government performace and proceses.  Evolution: 1st phase: Digital presence: information providing web sites of a passive nature. Digitalization of government information Mo der on nizati 2nd Phase: Web-base interaction of goverment with citizens, business and other fr “pa om agencies through email contact and interactive forms that can provide information bas per needed. ed “di ” to gi bas tal e” 3rd Phase: Online transaction services: license renewal, tax payments, etc Information delivery model” and “public administrative process automation model” Fast and convenient 7/24 access to government information and services The information in these stages has been flowing in one direction Web 1.0-based e-government or Government 1.0.  4th Phase: Share Governance: transforming how the government operates in terms of seamless information flow and collaborative decisión making operate  Itrequires a meaningfull dialog between government and citizens and among citizens  To promote collaborative decisión making process  Opern government or Government 2.0 = participatory model of e-government = E-democracy??? E-government or government 2.0: Principles and requirements Transparent Participate Open Collaborate Government Three Principles for an Open Government E-government/government 2.0: Principles and requirements  Transparency: providing the citizenry with information about what the government is doing , increasing accountability  Participation: increasing opportunities for the public to participate in policymaking and to provide government with the collective knowledge, ideas, and expertise of the population. It will enhance Government’s effectiveness and the quality of its decisions  Collaboration : Creating partnerships and cooperation among stakeholders, different level of governments  Web 2.0 Technologies refers to a collection of social media through which individuals are active participants in creating, organizing, editing, combining, sharing, commenting and rating web content as well as forming a social netwok through interacting and linking to each other Blogs, wikis, social networking hub (Facebook, myspace…) web-based communication modes (chatting, chat groups) Photo sharing (flickr), video casting and sharing (youtube), audio-sharing (Pod-casts) mashuos, widgets, virtual worlds, microblogs (twitter) social annotation and bookmarking of websites, and many more  The social media for the Goverment 2.0  canbe considered as a disruptive technology, disruptive innovation,  beausethe government needs to develop new strategies and models for how to use these enabling technologies to achieve transformation of every aspect of government, such us service provision, decision and policy making, administration, governance, and democracy.  Theuse of this technology extends the notion of participatory democracy Research and exploring topics  How to facilitate citizen engagement in online debates for e- democracy  How to analyze the immense data collected through crowd participation to be appropriately used for policy making;  How to integrate data from different sources without endangering privacy, and how to manage identity where social Web data can be linked easily  How to alleviate the problem of “noisy” data and extract the high quality data from the mass participation and content production. The case of E-stonia. https://www.fpri.org/article/2018/02/e-democracy-european-union-lessons-estonia/  In 1997, when Estonia first began building its digital society through an e-governance system, the general population had limited access to the internet.  20 years later, the possibilities offered by digital technologies seem endless. With Estonia’s subsequent introduction of e-taxes, internet voting, e-healthcare, and, most recently, e-residency, 99.5% of all public services are now available online.  Estonia is considered as an international trailblazer in digital solutions. In 2017, the Wired magazine called the country “the most advance digital society in the world” E-solutions are integral to Estonia’s identity, and the country is keen to maintain its image as the world’s digital pioneer.  In early 2017, the European Parliament published a report “On e-democracy in the European Union: Potential and Challenges,” which discussed methods to support traditional democratic systems through information and communications technology (ICT). By using these so-called e-democracy tools to increase the public’s participation in EU-level decision-making processes, lawmakers aim to decrease the “democratic deficit” within the bloc. Estonia hightlights  First, e-solutions will only work if people trust the system.  Second, extensive coordination both in planning and resource allocation  Discussion surrounding e-democracy: validity and credibility.  Estonia’s internet voting system offers an example. Despite the system being used extensively (in the October 2017 municipal elections, more than 180,000 people— about 15% of the electorate—cast their vote electronically) and demonstrating no reason for concern, e-government is criticized from time to time for not being sufficiently credible. There are two common arguments from opponents of e-voting: validity and credibility is necessary. 3. GLOBALIZATION, PUBLIC SPACE AND FORMS OF GOVERNANCE Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance, Annals, AAPSS, 616, pp. 78-93.  The public sphere: an Essential component of Sociopolitical organization.  It Is the space where people come together as citizens and articulate their autnomous views to influence in political institutions  Tradictional type: phisical space (public spaces, universites , cultural institutions, informal networks of public opinon.  Industrial society/network society: these spaces are covered by the media and media communication networks.  The society of platforms CIVIL SOCIETY:  Civil society: the organized expression of different points of views  An important role in fostering democratic transitions and facilitating democratic consolidation.  Actors who populate civil society – from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and new social movements to the more traditional interest groups emphasized in the pluralist framework.  Liberal (Locke) vs Gramsci vision of civil society: “state or not state” GLOBALIZATION Global public sphere:  In a international arena there is a space shaped by variable geometry of relations between stated and global nonstate actors expressing themselves (multinational business, world religions, cultural creators, public intellectualls, etc…)  It includes global market, global media, global cultures, and all issues of humankind  (enviromentalism,  human rights-migration,  security, etc.)  But not everybody is globalized, as networks connect and disconnect  A gap between global (the content of issues) and nation state (the space of the issues) has 4 different and interrrelated political crisis: Crisis of efficiency: problems cannot be adequately managed Crisis of legitimacy: election to office no longer denotes a specific mandate. Furthermore, media politics and politics of scandal deepen this crisis, growing the distrust of citizens on political parties, politicians, and institutions Crisis of identity: resistance identity and cultural identity politics (political decisión making) vs political identity as citizens Crisis of equity: market forces increases inequality between countries and social groups. Absence of global regulatory frame. Srinking welfare state. State have greater difficulty to compensate inequality globaly produced THE GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY:  Emergence of non-governmental actors:  The advocates of needs, interests, values of people  a mileu of organizations , projects, practices that nurture global civil society  a model or strategy for global democracy and democratization.  Networked State GLOBAL GOVERNANCE AND THE NETWORK STATE Progresivelly nation states confront issues object of their governance to ad hoc processes of global governance Nation state governance mange through three mechanisms:  Nation state associate with each other, formig multi-purpose and constitutionally defined networks of states,where they share sovereingty. EU, NAFTA, Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation APEC, etc.  States may build an increasingly dense network of international institutions and supranational organizations to deal with global issues, from general purpose institutions: (UN) to specialized ones (IMF, World Bank, NATO, etc).  States may also decentralized power and resources in an effort to increase legitimacy and/or attempt to tap other forms of cultural or political allegiance through the devolution of power to local and regional governments and to NGOs that extend the decision making process in civil society So, the NETWORK STATE emerges :  Share sovereingty and responsability, flexibility of procedures of governance.  Diversity of relations with citizens in terms of space and time.  Sometimes contradictory rules and institutions obscure the system of political representation.  Iflocal and regional institutions play a role, legitimacy may improve, though can bring institutional/political competition.