Week 2 Slides (1) PDF

LAW, DEMOCRACY AND JURISPRUDENCE JUR 310 CRITICAL READING STRATEGIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Preview: Learn about a text before really reading it. Contextualize: Place a text in its historical, biographical, and cultural contexts. Formulate questions to understand and remember: Ask questions about the...

LAW, DEMOCRACY AND JURISPRUDENCE JUR 310 CRITICAL READING STRATEGIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Preview: Learn about a text before really reading it. Contextualize: Place a text in its historical, biographical, and cultural contexts. Formulate questions to understand and remember: Ask questions about the content as you read, especially at the end of a section. Outline and summarize: Entails identifying the main ideas and restating them in your own words. Evaluating an argument: Testing the logic of a text through evaluating its claims as well as its credibility by assessing the supporting reasons and evidence put forward. Compare and contrast related readings: Exploring likenesses and differences between texts to understand them better. Reflect on how the reading challenges (or affirms) your own beliefs and values: Examine your personal responses to what you have read. Do agree or disagree with the text? Why? Adapted from a document posted by Salisbury University Counseling Center at http://www.salisbury.edu/counseling/new/7_critical_reading_strategies RECAP CONCEPTUALISING DEMOCRACY What is democracy’  The meaning of democracy is contested, therefore no one size-fits all definition  According the Roux’s description of democracy, we can identify, some key ideas with which democracy is concerned  It’s of relevance to COLLECTIVES  Regulation or mediation of DECISION-MAKING  The exercise of POWER  From the perspective of constitutional law or political theory, democracy is most commonly associated with exercise formal state power.  Statist approach tends to be TOP-DOWN in orientation  Beyond civil and political rights, statist conceptions of democracy, often do not associate democracy with substantive justice claims relating to social, economic and / or cultural goods. E.g. healthcare, education, housing, water, clean air etc. “DECOLONISING AND RE- THEORISING THE MEANING OF DEMOCRACY: A SOUTH AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE”  Authors: Heidi Brooks, Trevor Ngwane & Carin Runciman – all social scientists based at the University of Johannesburg (UJ) with affiliations to Centre for Social Change at some point in their research. The Centre for Social Change is dedicated towards the study of social change from below in pursuit of building socially just and democratic societies.  The focus of the article  Examines conceptions of democracy in post-apartheid South Africa from perspective of ordinary people (with focus on isiZulu speaking people’ s conceptions in isiZulu) and how these conceptions are influenced by grassroots mobilization in community protests.  Draws attention to the tensions between grassroots understandings and visions of democracy and those of elites, namely the governing African National Congress (ANC).  Illuminates the substantive crisis of democracy and proffers alternative imaginations of democracy from below. CONTESTED CONCEPTIONS: DEMOCRACY “FROM ABOVE” VERSUS DEMOCRACY “FROM BELOW” Foundational premise: There exists in post-apartheid South Africa a crisis of meaning and content as far as democracy is concerned. “[t]here is a difference between the governing party’s conceptualisation of democracy ‘from above’ and the understandings and practices of citizens ‘from below” – Baba Nhlapo “The article seeks to show how the very experience of the struggle for democracy itself can imprint in important ways on citizens’ expectations of its theory and practice. The article thus responds to the decolonisation movement by seeking to ‘de-centre’ normative understandings of democracy often constructed on the basis of Western histories” (p 18)  Despite the dominance of western theory, it is NB to understand to relate understandings of democracy to lived experiences of struggle [for democracy].  Who or what is democracy for? FRAMING OF THE STUDY – 3 INTERSECTING PERSPECTIVES ON DEMOCRACY – A DECOLONIAL APPROACH 1. Ngwane - What is democracy in isiZulu, taking into account the role of history and political change in shaping these popular conceptions? 2. Ngwane and Runcina - examines the meanings attached to democracy by people involved in community protests (nature and quality of democracy) 3. Brooks – the development of democratic thought in the ANC drawn from historic documents, statements and commentary of the ANC.  The decolonial approach adopted does not demand a rejection of liberal democracy, but is concerned with prevailing tendency towards exclusion / omission of popular, local conceptions of democracy as 'theory and practice' which have been shaped in the popular imagination by struggle. (see discussion on hybridity – p 20)  Popular understandings of democracy are not mere translations or abstractions, but their content is also the product of struggles on the ground in the past (under apartheid) and the present (post-apartheid).  Democracy, here, like liberation is not an event! “UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW” Language matters - translating democracy, giving it meaning “In isiZulu, rather than democracy being named ‘umbuso wabantu’ (meaning: rule by the people or rule of the people), it became ‘intando yeningi’ (meaning: will of the majority or, by implication, rule by the majority)” Influenced by struggle for universal franchise – ‘one man, one vote’ (sic) Discussion suggests that the conditions of struggle influenced the translation and conception of democracy, (but begs the question of whether there is/was never before indigenous isiZulu conception of democracy, beyond scope of present discussion) NB point however is the politically close association of democracy with struggle and the tangible benefits of successful struggle. “UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW” Democracy as the practice of Freedom “a conception of democracy related not only to civil and political rights but to socioeconomic freedoms and collective decision making.” (p 21) Conceptualised thus, democracy is: Not a destination marked by acquiring civil and political rights Is concerned with ongoing fight against inequality Is concerned with ongoing fight to attain of socio-economic goods / rights According to Brook et al, this “is a a reclaimed and decolonised meaning of freedom.” (p 22), which must be contrasted with the post-apartheid neoliberal reality – “a thin form of freedom” (p 23) “UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW” “Hai, man!... we don’t have democracy! They talking about the 20 years democracy, for them not for us! Ja, for them, not for us. We still struggling. We still struggling... you see if we are in democracy there’s no more shack, here... No more bucket system... we supposed to have the roads, everything! A better education... I’m staying with my family, we stay eight! In two rooms. There is a democracy?... No, there is not a democracy! They have, these people in Constantia, Tableview, Parklands, they have a democracy, not for us!” Mama Zwane from Khayelitsha (p 23) DEMOCRACY BEYOND THE STATE – LIBERATION HISTORIES AND DEMOCRACY  Colonial disenfranchisement of the Black majority produced notable consequences for development of extra-state democratic practices and cultures of organization and struggle  Formation of liberation movements, trade unions and civic organisations – promoting democracy also tended to prioritize unity / solidarity whilst collapsing difference.  Mass mobilization, bottom up control, accountability and internal democracy (c.f. pyramid structures with predominantly middle class leadership)  United Democratic Front (UDF) and ‘people’s power’ – emphasizing grassroots participation and consensus decision-making before ANC co-potation / usurpation.  Contrast this with….  ANC’s (both in exile and recent history) own self-understanding as the vanguard  Representative, top-down mode of organization and practice promoting idea of democratic centralism TENSION BETWEEN DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW AND DEMOCRACY FROM ABOVE - MASS MOVEMENT TRADITIONS VERSUS GOVERNING  Article highlights the differences that has become entrenched between the content and practices of democracy forged of struggle versus those that have come to characterize post-apartheid state of democratically elected elites.  The reformist class compromise of South Africa’s transition and subsequent adoption of a predominantly neoliberal agenda have directly pitted the ANC against the masses, including its Alliance partners. Ironically, while bottom-up traditions of grassroots organisation and the notion of people’s power emerged from the ANC camp, the ANC’s own conception of democracy as governing party has gradually become that from ‘above’. (p 28) WENDY BROWN “WHY IS DEMOCRACY SO HARD?” Wendy Brown (born 1955) is a distinguished American political theorist and Professor Emerita of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. Brown’s fields of interest include the history of political theory, feminist theory, contemporary critical theories of law, nineteenth and twentieth century Continental theory, and contemporary American political culture. FOCUS OF THE LECTURE Engages the work of Erik Olin Wright, a famous Marxist sociologist whose later work was renowned for presenting visions of the possibilities of the actualisation of a socialist democracy. In particular, the challenges of Wright’s conception of democracy based on his merging Tocqueville’s and Marx’s theories on democracy and economics respectively. Reflects on what would need to happen to make ecological social democracy possible beyond reconfiguring the structures institutions and processes of liberal democracy and capitalism. ON CONTEXT AND STYLE University of California, Berkeley Memorial Lecture for Erik Olin Wright Erik Orlin Wright (February 9, 1947 – January 23, 2019) Real Utopias Project “We live in an era of diminished expectations and, perhaps, diminished imagination. To most intellectuals the idea that the social world could be fundamentally changed in ways that would dramatically reduce the enormous inequalities in the world today and create the conditions in which all people could live flourishing lives seems naive, perhaps even ridiculous. Capitalism reigns triumphant and at least in the developed capitalist world talk of socialism as an alternative has almost disappeared. I believe this radical pessimism and cynicism is itself a constraint on possibilities for creating a more just and humane world. Gramsci once described the struggle for social justice as requiring “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” I believe in the world today we need an optimism of the intellect as well: an optimism grounded in our understanding of the real potentials for emancipatory alternatives which can inform our practical strategies for social transformation. This is the basic goal of the Real Utopias Project. Erik Orlin Wright, 2010 POSTHUMOUSLY ENGAGING A WOULD-BE, ALMOST FELLOW-TRAVELLER  Identifying some common ground “Influenced by Students for a Democratic Society and shaped academically by radical democrats along with radical economists, I have long been something of a “Tocquevillian Marxist” (as Dylan Riley characterized Wright), where collective control of conditions of existence is as important a political goal as elimination of poverty and exploitation. Wright names this dimension of his political program “empowerment” or “empowered deliberative democracy.” I prefer the language of freedom. The latter underscores Marx’s own commitment to emancipation, reminds us that freedom as collective self-determination is one of Marxism’s deep promises, and redeems freedom from its hijacking by liberalism, not to mention neoliberalism.” (p 540) Shared common commitments on collective emancipatory democratic politics and the pursuit of economic emancipation. POSTHUMOUSLY ENGAGING A WOULD-BE, ALMOST FELLOW-TRAVELLER  Establishing some important points of critical distance  Brown expresses a deep unease with Wright’s ‘marrying’ of Tocqueville and Marx  “[t]he problem is that Tocqueville could barely name let alone theorize capitalism, and Marx gave little attention to democracy…” (p 540)  Indeed, both concerned with grounds for establishing and securing the common good, but came it from different places  Tocqueville spoke to need for a political culture foregrounding the collective prioritisation of the common good over prevailing preoccupation with individual interest.  Marx's views of what emancipation would entail spoke to harnessing economic power for the common good – collective ownership of the means of production. POSTHUMOUSLY ENGAGING A WOULD-BE, ALMOST FELLOW-TRAVELLER  Brown’s main point of disjuncture with Wright is their respective methods of analysis, and most fundamentally their diagnosis of the problem and where ‘solutions’ might be find’  Unlike Wright, I have always been drawn intellectually to the dark, to ambiguity and paradox, to probing the overdetermination of our predicaments and possibilities. (genealogical approach) (p 540) versus  [M]uch of Wright’s analysis is alien to me, as is his admirable clarity and abiding sunniness. (analytical approach) (p 541)  Brown disavows Wright’s optimism that proposes a hopeful, rational path to socialist democracy in spite of real challenges faced by historically derived social and political conditions – an abdication of one scholarly-intellectual responsibility! WHY DOES THE LEFT REPEATEDLY FAIL TO REALISE ITS ASPIRATIONS OF A JUST, EMANCIPATED, MODESTLY EGALITARIAN, AND DEMOCRATIC WORLD?  Brown asks  “Why, as we now stare hard into what could be genuine end-times—100 seconds to midnight—have humans so little to show in the way of creating just orders that twin freedom and equality and protect the conditions of existence itself? Why do we repeatedly fail?” (p 542)  Some easy, but unsatisfactory answers  Power is not on our side - economically and hence politically dominant classes monopolize everything  Left vision is wrong and out of touch with what people desire.  Left is just strategically stupid—insufficiently unified, crafty, or realistic about power. Maybe left is too ‘anti’ or oppositional without offering enough of a counter ‘vision’  Maybe some bits of truths, but not the real answer to the question of why the left fails. ACHIEVING AND SUSTAINING DEMOCRACY IS A HARD PATH TO TRAVEL  “I want to pose yet another possibility for our enduring failure, which is that we are traveling the hardest path. It is not that we are delusional about The Good, terribly naive about human nature, or especially vulnerable to the interests of extant powers but that what we aspire to — arrangements that are just, sustainable, democratic, and free — is vastly more difficult to achieve and sustain, than, for example, capitalism combined with liberalism, plutocracy, or authoritarianism.” (p 543)  Historically, establishing the conditions for democracy has never been easy let alone come naturally. Once established, sustaining it is even harder.  See discussion of Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (p 543-4)  According to Tocqueville, key to sustaining democracy was the deliberate construction of a democratic culture, alongside laws and institutions. (ECOLOGICAL SOCIAL) DEMOCRACY’S CHALLENGES  For democracy to be realized for all, Brown suggests that there are certain substantive concerns that it must find answers to certain key challenges.  Ironically, political will and economic modelling not the most difficult to surmount!  Ecological requirements present profound complexity – demands changes in daily organization and consumption patterns of life  Democracy requirement - the actual practice of democracy itself - “the continuous practice of shaping our common existence in common, of ruling ourselves rather than being ruled by others” (p 546)  Confronting global nature of power - “how to balance need to address global powers and predicaments, whilst also pursuing local participation and control.”  How to balance “the problem of pressing for a universal form of social justice and sustainability while affirming diverse cultures, theologies, social forms, political histories, and challenges around the globe.” (ECOLOGICAL SOCIAL) DEMOCRACY’S MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS  Political equality  Political culture “The minimal requirements for democracy I have been discussing—political equality secured by protected universal enfranchisement and social and economic floors, universal and politically relevant public education, unowned and accountable media, transparent and accountable political institutions, severe restraints on concentrated interests, and a political culture oriented toward the public good—index everything missing in electoral democracies today. They also remind us how unnatural, nonautomatic, and nontechnical a political form democracy is. Each required element must be intentionally crafted, supported, protected, and renewed. Each is endangered by ordinary tendencies of political power to concentrate and centralize and by ordinary practices of political actors to manipulate, manage, and hide. None emanates from individual, market, or even social interests, only from a commitment to democracy.” (p 550) DEMOCRACY IS OUR ONLY VIABLE COMMON FUTURE Despite, the difficulties and challenges the pursuit of democracy poses, Brown is very clear on it being the only defensible option towards a just, equitable and common future. “Democracy remains the only political form that is both generative of a people’s care for the common and makes power accountable. It is likely the only way to make an ecological socialism stable, secure, and nonrepressive precisely because it makes humans responsible to and for the world. It is therefore not optional” (p 551) Democracy does not happen naturally nor easily, it is a long term project that can only be sustained through deliberate effort confront present challenges and from the imagining new futures. HOW DO THE TWO READINGS RELATE? Compare and contrast the two Brooks et al and Brown, focusing on what they tell us about democracy. 1. Identify the main argument and supporting evidence of both readings. 2. Are the readings saying the same or different things? 3. Are they using similar evidence/support to arrive at the same or different conclusions? Or are they using different evidence to arrive at the same/different conclusion? 4. What do you think accounts for the similarities/differences between the two readings?