Session 5b: Panel: Contemporary Challenges to the Definition of ‘the Demos’

1st Global Conference

Friday 30th April – Sunday 2nd May 2010
Prague, Czech Republic

Popular Sovereignty in a Globalised World
Dani Filc
Department of Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University

The idea of democracy implies a contradictory relationship between inclusion and exclusion. Historically and etymologically, the term “demos” signified the marginal sectors of the Athenian society, those living in the periphery of the city. Thus, democracy as the government of the “demos” meant the empowerment and inclusion of the excluded. Many centuries after, democracy as the idea of the rule of the sovereign people implied the inclusion of the excluded into the political arena, as put by Colonel Rainborough at the Putney debates: “For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sir, I think it’s clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not had a voice to put himself under…” However, the need to define who the demos is, implies an unavoidable exclusionary dimension to the idea of democracy: “meteques”, women, servants, non-white or undocumented migrants were (and are) excluded from the idea of the ruling demos. The interplay between inclusionary and exclusionary forces that constituted the different deme throughout history had a strong territorial basis. Territorial boundaries were invoked as an inclusionary strategy, to replace blood, class, race or gender boundaries.

The present paper discusses the way in which globalization processes modify the relationship between demos and territory in ways that strengthen exclusionary traits and voids the concept of popular sovereignty of its inclusive and democratic meaning. Globalization undermines the relationship between demos, territory and rule both through the strengthening of supra-national non-democratic institutions and agents, and as the result of migratory waves. In the light of these developments, the paper analyzes the exclusionary consequences of the responses to these processes (whether attempts to build and elitarian cosmopolitan democracy, or “defensive” attempts to reduce “demos” to “ethnos”) and proposes to develop a new understanding of the idea of popular sovereignty.

Demos vs. Minorites: The Status of Homeland Minorities on Nation States
Ayelet Harel-Shalev
Department of Politics and Government and the Centre for the Study of European Politics and Society, Ben-Gurion University, Israel

Many researchers in the Political Science and Law disciplines are disagreeing regarding the scope of minorities’ group rights. Accordingly, Communitarians and Liberals struggle with regard to the accurate formula of balancing civic rights and group rights. This article focuses on the ambivalent effect of religious autonomy in India and the outcome for democracy in the country. The Indian constitution guarantees autonomy to its religious minorities, and promises the minorities the freedom independently to manage their religious affairs in addition to a proportional share of the budget. At the same time, the constitution emphasizes the aspiration to legislate ‘uniform personal laws’ for all the citizens of India in accordance with the principles of secularism, equality and with India’s self-definition as a civic nation.

This recommendation has however remained a ‘dead letter’ until today. In this domain, the state has constituted a civic law for Hindus, which adjusts Hinduism to democratic principles. In this sense, the state has nationalized Hinduism, – which represents the Demos; and the government has assumed authority and reformed Hindu civic and marriage laws. However, although they have tried, the state’s legal and political institutions have not interfered thus far with Muslim marriage and religious laws. Muslims are committed to the Sharia while Hindus must obey the state’s civic laws.

By avoiding enforcement of affirmative action for Muslims in the spheres of political representation or public employment, while simultaneously prohibiting Hindus’ group rights, and providing religious autonomy to the Muslim minority, the Constitution, which stresses so-called secularism as well as minority protection, intensifies the conflict between these two governance principles. The conclusion is that this situation not only leads to ideological conflicts and resource competition but also, overall, threatens the stability of India’s democracy.

Download Draft Conference Paper (pdf)

Globalisation, Solidarity and Political Opposition within Democracies
Rebecca Kook
Department of Politics and Government, Ben Gurion University, Israel

Historically one of the central issues of democratic theory has been to determine the boundaries of legitimate political opposition and critique. Since the days of Socrates, the ability of the polity to accommodate to and tolerate difference and yet to remain true to its founding principles of freedom and justice has been pivotal.

The different solutions offered by theories have reflected differing and changing geo-political and cultural-historical contexts. Classical theories of democracy determined the boundaries in accordance with specific moral conceptions of key values, while modern liberal theories of democracy have tended to rely on methodological notions of “rules of the game”. Always however, the boundaries of legitimate political opposition are at the same time the boundaries of membership within the democratic community: those who transverse them are not merely punished for posing illegitimate opposition to the polity, but they are also deemed unworthy of membership in the demos.

The contemporary geo-political and cultural-historical context of democratic theory would appear to be dominated by the advent of globalization. A number of dimensions of globalization constitute this context: the migration of both capital and labor which challenge the sovereignty of the democratic state as primary guarantor of social and economic rights; and the transnational nature of terrorism which challenges the sovereignty of the democratic state as protector and guardian of its citizens. Finally the growing role of transnational corporations and organizations have challenged the state’s role in providing norms of political and economic activity and participation as well as providing alternative bases of solidarity and membership. (in this category one can count both multinational corporations, as well as international justice or welfare organizations).

It is the purpose of this paper to examine the impact of globalization on the norms and practices of legitimate (and illegitimate) opposition within democracies. I argue that the gradual erosion of the democratic state’s ability to ensure and protect its citizen’s rights and security has in fact strengthened their desire to curb political opposition and critique and that international organizations play a significant role in providing both alternative means as well as alternative definitions of the goals of political opposition.