Search results
This book addresses the major theoretical and practical issues of the forms of citizenship and access to citizenship in different types of polity, and the specification and justification of rights of non-citizen immigrants as well as non-resident citizens. It also addresses the conditions under which norms governing citizenship can legitimately vary. The book discusses the principles of including all affected interests (AAI), all subject to coercion (ASC) and all citizenship stakeholders (ACS). They complement each other because they serve distinct purposes of democratic inclusion. The book proposes that democratic inclusion principles specify a relation between an individual or group that has an inclusion claim and a political community that aims to achieve democratic legitimacy for its political decisions and institutions. It contextualizes the principle of stakeholder inclusion, which provides the best answer to the question of democratic boundaries of membership, by applying it to polities of different types. The book distinguishes state, local and regional polities and argues that they differ in their membership character. It examines how a principle of stakeholder inclusion applies to polities of different types. The book illustrates the difference between consensual and automatic modes of inclusion by considering the contrast between birthright acquisition of citizenship, which is generally automatic, and naturalization, which requires an application.
Citizens’ Participation’, p. 136; Heidrun Abromeit, 122 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 SUPRANATIONAL CITIZENSHIP Democracy in Europe: Legitimising Politics in a Non-State Polity (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 1998); Heidrun Abromeit, ‘How to Democratise a Multi-level, Multidimensional Polity’, in Weale and Nentwich, Political Theory and the European Union. Thomas W. Pogge, ‘How to Create Supra-National Institutions Democratically. Some Reflections on the European Union’s “Democratic Deficit”’, in Andreas Follesdal and Peter
–343. 19 For antebellum conventions as bodies responsive to the popular will as they democratised state polities and reconsidered fundamental questions of social and political order, see Siddali, Frontier Democracy. On
barrier to co-operation in the achievement of common interests within the common space of the EU (see table 2.7). It is notable that this conception of the EU does not ‘compete’ with that of the nation-state, given that it does not presume that the EU has a territorial ‘homeland’ at all, let alone one that supersedes that of the nation-state. Polity The fragmentation of the ‘political public sphere . . . into national units’ has complicated the task of building democratic processes for governance within the EU (Habermas, quoted in Laffan, 1996b: 21). As a system of
) than substantive (Faist, 2000). Paradoxically, a lack of acculturation makes the persistence of transnationalism and multiple loyalties easier. Faist stresses this: ‘Membership in nation-state polities is less often tied to formal citizenship but to rights arising from settlement and socialization’ (Faist, 2000, p. 22). This highlights the importance of cultural practices as an index of acceptance, and the importance of culture as a process of citizen-making. The third focus of my argument, which is detailed later in this introduction, is how the tensions between
, 2009 a and b, 2015b ) I have argued that the AAI and ASC principles are morally attractive but suffer from two flaws. They cannot resolve the democratic boundary problem because the boundaries they suggest are necessarily indeterminate and unstable, 15 and they are polity-indifferent, which means that they generate the same prescriptions for inclusion in local, regional or state polities, although these polities require different membership norms. I have
constitutional foundations of sovereignty as resting on the member state polities, but challenges the capacity and, hence, the functional autonomy of states to respond effectively to pressing socioeconomic realities. In this sense, subnational mobilisation becomes an additional vehicle for the reallocation of authoritative problem-solving capacity to constitutive entities within a polity that remains dependent in critical ways on its subsystems, but which also allows for new structures of political opportunity to emerge. This implies a dynamic understanding of governance, not
central authorities. Pace the constitutional arrangements currently in place in some of its federal subsystems, and particularly the insistence of the Länder for a strict division of competences, one could legitimately argue that both the constitutional architecture and decision-making culture of the Union qua ‘non-state polity’ are not (as yet) in a position to resolve questions of competence allocation through an explicit delineation of legislative powers among the Union’s constitutive levels of governance. Moreover, whether or not the existing acquis is inherently
; Chryssochoou 2005: 35). Decisions, within this ‘non-state polity’, are not made by a dominant organ but instead derive from negotiations between the three pillars of the institutional triangle (Commission, Council, Parliament), on the one hand, and from negotiations between the twenty-seven member states, on the other. Although the European Council has become, in the process, the key motor of integration – also attracting, which is politically important, ‘the spotlight of media and public attention’ (Tsoukalis 2005) – the Union remains a regime based on continual negotiation
–352. 30 Cassel 1902 p. 19. 31 Hall, S., 1998, Thatcherism and the crisis of the left, Verso, London; Jessop, B., 2001 , The future of the welfare state , Polity, Oxford; Driver-Martell 1998; Hay, C., 1999 , The political economy of New Labour. Labouring under false pretences? Manchester University Press, Manchester