O conceito de “povo” no contexto da interculturalidade e da heterogeneidade social

The heterogeneity that comes with modernization forces the dissolution or weakening of collective identities. But doesn't a democracy also need the idea of community? This could consist in the idea of the people, which populist movements worldwide rely on, but which, in their view, implies a homogeneity that does not exist. Would it be possible, however, to conceive of a heterogeneous concept of people that is related to a collective identity pattern? One answer could be linked to the concept of interculturality as a regulatory idea. Another answer refers to the concept of popular sovereignty and unfolds its legal space. Thirdly, reference can be made to the solidarity component, which was developed within the framework of the welfare state and is also contained in the “theology of the people”. On the basis of the conceptual clarification of the people and heterogeneity, the three response strategies are tested for their usefulness and appropriateness.La heterogeneidad que acompaña a la modernización obliga a la disolución o debilitamiento de las identidades colectivas. Pero, ¿no necesita la democracia también la idea de comunidad? Esto podría consistir en la idea de pueblo, en la que se apoyan los movimientos populistas de todo el mundo, pero que, a su juicio, implica una homogeneidad que no existe. ¿Sería posible, sin embargo, concebir un concepto heterogéneo de personas que se relacione con un patrón de identidad colectiva? Una respuesta podría estar vinculada al concepto de interculturalidad como idea reguladora. Otra respuesta se refiere al concepto de soberanía popular y despliega su espacio legal. En tercer lugar, se puede hacer referencia al componente solidario, que se desarrolló en el marco del estado de bienestar y también está contenido en la “teología del pueblo”. Sobre la base de la clarificación conceptual de las personas y la heterogeneidad, se prueba la utilidad y adecuación de las tres estrategias de respuesta.A heterogeneidade decorrente da Modernização engendrou a dissolução e o enfraquecimento das identidades coletivas. Não obstante, não seria a ideia de comunidade necessária a uma democracia? Talvez o conceito de povo contemple essa necessidade – conceito que também serve de base a movimentos populistas em todo o mundo, os quais sugerem uma homogeneidade que inexiste. Seria possível conceber um conceito heterogêneo de povo relacionado a um padrão identitário coletivo? Uma possível resposta pode emergir do conceito de interculturalidade como ideal regulatório. Outra possível resposta retoma o conceito de soberania popular e desenvolve seu espaço jurídico. Por fim, é possível fazer referência ao componente da solidariedade desenvolvido no contexto do Estado de bem-estar social e também contido na “teologia do povo”. Com base na distinção conceitual entre povo e heterogeneidade, as três estratégias de resposta à questão são testadas quanto à sua utilidade e adequabilidade

ESTADO DE DIREITO E INSTITUIÇÕES INFORMAIS

The present work addresses the legal systems that exist outside the constitutional order, through the existence of rechtsstaat and informal legal systems in the rule of law. Thus, the question is: what is the relationship between the formal systems and the right? To this do so, the law and legal systems, the concept of state and the formal systems are analyzed first. The study of the relationship between the rule of law and the formal institutions is then used.O presente trabalho aborda os sistemas jurídicos que existem fora da ordem constitucional, através da existência de sistemas jurídicos rechtsstaat e informais no Estado de Direito. Sendo assim, pergunta-se: qual a relação entre os sistemas informais e o direito? Para tanto, analisa-se, em primeiro momento, o direito e os sistemas legais, o conceito de Estado e os sistemas informais. Passa-se, então, ao estudo da relação entre estado de direito e instituições informais

BASIC CRITERIA FOR DEMOCRACY: IS RESPONSIVENESS PART OF THE INNER CIRCLE?

Responsividade, um principio básico da democracia, sua relevância e nossa compreensão desse conceito são examinados por duas razões. Em primeiro lugar, a qualidade da democracia e com isto a regressão da democracia estão frequentemente vinculadas a responsividade nos debates públicos. Em segundo lugar, levamos em consideração definições cruciais da democracia, as quais têm dado uma direção para a pesquisa sobre Democracia Comparada. Tais discussões, frequentemente têm ignorado que a qualidade da democracia também se revela via critério de responsabilidade. Quais, então, são os critérios necessários para resolver o conflito em termos de qualidade democrática? Em que medida o critério de responsividade é de limitada adequação em tornar as democracias acessíveis. Em que circunstancias pode a responsividade pode ser um critério adequado para determinar a qualidade da democracia? Um baixo grau de responsividade pode sempre ser indicativo de uma perda da qualidade democrática? São esses os objetivos deste artigo. Palavras-Chave: Qualidade da Democracia; Responsividade.Responsiveness, a basic principle of democracy, its relevance as well as our understanding of it are examined for two reasons. Firstly, the quality of democracy and with it the regression of democracy are often linked to responsiveness in public debates. Secondly, we are considering crucial definitions of democracy, which have given direction to research into Comparative Democracy. This discussions have often ignored that the quality of democracy also reveals itself via the criterion for responsibility. Which are then the necessary criteria in order to solve the conflict with in terms of democratic quality? Moreover, how far the responsiveness criterion is of limited suitability in making democratic quality accessible. Put in another way, under what circumstances can responsiveness (or its related procedures) be a suitable criterion for determining the quality of a democracy? Does a lower degree of responsiveness always indicate a loss of democratic quality? These are the objectives of this article

Local Self‐Governance and Weak Statehood : A Convincing Liaison?

This thematic issue addresses the relationship between local self-governance and the state. Self-governance is understood as the rules that emerge in the local social and spatial context. Local self-governance of individual local groups, actors, communities, and their social and institutional arrangements are considered. From this situated collective entanglement, the interactions and relations with state authorities are analysed in the various contributions embedded in local contexts of different world regions and based on empirical social science research containing mostly interdisciplinary approaches. The nine case studies of this thematic issue reflect a variety of statehoods (weak to restrained), divers “intentionalities” of local self-governance (emancipatory and democratic, socio-economically, and socio-culturally oriented, security-driven or ecological), and their state-locality entanglements range between four forms of relationships: mutually supportive, conflictual, ambivalent, and avoiding

Making Trade-Offs Visible: Theoretical and Methodological Considerations about the Relationship between Dimensions and Institutions of Democracy and Empirical Findings

Whereas the measurement of the quality of democracy focused on the rough differentiation of democracies and autocracies in the beginning (e.g. Vanhanen, Polity, Freedom House), the focal point of newer instruments is the assessment of the quality of established democracies. In this context, tensions resp. trade-offs between dimensions of democracy are discussed as well (e.g. Democracy Barometer, Varieties of Democracy). However, these approaches lack a systematic discussion of trade-offs and they are not able to show trade-offs empirically. We address this research desideratum in a three-step process: Firstly, we propose a new conceptual approach, which distinguishes between two different modes of relationships between dimensions: mutual reinforcing effects and a give-and-take relationship (trade-offs) between dimensions. By introducing our measurement tool, Democracy Matrix, we finally locate mutually reinforcing effects as well as trade-offs. Secondly, we provide a new methodological approach to measure trade-offs. While one measuring strategy captures the mutual reinforcing effects, the other strategy employs indicators, which serve to gauge trade-offs. Thirdly, we demonstrate empirical findings of our measurement drawing on the Varieties of Democracy dataset. Incorporating trade-offs into the measurement enables us to identify various profiles of democracy (libertarian, egalitarian and control-focused democracy) via the quality of its dimensions