Democracia e Legitimidade: três teses sobre o papel da comunicação na justificação política

IF 4.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Society Pub Date : 2020-11-19 DOI:10.5007/175-7984.2020v19n45p268

Renato Francisquini

引用次数: 1

Abstract

This paper intends to contribute to a broad understanding of the role attributed to communication,by contemporary democratic theory, in the justification of political authority. To achieve this goal,diversified theoretical perspectives will be settled in three groups – the theses of contribution,exclusivity and necessity – according to the place each assigns to deliberation in guaranteeinglegitimacy to collective decisions. Based on the review of the relevant literature, a distinctionbecomes evident in what refers to sufficient and/or necessary conditions for political decisionsto be considered by all of those affected as morally acceptable and politically convenient. Itrests clear, therefore, a background disagreement in the degree of importance attributed tocommunication between equals to assure the justification of political authority.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

民主与合法性:关于沟通在政治正当性中的作用的三个论题

本文旨在通过当代民主理论对传播在为政治权威辩护中所起的作用作出广泛的理解。为了实现这一目标，多样化的理论观点将被分为三组——贡献论、排他性论和必要性论——根据每组在保证集体决策合法性方面赋予审议的地位。基于对相关文献的回顾，一个明显的区别是，什么是政治决策的充分和/或必要条件，所有受影响的人都认为这是道德上可接受的，政治上方便的。因此，很明显，平等者之间的沟通对确保政治权威的正当性的重要性程度存在背景分歧。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Politics & Society Multiple-

CiteScore

5.00

自引率

4.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Society is a peer-reviewed journal. All submitted papers are read by a rotating editorial board member. If a paper is deemed potentially publishable, it is sent to another board member, who, if agreeing that it is potentially publishable, sends it to a third board member. If and only if all three agree, the paper is sent to the entire editorial board for consideration at board meetings. The editorial board meets three times a year, and the board members who are present (usually between 9 and 14) make decisions through a deliberative process that also considers written reports from absent members. Unlike many journals which rely on 1–3 individual blind referee reports and a single editor with final say, the peers who decide whether to accept submitted work are thus the full editorial board of the journal, comprised of scholars from various disciplines, who discuss papers openly, with author names known, at meetings. Editors are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when evaluating manuscripts and to recuse themselves from voting if such a potential exists.

期刊最新文献

Bringing Household Finance Back In: House Prices and the Missing Macroeconomics of Comparative Political Economy Who Pays for Environmental Policy? Business Power and the Design of State-Level Climate Policies* Supervising Local Cadres in China: The Quest for Authoritarian Accountability Rethinking Antitrust for the Cloud Era Antitrust and Equal Liberty