Democracy

The People Vs Tech: How the Internet is Killing Democracy (and How We Save It) by Jamie Bartlett. New York: Dutton, 2018. 256 pp., £8.99 (p/b), ISBN 978-1785039065.

Terrorism has been considered as a challenge with serious effect in the world as a result of instability, corruption and lack of democracy in most countries. Confronting this phenomenon requires recognizing its roots to find possible solutions. This study aims to examine the effect of some actual factors which causes the terrorism in short and long run. To this end, investigation has been conducted using statistical and regression methods using the data obtained from the 17 MENA countries. Findings indicate that in the long run, political stability and corruption controlling have a negative effect on the number of terrorist attacks, but democracy has no significant effect on terrorism. Morover, in the short term, there is also an inverse relationship between the number of terrorist attacks with political stability and corruption controlling, but unfortunately, democracy has a positive and significant effect on the number of terrorist attacks in the selected countries.

Oil is undoubtedly the most important, and at the same time, the most politico-economic commodity in today’s world. As the most important source of economic and political power, oil has constantly played a significant role for Iranian governments both before and after the revolution [1979], and has served as a major fuel for their economic power. However, historical experience in our country shows that having exuberant oil resources and revenue has had no significant link to welfare facilities or to becoming a welfare state; and the governments have always deprived the country from having a democratic state by creating certain rent-seeking networks. This article studies the effects of oil revenue in the formation of a democratic state accountable to its subjects while tries to show how huge amount of oil revenue during 2005 to 2013 halted the process of democratization in the country.

Globalization and democracy have become the most debated issues throughout the world, which, no doubt also influence Iran. This paper highlights these phenomena with respect to Iran but takes up the issue through various description and features presented by the con-temporary socio- political thinkers and economists. Considering globalization, although the subject matter is very recent but Iran has been experiencing this phenomenon with the emergence of modern communication networks and economic growth. The democratic proc-ess had started early in 19th century but was thoroughly suppressed by the despotic regime. However, the globalization trends in 1990s have affected most of the countries and Iran too has experienced the changing mood of the people. Present study focuses on the various as-pects of globalization and its influences over democracy during post- revolutionary period.

Asking about the place of religion in a democratic society refers straightforwardly to the kind of pluralism we adopt. Given that intra-societal tensions mark out a democratic pluralistic society, then it seems that there is no doubt that there should be a place for religion and religious people in it. What is crucial for a democratic society is taking a suitable view on pluralism. There could be, at least, two versions of pluralism: Incommensurable or radical and commensurable or moderate. It is argued that the incommensurable account of pluralism confronts with serious problems both theoretically (like the impossibility of outer critique) and practically (like replacing persuasion with force). Rorty advocates a commensurable pluralism based on pragmatic conventions or “know-how” skills without any meta-narrative or translation manual among the doctrines of rival views. However, along with Davidson, it is stated that some kind of translation among the rival views is inevitable. In addition, it is argued that commensurable pluralism could not be limited to merely know-how skills and it needs some know-that insights. This view of pluralism not only opens the door of dialogue, but also provides a basis for removing superficial differences or conflicts between the rivals. Real differences, however, could remain and should be tolerated.

The present paper aims to highlight the origin of the youth movements in Iran during the intervening years of 1971 and 2002. During these three decades, youth movement was one of the important social movements in the political arena of the country. While explaining the origin of the movement, two changes i.e. 'generation gap' and 'democracy' have been studied and it was found that the origin of the youth movements in Iran was due to the contradictions between authoritarianism and democracy. Apart from various official statistics and figures, some results of some opinion surveys have also been utilized to analyze this paper.

Philosophical sketch of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) on the primary conditions for Peace and co-existence between states is reflected in his Perpetual Peace. In Kant's view, three primary conditions of perpetual peace of a republican government in every country are based on a civil constitution, establishment of a federation of free states, and cosmopolitan right of individuals as world citizens. The foundations of republican system, i.e. freedom for all members of the society as human beings, belonging of each individual to a public code of law as subject, and equality before law as a citizen, are important in Kant's political philosophy. Two primary responsibilities for Kant's federation of free states, i.e. non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, and upholding of a unified front against extraterritorial aggression, suffer from ambiguity and inadequacy, and is therefore vulnerable. Kant's formulation of "a unified world government" is cautionary and conditional; for it can be ended to despotism and decline.

Democratic family, as a new phenomenon in Iran, is based on some fundamental principles such as liberty, equality, rule of law, and tolerance. In this article, some of the important aspects of a democratic family in Iran will be explained and evaluated by applying conceptual analysis and critical evaluation. The family, which is characterized by middle class, rights, population and urbanization, marriage and divorce, violence, and nuclear family, lead to reasonable decision-making through dialogue and cooperation. The patriarchal mode of management in Iranian family has gradually changed into a collective decision-making, in which, the role of boys and girls are significant. These characteristics indicate that Iranian democratic family is a transitional process of social and political development in Iran.

The key problem addressed in the paper is that of the legal pluralism, more specifically the pluralism of legal systems within one state that pursues the accommodation of religious freedom claims. In its controversial Refah decisions the Strasbourg Court held that the prohibition of the Turkish Welfare Party was “necessary in a democratic society” because its plan to set up a plurality of legal systems was not “compatible with fundamental democratic principles”[1]. This paper tries to inquire into the notion of legal pluralism, tries to test normative assumptions made by the Court in its regard and argues that a “no plurality” approach would be overly simplistic and that a liberal approach would require different degrees of pluralization (some of which already exist to accommodate differences and diversity within a society) to be extended to religion, without however endangering constitutional democracy. <br />It is necessary to point out at least two major theoretical contexts in which this problem should be considered. One is undoubtedly the issue of ‘militant’ democracy: once we assume that constitutional democracy and legal pluralism are incompatible, we give a (part of) definition of democracy, which entitles us to reject any changes proposed to it while retaining the claim to be democratic. If we know what is democracy in a substantive sense, which values it is designed to protect (e.g. secularism or fundamental rights) we can legitimately reject any changes to that vision as a measure protective of such values[2]. <br />Another context that is relevant is the issue of universality and cultural relativism. It first appears when we attempt to define democracy as a substantive notion, which necessarily assumes a value judgement. It also becomes relevant if we mind that the rationale of legal pluralism is the necessity to recognize, respect and tolerate different views and visions of ‘happiness’. In its pure form the idea of relativism and legal pluralism is represented in the classical version of state-centered international law system, where states posses equal and unlimited internal sovereignty[3]. However even within the State any kind and instance of legal pluralism is about the respect and tolerance of the different normative values and views. Only straightforward consensus on all the rules and values as universal can justify total rejection of legal pluralism. <br />The paper will start by an attempt to clarify the understandings of legal pluralism in social sciences and law. The second part will try to construe a liberal argument in favor of advancing legal pluralism to a certain degree, basing on the individual right to freedom of religion and conscience. Instead of relying on the ‘collective rights’ argument, it rather believes that individual rights provide a sufficient basis for this claim, as far as religious life and consciousness are deemed an important part of individual personality and self-determination. The third part tries to balance the claims of legal pluralism by considering arguments against such a model of society. <br /><br clear="all" /> <br /> <br />[1] Case Of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others v. Turkey, <em>(Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98) </em>Judgment, 31 July 2001 [hereinafter <em>Refah (1)</em>] paras 70-71;<em>See also </em>Case of Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey <em>(Applications nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98), </em>judgment, 13 February 2003, [hereinafter <em>Refah(2)</em>] paras 98 and 119. <br /> <br /> <br />[2] See <em>infra</em>, text accompanying notes 35-39. <br /> <br /> <br />[3] See <em>infra</em>, note 8, text for the note 25 and page 14.

It is argued in this paper that the non-formation or non-growth of democracy in the Middle East is related to geopolitical centrality. The network analysis of Iran and Saudi Arabia in terms of geopolitical centrality indicates that the high geopolitical centrality of these two countries in the existing geopolitical sub-networks at this region is one of the important barriers against realization and promotion of democracy. In Iran before 1979 Revolution, its high centrality under geopolitical sub-networks of security and the west and also after the 1979 Revolution, its high centrality in several ideological sub-networks have made slower Liberal democratic growth in this region.in contrast In Saudi Arabia, high centrality of this country since 1980s   in ideological sub-networks and its role in geopolitical sub-networks of  west and security  on three past decades has hindered formation of Liberal democracy in this country..

This article addresses contentious questions concerning individual freedom and democratic citizenship education in the contemporary circumstances of multiculturalism. It suggests that educating children for civic equality is an ambitious aim for any democracy and not one that can ever be realized once and for all. It provides evidence that multicultural conditions can challenge the very aim of educating children for civic equality. It explains that democracies are variously multicultural and the varieties of groups make a difference in the kind of education and the progress toward civic equality that can realistically be expected at any time.

This paper seeks to examine the effect of the revolutions of 2011-2012 in the Arabic countries of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) on Israeli regime's ontological security and its strategy of closure and deviation in the regional level. In other word, the paper tries to find the challenges the ontological security and identity of Israel is facing with after the occurrence of the awakening. This article argues that Israeli ontological security came across a kind of insecurity due to the appearance of democratic states in revolutionary countries, which resulted in forming a new identity against its identity. On this basis, review and analysis of the Israeli regime security is an important issue. Thus we are going to discuss security- identity challenges of Israel in the region. To do this, first the theory of ontological security will be explained as the theoretical framework; then the nature of the upheavals of the region will be expressed; and finally, Israeli ontological insecurity and its responses to it will be examined.

Democracy is a much used and abused word. As a possible structure of political organization, democratic concepts are very much under debate in Muslim countries. Democracy in a western sense has become associated with a forceful “democratization” of the Middle East, which in effect has brought war and various forms of foreign domination to crucial areas of this sensitive region. However, up to now democratic structures are an exception in Muslim countries. Due to historical developments during the past centuries, there seems to be a lack of theoretical backing for democracy in the culture of the Middle East. This is surprising, because Islam, from its beginning, has offered the model of shura (consultation), which can and should be developed to serve modern governance. Especially Shi'ism can offer a theological backing through interpretations and explanations conducive to the formation and implementation of an Islamic democracy. In Imam Ali's (a.s.) letter to Malik al-Ashtar, we find a beautiful outline of what today is called “good governance”. Moreover, Shi'ism postulates the Imamate of the Mahdi (a.s.) as a just rule to-come. In the absence of the Imam-e zaman, an Islamic democracy should prevail with full participation of Muslims. But how is it possible to organize a modern Muslim country democratically? In addition to a working government and a majlis or parliament formed on the basis of elections, the expertise of religious scholars is needed – scholars who are capable of Ijtihad, so that they can find answers to the needs of present-day life in the wake of ongoing social change. In an Islamic polity, the period of awaiting al-Mahdi al-muntazar requires active participation of the people, since unless there is widespread readiness to support the good cause, the Mahdi will not appear. This participation is a basic human right and also a duty of men and women. For this purpose, every individual should have the opportunity to develop his/her moral, religious and cultural consciousness and the social and political awareness through education and self-education, so that citizens may fulfil their social and democratic responsibilities within the framework of Islam. 

The emerging right to democracy (e.g. Franck, T) within international law favors a liberal, democratic packaging. Yet as Abedolkarim Sourash argues, there has been a conflation of liberalism and democracy, which must be decoupled.  It is from this point of departure that this paper will examine the international legality of militant democracy and interrogate when and how a constitutional democracy can legally act in an anti-democratic manner to combat threats to its democratic existence.  Militant democracy was a term introduced in 1937 by Karl Lowenstein. It refers to a form of constitutional democracy authorized to protect civil and political freedom by pre-emptively restricting its exercise. Lowenstein’s writings, at the time, were concerned with the limitations of democratic institutions in containing fascism. Militant democracies stand in contrast with the principles of legal pluralism, but the extent to which international law authorizes transformative political agendas that seek to implement forms of religious, cultural, or national autonomy is unclear.

Nowadays, young people are spending the majority of their time on social media, using various platforms like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram, etc. It is a common perception that these media have become the new sources of information, which progressively converts into knowledge. It is interesting to check whether they use those sources to achieve knowledge or not. The main focal point of this study is to understand the political engagement, knowledge, and outlook of college-studying youngsters in India. It studies the factors influencing political awareness and examines the influence of politics and politicians on the involvement of youngsters in politics. The findings show that social media has a significant influence on political issues, but they are also more corrupted

The paper offers a distinctive reading of Popper’s work, suggesting that his Logic of Scientific Discovery (LScD) might be re-interpreted in the light of his Open Society. Indeed, Popper can be interpreted as criticising certain aspects of his first book, and as a result improving upon them, in his second. It suggests translating what Popper says about ‘conventions’ into his later vocabulary of ‘social institutions’. Looking back, I believe that Popper never intended the language of conventions and decisions to be read individualistically. I remain unsure whether Popper was himself quite as clear about this as he could have been.  My reading makes Popper a pioneer in the sociology of science. Scientific institutions are arenas of political power; but Popper did not discuss the structure and inter-relations of the social institutions of science, or offer a politics of science in the context of his methodology. What is missing from the skeletal sociology of LScD is the politics. We could put it in Popperian terms this way: scientific institutions are both open and closed. They are closed, firmly, to the inexpert, to the non-members; supposedly they are open to the qualified, provided the prerogatives of seniority and leadership are acknowledged. Despite these shortcomings, Popper’s critical and rational approach and his insistence on openness and intellectual honesty are still important today.