Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:06:16.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John S. Dryzek
John S. Dryzek*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Once universal adult citizenship rights have been secured in a society, democratization is mostly a matter of the more authentic political inclusion of different groups and categories, for which formal political equality can hide continued exclusion or oppression. It is important, however, to distinguish between inclusion in the state and inclusion in the polity more generally. Democratic theorists who advocate a strategy of progressive inclusion of as many groups as possible in the state fail to recognize that the conditions for authentic as opposed to symbolic inclusion are quite demanding. History shows that benign inclusion in the state is possible only when (a) a group's defining concern can be assimilated to an established or emerging state imperative, and (b) civil society is not unduly depleted by the group's entry into the state. Absent such conditions, oppositional civil society may be a better focus for democratization than is the state. A flourishing oppositional sphere, and therefore the conditions for democratization itself, may actually be facilitated by a passively exclusive state, the main contemporary form of which is corporatism. Benign inclusion in the state can sometimes occur, but any such move should also produce exclusions that both facilitate future democratization and guard against any reversal of democratic commitment in state and society. These considerations have substantial implications for the strategic choices of social movements.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 475 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arato, Andrew. 1993. “Interpreting 1989.” Social Research 60 (3):609–46.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ash, Timothy Garton. 1990. The Uses of Adversity: Essays on the Fate of Central Europe. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Berger, Thomas. 1985. Village Journey: The Report of the Alaska Native Review Commission. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Block, Fred. 1977. “The Ruling Class Does Not Rule: Notes on the Marxist Theory of the State.” Socialist Revolution 7 (3):6–28.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert. 1986. Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bunce, Valerie. 1992. “Two-Tiered Stalinism: A Case of Self-Destruction.” In Constructing Capitalism: The Re-Emergence of Civil Society and Liberal Economy in the Post-Communist World, ed. Poznanski, K. Z.. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Carruthers, David V. 1995. “The Political Economy of Indigenous Mexico: Social Mobilization and State Reform.” Ph.D. dissertation; University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L., and Arato, Andrew. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. Hamlin, Alan and Pettit, Philip. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua, and Rogers, Joel. 1992. “Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance.” Politics and Society 20 (4):393–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1991. Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Crozier, Michel, Huntington, Samuel P., and Watanuki, Joji. 1975. The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dowie, Mark. 1995. Losing Ground: American Environmentalism at the Close of the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 1996. Democracy in Capitalist Times: Ideals, Limits, and Struggles. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Sarah M., and Boyte, Harry C.. 1986. Free Spaces: The Sources of Democratic Change in America. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 1993. “Citizen Participation and the Democratization of Policy Expertise: From Theoretical Inquiry to Practical Cases.” Policy Sciences 26 (3):165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisk, Milton. 1989. The State and Justice: An Essay in Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Follett, Mary Parker. 1918. The New State: Group Organizations—The Solution of Popular Government. New York: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Fraad, Harriet, Resnick, Stephen, and Wolff, Richard. 1994. Banging It All Back Home: Class, Gender, and Power in the Modern Household. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
Freeman, John R. 1989. Democracy and Markets: The Politics of Mixed Economies. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 1980. Manipulatory Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gore, Albert. 1992. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1989. Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1992. Faktizitat und Geltung. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hajer, Maarten A. 1995. The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, Paul. 1994. Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 1993. “Civil Society and the Spirit of Revolt.” Dissent 40 (3):356–61.Google Scholar
Isaac, Jeffrey C. 1994. “Oases in the Desert: Hannah Arendt on Democratic Politics.” American Political Science Review 88 (1):156–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janicke, Martin. 1994. “Democracy as a Condition for Environmental Policy Success: Insights from International Comparison.” Presented to the Workshop on Democracy and the Environment, Oxford.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1988. “Left-Libertarian Parties: Explaining Innovation in Competitive Party Systems.” World Politics 40 (2):194–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornhauser, William. 1959. The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laski, Harold J. 1919. Authority in the Modern State. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1984. “Concertation and the Structure of Corporatist Networks.” In Order and Conflict in Contemporary Capitalism, ed. Goldthorpe, John H.. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Charles E. 1982. “The Market as Prison.” Journal of Politics 44 (2):324–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore J. 1971. The Politics of Disorder. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Melucci, Alberto. 1989. Nomads of the Present: Social Movements and Individual Needs in Contemporary Society. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, David. 1992. “Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice.” Political Studies 40 (special issue):54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, James. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, James. 1984. Accumulation Crisis. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1984. Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1985. “New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics.” Social Research 52 (4):817–68.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1990. “Reflections on the Institutional Self-Transformation of Movement Politics: A Tentative Stage Model.” In Challenging the Political Order: New Social Movements in Western Democracies, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Kuechler, Manfred. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pekkarinen, Jukka, Pohjola, Matti, and Rowthorn, Bob. 1992. Social Corporatism: A Superior Economic System?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1993. Democracy and Difference. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox, and Cloward, Richard A.. 1971. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Sprague, John. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1987. “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucht, Dieter. 1990. “The Strategies and Action Repertoires of New Movements.” In Challenging the Political Order: New Social and Political Movements in Western Democracies, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Kuechler, Manfred. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Saward, Michael. 1992. Co-optive Politics and State Legitimacy. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, David. 1995. “Communicative Action in Practice: Intersubjectivity and New Social Movements.” Political Studies 43 (2):291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C. 1992. “The Irony of Modern Democracy and Efforts to Improve its Practice.” Politics and Society 20 (4):505–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Lehmbruch, Gerhard, eds. 1979. Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Selznick, Philip. [1949] 1966. TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1979. States and Social Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesh, Sylvia N. 1993. “New Social Movements and New Ideas.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. 1951. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Wainwright, Hilary. 1994. Arguments for a New Left: Answering the Free-Market Right. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1991. “Constitutional Rights and the Shape of Civil Society.” In The Constitution of the People: Reflections on Citizens and Civil Society, ed. Calvert, Robert E.. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1994. “Multiculturalism and Individualism.” Dissent 41 (2):185–91.Google Scholar
Weale, Albert. 1992. The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1989. “Polity and Group Difference: A Critique of the Ideal of Universal Citizenship.” Ethics 99 (2):250–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1992. “Social Groups in Associative Democracy.” Politics and Society 20 (4):529–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.