[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Wegood faith, however, strong democratic institutions should them-might more quickly realize the strong democratic program by firstselves be equipped with fail-safe checks and self-regulating balancesremoving certain liberal obstacles; representation, the party system,that do not depend on the intentions of an engaged citizenry.In fact,single-member legislative districts, and the separation of powersthe proposals introduced earlier are surrounded by checks designedcome immediately to mind.But the prudent democrat reforms byto curb the potential for excess of zealous communities i n possessionadding participatory ingredients to the constitutional formula, notof what they take to be a collective vision.From a purely practicalby removing representative ingredients.The objective is to reorientpolitical viewpoint, the checks on the referendum process are para-liberal democracy toward civic engagement and political commu-mount.The requirement for two readings, the possibility of anity, not to raze it destroying its virtues along wi th its defects.Tocongressional veto, and the commitment to full and informed de-call for the abolition of parties is to call for Utopia.To call for a con-bate on a network supervised by a Civic Communications Cooper-stitutional convention is to invite disaster.The American systemative all hem i n possibly impulsive publics wi th obstacles and put a(like entrenched democratic constitutions everywhere) survives bypremium on prudent and carefully thought-out legislation.evolving and evolves by accreting new institutional layers that con-form to the contours of a historically tested practice even as they Our discussion of listening i n Chapter 8, and the role assignedalter the system's dimensions and center of gravity.neighborhood assemblies and the assembly facilitators, suggest anapproach to public discourse that if it does not embody an actual vetoThe best check that strong democracy has is the inertial force ofliberum on legislation, does give special weight to minority expres-the American Constitution.Federalism divides power verticallysions of dissent and indignation.Majorities ride roughshod overwhile the separation of powers and the independent judiciary di-dissenters i n their pursuit of majority interests which turn out tovide it horizontally, and no popular will however successful thebe private interests that have a numerically large following.Civicmagic of strong democratic community is likely to fall prey to uni-communities act with the greatest caution i n the face of dissent be-tary totalism as long as these checks are i n place.Indeed, we havecause dissent is a signal that community itself may be i n jeopardy,noticed wi th sorrow that strong democracy is itself divided from The Real Present310 The Argument for Citizenship311dition, and its temper is thus necessarily judicious.Plato was rightwhile the presence of majorities and minorities is a symbol of thei n insisting on the need for temperateness and moderation i n a well-disintegration of community altogether.In this spirit, neighborhoodgoverned people, but he was wrong in thinking that moderationassemblies might want to experiment wi th requiring near-unani-takes the form of deference to truth or to its putative proprietors.Itmous consensus i n matters of local jurisdiction, and even the na-is the self-governing people who most need moderation, for theytional referendum process could recognize the right of a large, i n-have nothing but moderation to remind them of the weakness andtense minority, defeated i n a second reading, to call for one finalinfirmities on which their self-government relies, and by which it is(third) reading of a major legislative initiative.justified.An office that has played only a small role i n America, where theadversary system and the constitutional guarantees of rights per-The case for democracy has two advocates: one speaks from hu-haps obviate the need for it, is the ombudsman.Perhaps, however,man weakness and, pointing to the sand on which every claim toif our system were reoriented toward greater participation, if citi-knowledge finally must rest, says with regret, "We must govern our-zens were to gain more legislative power and thus to require fewerselves together; there is no one else who can govern for us." It is thatrights, then "the availability of channels through which Americansvoice to which the call for limits responds.can express their frustrations wi th public bureaucracies and seek re-7 3But there is another, more affirmative advocate one who per-dress of grievances" would have a crucial restraining role to play.ceives i n speech itself, i n the Greek faculty of reason called logos, theDissenters, forced to live wi th new consensual communities whosedistinctive feature that sets humankind off from the animal kingdomwill is all the more irresistible because it is more legitimate, couldand bestows the twi n gifts of self-consciousness and other-con-find i n a neighborhood ombudsman a consolation to their integritysciousness.To this advocate the right of every individual to speak toif not a support for their dissent.To some extent the facilitatorsothers, to assert his being through the act of communication, iswould play this part, but their loyalty would be to the community ofidentified wi th the precious wellspring of human autonomy andcitizens rather than to individual citizens.It would pay tribute to thedignity.Thus it was that i n Greece Isegoria the universal right tomutual respect of citizens to create a public officer whose single dutyspeak i n the assembly came to be a synonym not merely for dem-would be to serve those aggrieved by the community, even whenocratic participation but for democracy itself.Thus it is that democ-especially when it acts legitimately i n the full grandeur of its com-racy, if it is to survive the shrinking of the world and the assaults ofmunal responsibility for public goods.We permit and encouragea hostile modernity, wil l have to rediscover its multiple voices andpublic defenders because we believe that those accused of the moregive to citizens once again the power to speak, to decide, and to act;dastardly felonies are innocent until proven otherwise.Surely wefor i n the end human freedom wil l be found not i n caverns of privatecan afford to encourage ombudsmen because we believe that thesolitude but i n the noisy assemblies where women and men meetouttalked or outvoted are innocent of immorality or wrong-head-daily as citizens and discover i n each other's talk the consolation ofedness despite their dissent.a common humanity.Above all, strong democracy needs to advance its program i n atemperate spirit.If final solutions could be discerned, what needwould we have to deliberate and debate or to rely on the artifice of achanging public will? If truth is the object, philosophers wi l l do forkings.But democracy begins where truth and certitude and finalsolutions disappear into the murky uncertainties of the human con-73.Alan J.Wyner, ed., Executive Ombudsmen in the United States (Berkeley: Insti-tute of Governmental Studies, 1973), p.3.For a full discussion of the experience withand promise of the ombudsman office in America, see Stanley V.Anderson, Ombuds-man Papers: American Experience and Proposals (Berkeley: Institute of GovernmentalStudies, 1969) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Wegood faith, however, strong democratic institutions should them-might more quickly realize the strong democratic program by firstselves be equipped with fail-safe checks and self-regulating balancesremoving certain liberal obstacles; representation, the party system,that do not depend on the intentions of an engaged citizenry.In fact,single-member legislative districts, and the separation of powersthe proposals introduced earlier are surrounded by checks designedcome immediately to mind.But the prudent democrat reforms byto curb the potential for excess of zealous communities i n possessionadding participatory ingredients to the constitutional formula, notof what they take to be a collective vision.From a purely practicalby removing representative ingredients.The objective is to reorientpolitical viewpoint, the checks on the referendum process are para-liberal democracy toward civic engagement and political commu-mount.The requirement for two readings, the possibility of anity, not to raze it destroying its virtues along wi th its defects.Tocongressional veto, and the commitment to full and informed de-call for the abolition of parties is to call for Utopia.To call for a con-bate on a network supervised by a Civic Communications Cooper-stitutional convention is to invite disaster.The American systemative all hem i n possibly impulsive publics wi th obstacles and put a(like entrenched democratic constitutions everywhere) survives bypremium on prudent and carefully thought-out legislation.evolving and evolves by accreting new institutional layers that con-form to the contours of a historically tested practice even as they Our discussion of listening i n Chapter 8, and the role assignedalter the system's dimensions and center of gravity.neighborhood assemblies and the assembly facilitators, suggest anapproach to public discourse that if it does not embody an actual vetoThe best check that strong democracy has is the inertial force ofliberum on legislation, does give special weight to minority expres-the American Constitution.Federalism divides power verticallysions of dissent and indignation.Majorities ride roughshod overwhile the separation of powers and the independent judiciary di-dissenters i n their pursuit of majority interests which turn out tovide it horizontally, and no popular will however successful thebe private interests that have a numerically large following.Civicmagic of strong democratic community is likely to fall prey to uni-communities act with the greatest caution i n the face of dissent be-tary totalism as long as these checks are i n place.Indeed, we havecause dissent is a signal that community itself may be i n jeopardy,noticed wi th sorrow that strong democracy is itself divided from The Real Present310 The Argument for Citizenship311dition, and its temper is thus necessarily judicious.Plato was rightwhile the presence of majorities and minorities is a symbol of thei n insisting on the need for temperateness and moderation i n a well-disintegration of community altogether.In this spirit, neighborhoodgoverned people, but he was wrong in thinking that moderationassemblies might want to experiment wi th requiring near-unani-takes the form of deference to truth or to its putative proprietors.Itmous consensus i n matters of local jurisdiction, and even the na-is the self-governing people who most need moderation, for theytional referendum process could recognize the right of a large, i n-have nothing but moderation to remind them of the weakness andtense minority, defeated i n a second reading, to call for one finalinfirmities on which their self-government relies, and by which it is(third) reading of a major legislative initiative.justified.An office that has played only a small role i n America, where theadversary system and the constitutional guarantees of rights per-The case for democracy has two advocates: one speaks from hu-haps obviate the need for it, is the ombudsman.Perhaps, however,man weakness and, pointing to the sand on which every claim toif our system were reoriented toward greater participation, if citi-knowledge finally must rest, says with regret, "We must govern our-zens were to gain more legislative power and thus to require fewerselves together; there is no one else who can govern for us." It is thatrights, then "the availability of channels through which Americansvoice to which the call for limits responds.can express their frustrations wi th public bureaucracies and seek re-7 3But there is another, more affirmative advocate one who per-dress of grievances" would have a crucial restraining role to play.ceives i n speech itself, i n the Greek faculty of reason called logos, theDissenters, forced to live wi th new consensual communities whosedistinctive feature that sets humankind off from the animal kingdomwill is all the more irresistible because it is more legitimate, couldand bestows the twi n gifts of self-consciousness and other-con-find i n a neighborhood ombudsman a consolation to their integritysciousness.To this advocate the right of every individual to speak toif not a support for their dissent.To some extent the facilitatorsothers, to assert his being through the act of communication, iswould play this part, but their loyalty would be to the community ofidentified wi th the precious wellspring of human autonomy andcitizens rather than to individual citizens.It would pay tribute to thedignity.Thus it was that i n Greece Isegoria the universal right tomutual respect of citizens to create a public officer whose single dutyspeak i n the assembly came to be a synonym not merely for dem-would be to serve those aggrieved by the community, even whenocratic participation but for democracy itself.Thus it is that democ-especially when it acts legitimately i n the full grandeur of its com-racy, if it is to survive the shrinking of the world and the assaults ofmunal responsibility for public goods.We permit and encouragea hostile modernity, wil l have to rediscover its multiple voices andpublic defenders because we believe that those accused of the moregive to citizens once again the power to speak, to decide, and to act;dastardly felonies are innocent until proven otherwise.Surely wefor i n the end human freedom wil l be found not i n caverns of privatecan afford to encourage ombudsmen because we believe that thesolitude but i n the noisy assemblies where women and men meetouttalked or outvoted are innocent of immorality or wrong-head-daily as citizens and discover i n each other's talk the consolation ofedness despite their dissent.a common humanity.Above all, strong democracy needs to advance its program i n atemperate spirit.If final solutions could be discerned, what needwould we have to deliberate and debate or to rely on the artifice of achanging public will? If truth is the object, philosophers wi l l do forkings.But democracy begins where truth and certitude and finalsolutions disappear into the murky uncertainties of the human con-73.Alan J.Wyner, ed., Executive Ombudsmen in the United States (Berkeley: Insti-tute of Governmental Studies, 1973), p.3.For a full discussion of the experience withand promise of the ombudsman office in America, see Stanley V.Anderson, Ombuds-man Papers: American Experience and Proposals (Berkeley: Institute of GovernmentalStudies, 1969) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]