Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion
Stockholm Univ, Dept Polit Sci, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Government.
2018 (English)In: Res Publica, ISSN 1356-4765, E-ISSN 1572-8692, Vol. 24, no 2, p. 181-198Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

According to neo-republicans, democracy is morally justified because it is among the prerequisites for freedom as non-domination. The claim that democracy secures freedom as non-domination needs to explain why democratic procedures contribute to non-domination and for whom democracy secures non-domination. This requires an account of why domination is countered by democratic procedures and an account of to whom domination is countered by access to democratic procedures. Neo-republican theory of democracy is based on a detailed discussion of the former but a scant discussion of the latter. We address this lacuna by interpreting the two most influential principles of inclusion, the all-subjected principle and the all-affected principle, in light of neo-republican commitments. The preliminary conclusion is that both principles are able to capture relations of domination between the democratic state and the people controlled by it in the relevant sense. Yet, the state has virtually unlimited powers to control residents, but only limited powers to interfere in the lives of non-residents. Republican aspirations are therefore more in tune with the all-subjected principle according to which only residents in the territory of the state should be granted rights to political participation.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
SPRINGER , 2018. Vol. 24, no 2, p. 181-198
Keywords [en]
Neo-republicanism, Non-domination, Democracy, Inclusion, Residents
National Category
Philosophy Political Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-356191DOI: 10.1007/s11158-016-9348-8ISI: 000431043200002OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-356191DiVA, id: diva2:1236095
Available from: 2018-07-31 Created: 2018-07-31 Last updated: 2018-07-31Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(416 kB)6 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 416 kBChecksum SHA-512
4c52111d2dda5ab4e4514548f2d2b665da7d2649c625599dea8fdd2e4a80f14a62e3207c8730e7ad10a20d8d1d41a99bb2e2e86f17b17c5f1a768383325b24e9
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hultin Rosenberg, Jonas
By organisation
Department of Government
In the same journal
Res Publica
PhilosophyPolitical Science (excluding Public Administration Studies and Globalisation Studies)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 6 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 6 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf