political theory PDF
Preview political theory
POLITICAL THEORY An International Journal of Political Philosophy Editor STEPHEN K. WHITE University of Virginia Consulting Editor J. DONALD MOON Wesleyan University Review Editor BONNIE HONIG Northwestern University and American Bar Foundation Assistant Editor and Political Theory Fellow PATRICIA NORDEEN University of Virginia and Yale University Editorial Assistant MICHAEL KLEIN Executive Editorial Committee MARY DIETZ University of Minnesota MICHAELROGIN UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley STEPHEN MACEDO Princeton University IRISMARIONYOUNG University of Chicago ANTHONY PAGDEN Johns Hopkins University LINDA ZERILLI Northwestern University Editorial Board SHLOMO AVINERI Hebrew University of Jerusalem BENJAMIN BARBER Rutgers University BRIAN BARRY Columbia University WILLIAM E. CONNOLLY The Johns Hopkins University ROBERT CUMMING Columbia University JOHN DUNN Cambridge University JEAN ELSHTAIN University of Chicago RICHARD FLATHMAN The Johns Hopkins University JULIAN FRANKLIN Columbia University VICTOR GOUREVITCH Wesleyan University JÜRGEN HABERMAS University of Frankfurt VIRGINIA HELD City University of New York GEORGE KATEB Princeton University STEVEN LUKES University of Siena HARVEY MANSFIELD Harvard University HANNA PITKIN University of California, Berkeley J.G.A. POCOCK The Johns Hopkins University JOHN RAWLS Harvard University MELVIN RICHTER City University of New York ALAN RYAN Oxford University GIOVANNI SARTORI Columbia University QUENTIN SKINNER Cambridge University TRACY STRONG University of California, San Diego CHARLES TAYLOR McGill University DENNIS THOMPSON Harvard University MICHAEL WALZER The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton ROBERT PAUL WOLFF University of Massachusetts SHELDON S. WOLIN Princeton University For Sage Publications: Yvette Pollastrini, Matthew H. Adams, Katinka Baltazar, Stephanie Allen, and Tina Paptsos POLITICAL THEORYfounded byROBERT LAMB and WALTER ODAJNYK POLITICAL THEORY Volume 29, Number 6 / December 2001 POLITICAL THEORY Volume 29, Number 6 / December 2001 From the Editor Stephen K. White 765 ARTICLES Special Section: Democracy, Law, Founding Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles? Jürgen Habermas 766 Of Boats and Principles: Reflections on Habermas’s “Constitutional Democracy” Alessandro Ferrara 782 Dead Rights, Live Futures: A Reply to Habermas’s “Constitutional Democracy” Bonnie Honig 792 Special Section: Oakeshott Centenary Oakeshott’s Hobbes and the Fear of Political Rationalism Ted H. Miller 806 A Preface to an Unpublished MS by Michael Oakeshott on Hobbes’sLeviathan Patrick Riley 833 Letter on Hobbes Michael Oakeshott 834 Bad Civil Society Simone Chambers and Jeffrey Kopstein 837 CRITICAL EXCHANGE Transcending Violence in Derrida: A Reply to John McCormick Ben Corson 866 Justice, Interpretation, and Violence: A Rejoinder to Corson John P. McCormick 876 REVIEW ESSAYS Decapitation, Ghosts, and the Holy Spirit Connolly,Why I’m Not a Secularist Z‹iz#ek,The Fragile Absolute Jodi Dean 882 Review Essay on Mamdani and Ackerly Mamdani,Beyond Rights Talk and Culture Talk: Comparative Essays on the Politics of Rights and Culture Ackerly,Political Theory and Feminist Social Criticism Roxanne L. Euben 888 BOOKS IN REVIEW Gerencser,The Skeptic’s Oakeshott Peter Digeser 896 Dumm,A Politics of the Ordinary Jacqueline Stevens 898 Index 902 Sage Publications Thousand Oaks • London • New Delhi POLITICALTHEORYisaninternationaljournalofpoliticalphilosophyopentocontributionsfromevery methodological,philosophical,andideologicalperspective.Essaysinhistoricalpoliticalthoughtand modernpoliticaltheory,normativeandanalyticphilosophy,historyofideas,andassessmentof currentworkareequallywelcome.Thejournalhasnoparticularisticaffiliationororientationandis meant to serve the entire political theory community. MANUSCRIPTSshouldbesentintriplicatetoProfessorStephenK.White,Editor,POLITICAL THEORY,DepartmentofGovernmentandForeignAffairs,UniversityofVirginia,P.O.Box400787, Charlottesville,VA22904.Articlesshouldbe30single-sided,double-spacedpagesorless.Notes shouldbeplacedattheendofthearticle,alsodouble-spaced,andintheformusedinTheChicago ManualofStyle,14thedition.Abriefbiographicalparagraphdescribingeachauthor’scurrentaffilia- tion,researchinterests,andrecentpublicationsshouldaccompanythemanuscript.Manuscripts canbereturnedonlyifaself-addressedstampedenvelopeisenclosed.Unfortunately,thevolumeof submissionsmakesitimpossibleforustocommentonallmanuscripts.Ourreviewperiodisnormally threemonths,exceptforJunethroughAugustsubmissions,whenourofficesareclosedforthesum- mer.Ifpossible,thefinaldraftofacceptedmanuscriptsshouldbeaccompaniedbyanIBM-compatible computerdiskversion.Submissionofamanuscriptimpliescommitmenttopublishinthejournal.Authors submittingmanuscriptstothejournalshouldnotsimultaneouslysubmitthemtoanotherjournal,nor shouldmanuscriptshavebeenpublishedelsewhereinsubstantiallysimilarformorwithsubstantially similarcontent.Authorsindoubtaboutwhatconstitutespriorpublicationshouldconsulttheeditor.The POLITICALTHEORYWebsiteisathttp://faculty.virginia.edu/pol-theoryprogram/journal/,e-mail:ptheory@ virginia.edu. CRITICALRESPONSEStoessayspublishedinPOLITICALTHEORYarewelcome.Theyshouldbe no longer than eight pages in length, including notes and references. BOOK REVIEWS:Books for review should be sent to Bonnie Honig, Review Editor,POLITICAL THEORY,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,NorthwesternUniversity,Evanston,IL60208-1006.Were- gret we cannotaccept unsolicited reviews or review essays. ANNOUNCEMENTSANDCORRESPONDENCEregardingpapers,panels,conferences,andother newsofinteresttoreadersshouldbesenttotheEditor,POLITICALTHEORY,attheaddressgiven above. POLITICALTHEORY(ISSN0090-5917)ispublishedsixtimesannually—inFebruary,April,June,August,October,and December—bySagePublications,2455TellerRoad,ThousandOaks,CA91320;telephone(800)818-SAGE(7243) and(805)499-9774;fax/orderline(805)375-1700;http://www.sagepub.com;e-mail:[email protected]© 2001bySagePublications.Allrightsreserved.Noportionofthecontentsmaybereproducedinanyformwithoutwritten permission of the publisher. Subscriptions:Annualsubscriptionratesforinstitutionsandindividualsarebasedonthecurrentfrequency.Prices quotedareinU.S.dollarsandaresubjecttochangewithoutnotice.Canadiansubscribersadd7%GST(andHSTas appropriate).OutsideU.S.subscriptionratesincludeshippingviaair-speededdelivery.Institutions:$495(withinthe U.S.)/$519(outsidetheU.S.)/singleissue:$95(worldwide).Individuals:$88(withintheU.S.)/$112(outsidethe U.S.)/singleissue:$24(worldwide).OrdersfromtheU.K.,Europe,theMiddleEast,andAfricashouldbesenttothe Londonaddress(below).OrdersfromIndiaandSouthAsiashouldbesenttotheNewDelhiaddress(below). Noninstitutional orders must be paid by personal check, VISA, or MasterCard. Periodicals postage paid at Thousand Oaks, California and at additional mailing offices. ThisjournalisabstractedorindexedinAcademicAbstracts;AcademicSearch;CorporateResourceNET;CSA PoliticalScience&Government:AGuidetoPeriodicalLiterature;CurrentContents:Social&BehavioralSci- ences;ExpandedAcademicIndex;InternationalBibliographyoftheSocialSciences;InternationalPolitical ScienceAbstracts;ISIBasicSocialSciencesIndex;MasterFILEFullTEXT;PeriodicalAbstracts;Political ScienceAbstracts;PublicLibraryFullTEXT;SocialScienceSource;SocialScienceCitationIndex;Social SciencesIndexFullText;SociologicalAbstracts;StandardPeriodicalDirectory(SPD);ThePhilosopher’sIn- dex;TOPICsearch;WilsonOmniFileV;andWilsonSocialSciencesIndex/Abstracts,andisavailableonmicro- film fromUniversity Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Backissues:Informationaboutavailabilityandpricesofbackissuesmaybeobtainedfromthepublisher’sorder department(addressbelow).Single-issueordersfor5ormorecopieswillreceiveaspecialadoptiondiscount.Contact the order department for details.Write to the London office for sterling prices. Inquiries:Allsubscriptioninquiries,orders,andrenewalswithship-toaddressesinNorthAmerica,SouthAmerica, Australia,China,Indonesia,Japan,Korea,NewZealand,andthePhilippinesmustbeaddressedtoSagePublica- tions,2455TellerRoad,ThousandOaks,CA91320,U.S.A.;telephone(800)818-SAGE(7243)and(805)499-9774; fax(805)375-1700;http://www.sagepub.com;e-mail:[email protected],orders,andre- newalswithship-toaddressesintheU.K.,Europe,theMiddleEast,andAfricamustbeaddressedtoSagePublica- tionsLtd,6BonhillStreet,LondonEC2A4PU,England;telephone+44(0)2073740645;fax+44(0)2073748741.All subscriptioninquiries,orders,andrenewalswithship-toaddressesinIndiaandSouthAsiamustbeaddressedto SagePublicationsPrivateLtd,P.O.Box4215,NewDelhi110048,India;telephone(91-11)641-9784;fax(91-11) 647-2426.Address all permissions requests to the Thousand Oaks office. Authorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluse,ortheinternalorpersonaluseofspecificclients,is grantedbySagePublicationsforlibrariesandotherusersregisteredwiththeCopyrightClearanceCenter(CCC) TransactionalReportingService,providedthatthebasefeeof50¢percopy,plus10¢percopypage,ispaiddirectly to CCC, 21 Congress St., Salem, MA 01970.0090-5917/2001 $.50 + .10. Advertising:CurrentratesandspecificationsmaybeobtainedbywritingtotheAdvertisingManagerattheThousand Oaks office (address above). Claims:Claimsforundeliveredcopiesmustbemadenolaterthansixmonthsfollowingmonthofpublication.The publisherwillsupplymissingcopieswhenlosseshavebeensustainedintransitandwhenthereservestockwillpermit. ChangeofAddress:Sixweeks’advancenoticemustbegivenwhennotifyingofchangeofaddress.Pleasesend oldaddresslabelalongwiththenewaddresstoensureproperidentification.Pleasespecifynameofjournal. POSTMASTER:Send address changes to:Political Theory, c/o 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Printed on acid-free, recycled paper PFOROLIMT ITCHAEL ETDHIETOORRY / December 2001 FROM THE EDITOR I nterestinpoliticaltheoryseemstobeatanall-timehigh,atleastifone judgesbynewjournals.Threearescheduledtomaketheirdebutin2002,Pol- itics,PhilosophyandEconomics,ContemporaryPoliticalTheory,andEuro- pean Journal of Political Theory. We wish them well. 2001istheonehundredthanniversaryofMichaelOakeshott’sbirth.We commemoratethiswithafinearticlebyTedMillerthatengagesOakeshott’s interpretationofHobbes.Includedaswellisashort,previouslyunpublished manuscriptbyOakeshotthimselfonHobbes.IthankPatrickRileybothfor making the manuscript available and for writing a preface to it. —Stephen K. White Editor POLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 29 No. 6, December 2001 765 © 2001 Sage Publications 765 PHOabLeIrTmICasA /L C TOHNESOTRITYU /T DIOecNeAmLb eDr E20M0O1CRACY DEMOCRACY, LAW, FOUNDING CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles? JÜRGEN HABERMAS University of Frankfurt 1. Themodernconceptionofdemocracydiffersfromtheclassicalconcep- tioninvirtueofitsrelationtoatypeoflawthatdisplaysthreecharacteristics: modernlawispositive,compulsory,andindividualistic.Suchlawconsistsof normsthatareproducedbyalawgiver,aresanctionedbythestate,andare meant to guarantee individual liberties. According to the liberal view, the democratic self-determination of citizens can be realized only through the mediumofsuchalaw,thestructuralpropertiesofwhichensureliberty.Con- sequently,theideaofa“ruleoflaw,”whichinthepastwasexpressedinthe idea of human rights, comes on the scene alongside—and together with—thatofpopularsovereigntyasasecondsourceoflegitimation.This duality raises the question of how the democratic principle and constitutionalism are related.1 Accordingtotheclassicalconception,thelawsofarepublicexpressthe unrestrictedwilloftheunitedcitizens.Regardlessofhowthelawsreflectthe existing ethos of the shared political life, this ethos presents no limitation insofarasitachievesitsvalidityonlythroughthecitizens’ownprocessof will-formation.Theprincipleoftheconstitutionalexerciseofpower,onthe otherhand,appearstosetlimitsonthepeople’ssovereignself-determination. Theruleoflawrequiresthatdemocraticwill-formationnotviolatehuman rightsthathavebeenpositivelyenactedasbasicrights.Thetwosourcesof legitimationalsocompetewitheachotherinthehistoryofpoliticalphiloso- phy.Liberalismandcivicrepublicanismdisagreeonwhetherthe“libertyof themoderns”orthe“libertyoftheancients”shouldenjoypriorityintheorder POLITICAL THEORY, Vol. 29 No. 6, December 2001 766-781 © 2001 Sage Publications 766 Habermas / CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY 767 ofjustification.Whichcomesfirst:theindividuallibertiesofthemembersof the modern market society or the rights of democratic citizens to political participation? Theonesideinsiststhatinbasicrights,theprivateautonomyofcitizens assumesaformthat—“unchangeable”initsessentialcontent—guarantees theanonymousruleoflaw.Accordingtotheotherside,thepoliticalauton- omy of citizens is embodied in the self-organization of a community that freely makes its own laws. If the normative justification of constitutional democracyistobeconsistent,thenitseemsonemustrankthetwoprinciples, humanrightsandpopularsovereignty.Tobelegitimate,laws,includingbasic rights,musteitheragreewithhumanrights(howevertheseinturnarelegiti- mated)orissuefromdemocraticwill-formation.Onthefirstalternative,the democratic lawgiver may decide in a sovereign manner only within the boundariesofhumanrights;onthesecondalternative,thedemocraticlaw- givercansetupanyconstitutionitwantsand,asthecasemaybe,violateits own basic law, thus impairing the idea of the constitutional state. However, these alternatives contradict a strong intuition.2 The idea of humanrightsthatisspelledoutinbasicrightsmayneitherbeimposedonthe sovereignlawgiverasalimitationnorbemerelyinstrumentalizedasafunc- tionalrequisiteforlegislativepurposes.Inacertainway,weconsiderboth principlesasequallyoriginal.Oneisnotpossiblewithouttheother,butnei- ther sets limits on the other. The intuition of “co-originality” can also be expressedthus:privateandpublicautonomyrequireeachother.Thetwocon- ceptsareinterdependent;theyarerelatedtoeachotherbymaterialimplica- tion.Citizenscanmakeanappropriateuseoftheirpublicautonomy,asguar- anteedbypoliticalrights,onlyiftheyaresufficientlyindependentinvirtueof anequallyprotectedprivateautonomyintheirlifeconduct.Butmembersof societyactuallyenjoytheirequalprivateautonomytoanequalextent—that is,equallydistributedindividuallibertieshave“equalvalue”forthem—only if as citizens they make an appropriate use of their political autonomy. RousseauandKantbothformulatedthisintuitionintheconceptofauton- omy.3Theideathattheaddresseesofthelawmustalsobeabletounderstand themselvesasitsauthorsdoesnotgivetheunitedcitizensofademocraticpol- ityavoluntaristic,carteblanchepermissiontomakewhateverdecisionsthey like.Thelegalguaranteetobehaveasonepleaseswithintheboundsofthe lawisthecoreofprivate,notpublic,autonomy.Rather,onthebasisofthis freedomofchoice,citizensareaccordedautonomyinthesenseofareason- able will-formation, even if this autonomy can only be enjoined [angesonnen]andnotlegallyrequiredofthem.Theyshouldbindtheirwills to just those laws they give themselves after achieving a common will throughdiscourse.Correctlyunderstood,theideaofself-legislationengen- 768 POLITICAL THEORY / December 2001 dersaninternalrelationbetweenwillandreasoninsuchawaythatthefree- domofeveryone—thatis,self-legislation—dependsontheequalconsider- ation of the individual freedom of each individual to take a yes/no position—that is, self-legislation. Under these conditions, only those laws thatlieintheequalinterestofeachcanmeetwiththereasonableagreementof all. However,neitherRousseaunorKantcouldfindanunambiguouswayof usingtheconceptofautonomyforthejustificationofconstitutionaldemoc- racy.Rousseauinscribedthewillofthepeoplewithreasonbybindingthe democraticprocesstotheabstractanduniversalformoflaws,whereasKant triedtoaccomplishthisrelationtoreasonbysubordinatinglawtomorality. AsIwillshow,however,thisinternalconnectionbetweenwillandreasoncan develop only in the dimension of time—as a self-correcting historical process. Itistrue,ofcourse,thatintheConflictoftheFaculties,Kantwentbeyond thesystematicboundariesofthisphilosophyandraisedtheFrenchRevolu- tiontothelevelofa“historicalsign”forthepossibilityofamoralprogressof humanity.4 But in the theory itself we find no trace of the constitutional assembliesofPhiladelphiaandParis—atleastnotthereasonabletraceofa great,dualhistoricaleventthatwecannowseeinretrospectasanentirely newbeginning.Withthiseventbeganaprojectthatholdstogetherarational constitutionaldiscourseacrossthecenturies.Inwhatfollows,Itakearecent studybyFrankMichelman5astheoccasiontoarguethattheallegedlypara- doxicalrelationbetweendemocracyandtheruleoflawresolvesitselfinthe dimension of historical time, provided one conceives the constitution as a projectthatmakesthefoundingactintoanongoingprocessofconstitution- making that continues across generations. 2. Political systems such as the United States and the German Federal Republichavesetupanindependentinstitutionchargedwithscrutinizingthe constitutionalityofparliamentarylegislation.Inthesesettings,thefunction andstatusofthispoliticallyinfluentialbranch—theConstitutionalCourtor SupremeCourt—sparkdebatesovertherelationbetweendemocracyandthe ruleoflaw.IntheUnitedStates,adebatehasbeengoingonforsometime over the legitimacy of the highest-level judicial review exercised by the SupremeCourt.Againandagain,civicrepublicanswhoareconvincedthat “allgovernmentisbythepeople”bristleattheelitepoweroflegalexpertsto void the decisions of a democratically elected legislature, although these Habermas / CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY 769 expertsthemselvesarenotlegitimatedbyademocraticmajoritybutcanonly call on their technical competence in constitutional interpretation. Frank MichelmanseesthisproblematicpersonifiedinWilliamJ.Brennan,acom- manding figure in recent American constitutional jurisprudence. As Michelmandescribeshim,Brennanisaliberalwhodefendsindividualliber- tiesinstronglymoralisticterms;ademocratwhoradicalizesrightsofpoliti- calparticipationandwantstogiveahearingtothevoicelessandmarginalized aswellastothedeviantandoppositionalvoices;asocialdemocratwhois highlysensitivetoquestionsofsocialjustice;and,finally,apluralistwho, going beyond the liberal understanding of tolerance, pleads for a politics open to difference and to the recognition of cultural, racial, and religious minorities. In short, by employing the palette of American pragmatism to depict Brennan as a model of contemporary republicanism, Michelman wants to sharpen the question that interests us here: when a convinced democratwiththismentality,intheroleofahighlyactivistSupremeCourt judge,hasnoqualmsinmakingextensiveuseofthedubiousinstrumentof judicialoversight,thenperhapsthejurisprudencehehasshapedexposesthe secret of how one can combine the principle of popular sovereignty with constitutionalism. MichelmanusesBrennantoexemplifytheroleofa“responsivejudge” whoqualifiesasdemocraticallyabovesuspicionwhenitcomestointerpret- ingtheConstitution.Brennanqualifiesforthistrustbecauseherendershis decisions as best he knows how and according to his conscience and only afterhehaslistenedaspatientlyaspossible—withaninquisitivehermeneu- ticsensitivityandadesiretolearn—tothetangleofviewsintherelevantdis- coursesconductedincivilsocietyandthepoliticalpublicsphere.Interaction withthelargerpublic,beforewhichlegalexpertsareheldresponsible,issup- posedtocontributetothedemocraticlegitimationofthedecisionsofaconsti- tutionaljudgewhohasnotbeendemocraticallylegitimatedoratleastnotsuf- ficiently legitimated Itisaconditionoftheinterpreter’sgreaterorlesserreliabilityandofwhatwecandoto bolsterit.Andoneconditionthatyouthinkcontributesgreatlytoreliabilityisthecon- stantexposureoftheinterpreter—themoralreader—tothefullblastofthesundryopin- ionsonthequestionsofrightnessofoneoranotherinterpretation,freelyanduninhibit- edlyproducedbyassortedmembersofsocietylisteningtowhattheothershavetosayout of their diverse life histories, current situations, and perceptions of interest and need.6 Michelman is apparently guided by the intuition that the discursive besiegementoftheCourtbyamobilizedsocietygivesrisetoaninteraction that has favorable consequences for both sides. For the Court, which as always decides independently, the perspective of the experts is broadened
Description:The list of books you might like
