Annual Lectures

The Democracy Studies Annual Lecture is given every year by a senior scholar to share valuable perspectives on democracy and discuss cutting-edge topics on democracy together.

Thursday 28 October 2021
h.17.00
Zoom

Prof. Bo Rothstein
University of Gothenburg
 

Is there a contradiction between democracy and quality of government?: 
Most definitions of democracy rely on a set of procedural rules for how political power should be accessed legitimately. The basic norm for these procedural rules are according to noted democracy theorist Robert Dahl political equality realized by equal democratic rights. In this understanding of political legitimacy, democracy is a “partisan game” where various interests are given fair possibilities to compete for political power.
The concept of “quality of government” relates to the legitimacy in the exercise of political power and is based on the norm of impartiality that is the opposite of partisanship. This is to be realized by, for example, the rule of law and a public administration built on meritocracy.
Several tensions between these two bases for achieving political legitimacy will be present. For example, a democratically elected government may want to politicize the public administration and may establish public services and benefits directed only to their political supporters. The rule of law includes the principle of equality before the law, but a democratically elected government may take actions that put it “above” the law.
Various measures to handle these and other tensions between democracy and the quality of government will be presented in this lecture.

Monday 12 September 2022

Stefano Bartolini
European University Institute

The Nature of Political Institutions

To understand what ‘political institutions’ are, we may check textbooks and specialised works, which provide listings such as human rights, constitutions, state formats, executives, legislatures, judiciaries, election systems, democracy, the rule of law. There is disagreement about missing, redundant or unnecessary items. In perusing the literature further, one encounters additional bedfellows. Party systems, parties, trade unions, and more generally interest organisations are often considered political institutions, as are regimes, cleavages and standard operating procedures of administrative bureaucracies. The range extends further to include public policies and political economies. The list of ‘which’ grows and with it grows the perplexity too. To try to answer the ‘which’ question is not the right strategy. Which political institutions exist logically depends on ‘what’ political institutions are. If we fail to agree on the ‘what’ we are unlikely to concur on the ‘which.’ In line with the understanding of all institutions, also political institutions are here considered norms and rules. In particular, political institutions are those norms and rules that empower the rulership, set limits on the monopolistic capacity to produce and distribute behavioural compliance and define the ‘proper’ means for achieving such compliance. They are what I call ‘conferral’ norms/rules’, to be clearly distinguished from  ‘conduct’ norms/rules and from ‘recognition’ norms/rules’. There is no novelty in understanding institutions as normative facts. The point is to distinguish clearly among different types of norms/rules and to specify the particularities of those norms/rules that we define as ‘political.’ There are institutions that do not belong to the realm of the political and political realities that do not belong to the realm of institutions. The issue is to specify the properties of this intersection area. Whether the ‘institutional’ or the ‘political’ element prevails in what we call a ‘political institution’ is an issue that identifies the constitutive ambiguity of the term and of its analysis.