User:Minseungyoo/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Minseungyoo is a Wikipedia user-pseudonym for Clint Yoo, a student at Yale University. He will be graduating in 2020, majoring in political science. His aims for future professional endeavors are currently undetermined.

FINAL: Complete Draft_For Grading[edit]

Guideline:

  • *Italicized texts are texts from the original draft
  • *Regular texts are all original, Bolded are new sections/subsections
  • *Deleted texts

Draft:

1) 'Lead Section' unchanged.

2) 'Overview' added after 'Lead Section'

Overview

Participation is commonly defined as the act of taking part in some action. 'Political participation', hence, is largely assumed as an act of taking part in 'political' action. However, such definition often varies in political science due to the ambiguities surrounding what can be conceived as 'political' actions.[1] Within this general definition, the perception of political participation varies by differing modes, intensities, and qualities of participation.[1] From voting to directly influencing the implementation of public policies, the extent to which a political participation should be considered appropriate in political theory is, to this day, under debate.

Participatory democracy is not a novel concept and has existed under various political designs since the Athenian democracy. The theory of participatory democracy was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later promoted by J.S. Mill and G. D. H. Cole, who argued that political participation is indispensable for the realization of a just society.[2] Nevertheless, the sudden invigoration and popularity on this topic in the academic literature only began in mid-19th century. One conjecture is that the revival of political participation's significance was a natural progression from the growing assessment that representative models of democracy were in decline; increasingly inorganic relations between the elected elites and the public, diminishing electoral turnouts, and ceaseless political corruptions are often considered as the rationales behind its alleged crisis.[3] Another, as argued by David Plotke, is that the proponents of participatory democracy were originally the critics of 'minimal democracy', a theory popularly established by Joseph Schumpeter.[4] Plotke claims, "In the Cold War, nonCommunist left critics of minimal democracy tended to define their positions by reversing the [proponents of minimal democracy's] claims. [...] Given [an] unappetizing menu, critics of minimal democracy advocated a sharp and sustained increase in political participation."[4] Regardless of its origin, the recent resurgence of participatory democracy has led to various institutional reforms such as participatory budgeting, steadily challenging the traditionally predominant form of liberal democracy.[5]

The proponents of participatory democracy criticize liberal democracy and argue that representation is inherently deficient for truly democratic societies, leading to the fundamental debate on democratic ideology. Benjamin Barber, an advocate for 'individual democracy', has denounced liberal democracy because "it alienates human beings from each other and, more important, because the epistemological basis on which liberalism stands is itself fundamentally flawed."[6] Barber's notable significance is the return to the epistemological basis of politics and democracy, and in that vein, Joel Wolfe reinforces his hypothesis: "[...] strong democracy should be a form of government in which all people participate in decision-making and implementation. While recognizing that the complexity of modern society imposes limits on direct democracy, participation by all is imperative because it creates shared interests, a common will, and community action, all of which inevitably give legitimacy to politics."[7]

3) 'History' texts deleted, reorganized, and categorized; no original text added

History

  • Origins

Participatory democracy has a long history. One instance is the Iroquois confederacy (also known as the Haudenosaunee confederacy) which operates under the oldest surviving constitution in the world. In 7th and 8th century Ancient Greece, the informal distributed power structure of the villages and minor towns began to be displaced with collectives of Oligarchs seizing power as the villages and towns coalesced into city states. This caused much hardship and discontent among the common people, with many having to sell their land due to debts, and even suffer from debt slavery. Around 600 BCE the Athenian leader Solon initiated some reforms to limit the power of Oligarchs and re-establish a partial form of participatory democracy with some decisions taken by a popular assembly composed of all free male citizens. About a century later, Solon's reforms were further enhanced for even more direct involvement of regular citizens by Cleisthenes. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. When democracy was revived as a political system about 2000 years later, decisions were made by representatives rather than by the people themselves. A minor exception to this was the limited form of direct democracy which flourished in the Swiss Cantons from the later Middle Ages.

  • Modern Era
    • 19th and 20th Centuries

An ephemerous but notorious instance, taking place in the Modern Age, was the Paris Commune of 1871, which married the universal political engagement of participatory democracy with a correspondent collective ownership and management of the means of production, which, like participatory democracy itself, was a demand of the nascent organized left-wing. In the late 19th century, a small number of thinkers, including Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin—all highly influenced, along with their International Working Men's Association, by the Commune–and Oscar Wilde began advocating increased participatory democracy. It was in the 20th century that practical implementations of participatory democracy once again began to take place, albeit mostly on a small scale, attracting considerable academic attention in the 1980s.

During the Spanish civil war, from 1936–1938, the parts of Spain controlled by anarchist members of the Spanish Republican faction was governed almost totally by participatory democracy. In 1938 the anarchists were displaced after betrayal by their former Republican allies in the Communist party and attacks from the Nationalist forces of General Franco. The writer George Orwell, who experienced participatory democracy in Spain with the anarchists before their defeat, discusses it in his book Homage to Catalonia, and says participatory democracy was a "strange and valuable" experience where one could breathe "the air of equality" and where normal human motives like snobbishness, greed, and fear of authority had ceased to exist.

The mystic and philosopher Simone Weil, who had helped the Spanish anarchists as a combat soldier, would later promote participatory democracy in her political manifesto The Need for Roots.

In the 1960s the promotion and use of participatory democracy was a major theme for elements of the American Left.

In the 1980s, the profile of participatory democracy within academia was raised by James S. Fishkin, the professor who introduced the deliberative opinion poll. Experiments in forms of participatory democracy that took place within a wider framework of representative democracy began in cities around the world, with an early adopter being Brazil's Porto Alegre. A World Bankstudy found that participatory democracy in these cities seemed to result in considerable improvement in the quality of life for residents.

  • Modern Era
    • 21st Century

In the early 21st century, low profile experiments in participatory democracy began to spread throughout South and North Americas, to China and across the European Union. A partial example in the USA occurred with drawing up the plans to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, with thousands of ordinary citizens involved with drafting and approving the plan.

In recent years, social media has led to a change in how participatory democracy is conducted. In the 2016 election social media was used to spread news and many politicians used social media outlets like twitter to attract voters. Social media has been used to organize movements to demand change. Mainly through hashtags, citizens join political conversations with differing view points. To promote public interest and involvement, local governments are using social media to make decisions based on public feedback. Though it requires much commitment, citizens have organized committees to highlight local needs and appointing budget delegates who works with the citizens and city agencies.

In 2011, participatory democracy became a notable feature of the Occupy movement, a movement largely started by a Tumblr post titled "We Are the 99 Percent", protesting and claiming few individuals held all the power. Occupy camps around the world made decisions based on the outcome of working groups where every protestor gets to have their say, and by general assemblies where the decisions taken by working groups are effectively aggregated together. Their decision process was an attempt to combine equality, mass participation, and deliberation, but caused slow decisions. By November 2011 the movement had been frequently criticized for not yet coalescing around clearly identifiable aims.

In 2012 the Quebec Tuition Protests began. In response to the announcement by the provisional government of Quebec that the tuition would be raised, college students began to organize mostly on social media websites. Bill 78, passed to restrict protesting and demonstration due to violent interactions, also brought much attention to this movement.

In 2013 Black Lives Matter movement began organizing protest of the police brutality of African American teens in the United States. Trayvon Martin's death in a police shooting was the rallying point for the movement. The hashtags #BlackLivesMatter and #BLM were used on many social media outlets and sparked nationwide debate.

4) Major Criticisms added after 'History'

Major Criticisms

  • Strengths

Main advocates of participatory democracy view it as an appropriate political development considering the inherent democratic deficiency in representative models. Generally argued as an intermediary between direct and representative democracy, participatory democracy's alleged strengths lie in greater citizen involvement, popular control, and egalitarian and non-exploitative social relations.

The most prominent argument for participatory democracy is its function of greater democratization. Although the extent of how 'democratized' societies should be may rely on sociocultural and economic contexts, Pateman claims, "[...] the argument is about changes that will make our own social and political life more democratic, that will provide opportunities for individuals to participate in decision-making in their everyday lives as well as in the wider political system. It is about democratizing democracy."[8] In such a democratized society, individuals or groups can not only pursue, but also realistically achieve their interests, ultimately "[providing] the means to a more just and rewarding society, not a strategy for preserving the status quo."[9]

Another proposed advantage participatory democracy over other democratic models is its educative effect. Initially promoted by Rousseau, Mill, and Cole, greater political participation can in turn lead the public to seek or accomplish higher qualities of participation in terms of efficacy and depth: "the more individuals participate the better able they become to do so"[9][8] Pateman emphasizes this potential because it precisely counteracts the widely spread lack of faith in citizen capacity, especially in advanced societies with complex organizations.[8] In this vein, J. Wolfe asserts his confidence in the feasibility of participatory models even in large-member organizations, which would progressively diminish state intervention as the most crucial mode of political change.[9]

  • Weaknesses

The negative criticisms of participatory democracy generally align with exclusive advocacy for 'minimal democracy'. While some critics, such as David Plotke, call for a conciliatory medium between participatory and representative models, others are skeptical of the overly leftist democratic ideology. Two general oppositions can be found within the literature, the prior is the disbelief in citizen capabilities, considering how greater responsibilities come as participation grows. Michels rejects the feasibility of participatory models and goes so far as to refute the educative benefits of participatory democracy by delineating the lack of motivations for extensive participation to begin development: "First, the self-interested, rational member has little incentive to participate because he lacks the skills and knowledge to be effective, making it cost effective to rely on officials' expertise."[10] In other words, the motivation, or even desire, for participation is a misconceived understanding of the general will in politics.[10] By analyzing that the aggregate citizenry is rather disinterested and leader-dependent, the mechanism for participatory democracy is argued to be inherently incompatible with advanced societies.

Other concerns largely rest on the feasibility of effectively managing massive political input into an equally meaningful, responsive output. Plotke condemns the ideological element of universal participation since any institutional adjustment to employ greater political participation can never exclude a representative element.[11] Consequently, neither direct nor participatory democracy can be truly themselves without having some type of representation to sustain realistically a stable political system. Such examination derives from the supposed impossibility of achieving equitably direct participation in large and populated regions. Plotke ultimately argues in favor of representation over participation and criticizes the misconception by participatory democrats of "representation [as] an unfortunate compromise between an ideal of direct democracy and messy realities."[11]

5) 'Variants' label change to Democratic Models

Democratic Models - restructuring of the texts, refer to Original Article for reference.


The Original Article[edit]

Participatory democracy emphasizes the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory. However, participatory democracy tends to advocate more involved forms of citizen participation and greater political representation than traditional representative democracy.

Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. Since so much information must be gathered for the overall decision-making process to succeed, technology may provide important forces leading to the type of empowerment needed for participatory models, especially those technological tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the accretion of knowledge. Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied.[12] Other advocates have emphasized the importance of face to face meetings, warning that an overreliance on technology can be harmful.[13]

Some scholars argue for refocusing the term on community-based activity within the domain of civil society, based on the belief that a strong non-governmental public sphere is a precondition for the emergence of a strong liberal democracy.[14] These scholars tend to stress the value of separation between the realm of civil society and the formal political realm.[15] In 2011, considerable grassroots interest in participatory democracy was generated by the Occupy movement.

History[edit]

Members of the Occupy Movement practicing participatory democracy in a general assembly held in Washington Square Park, New York City on October 8, 2011

Participatory democracy has a long history. One instance is the Iroquois confederacy (also known as the Haudenosaunee confederacy) which operates under the oldest surviving constitution in the world. In 7th and 8th century Ancient Greece, the informal distributed power structure of the villages and minor towns began to be displaced with collectives of Oligarchs seizing power as the villages and towns coalesced into city states. This caused much hardship and discontent among the common people, with many having to sell their land due to debts, and even suffer from debt slavery. Around 600 BCE the Athenian leader Solon initiated some reforms to limit the power of Oligarchs and re-establish a partial form of participatory democracy with some decisions taken by a popular assembly composed of all free male citizens. About a century later, Solon's reforms were further enhanced for even more direct involvement of regular citizens by Cleisthenes.[16] Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. When democracy was revived as a political system about 2000 years later, decisions were made by representatives rather than by the people themselves. A minor exception to this was the limited form of direct democracy which flourished in the Swiss Cantons from the later Middle Ages.

An ephemerous but notorious instance, taking place in the Modern Age, was the Paris Commune of 1871, which married the universal political engagement of participatory democracy with a correspondent collective ownership and management of the means of production, which, like participatory democracy itself, was a demand of the nascent organized left-wing. In the late 19th century, a small number of thinkers, including Karl Marx[17], Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin[18]—all highly influenced, along with their International Working Men's Association, by the Commune–and Oscar Wilde[19] began advocating increased participatory democracy. It was in the 20th century that practical implementations of participatory democracy once again began to take place, albeit mostly on a small scale, attracting considerable academic attention in the 1980s.[20][21]

During the Spanish civil war, from 1936–1938, the parts of Spain controlled by anarchist members of the Spanish Republican faction was governed almost totally by participatory democracy. In 1938 the anarchists were displaced after betrayal by their former Republican allies in the Communist party and attacks from the Nationalist forces of General Franco. The writer George Orwell, who experienced participatory democracy in Spain with the anarchists before their defeat, discusses it in his book Homage to Catalonia, and says participatory democracy was a "strange and valuable" experience where one could breathe "the air of equality" and where normal human motives like snobbishness, greed, and fear of authority had ceased to exist.[21]

The mystic and philosopher Simone Weil, who had helped the Spanish anarchists as a combat soldier, would later promote participatory democracy in her political manifesto The Need for Roots.[22]

In the 1960s the promotion and use of participatory democracy was a major theme for elements of the American Left.[23]

In the 1980s, the profile of participatory democracy within academia was raised by James S. Fishkin, the professor who introduced the deliberative opinion poll. Experiments in forms of participatory democracy that took place within a wider framework of representative democracy began in cities around the world, with an early adopter being Brazil's Porto Alegre. A World Bank study found that participatory democracy in these cities seemed to result in considerable improvement in the quality of life for residents.[21]

In the early 21st century, low profile experiments in participatory democracy began to spread throughout South and North Americas, to China and across the European Union.[24][25] A partial example in the USA occurred with drawing up the plans to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, with thousands of ordinary citizens involved with drafting and approving the plan.[21]

In recent years, social media has led to a change in how participatory democracy is conducted. In the 2016 election social media was used to spread news and many politicians used social media outlets like twitter to attract voters. Social media has been used to organize movements to demand change. Mainly through hashtags, citizens join political conversations with differing view points.[26] To promote public interest and involvement, local governments are using social media to make decisions based on public feedback.[27] Though it requires much commitment, citizens have organized committees to highlight local needs and appointing budget delegates who works with the citizens and city agencies.[28]

In 2011, participatory democracy became a notable feature of the Occupy movement, a movement largely started by a Tumblr post titled "We Are the 99 Percent", protesting and claiming few individuals held all the power. Occupy camps around the world made decisions based on the outcome of working groups where every protestor gets to have their say, and by general assemblies where the decisions taken by working groups are effectively aggregated together. Their decision process was an attempt to combine equality, mass participation, and deliberation, but caused slow decisions. By November 2011 the movement had been frequently criticized for not yet coalescing around clearly identifiable aims.[23][29][30][31]

In 2012 the Quebec Tuition Protests began. In response to the announcement by the provisional government of Quebec that the tuition would be raised, college students began to organize mostly on social media websites. Bill 78, passed to restrict protesting and demonstration due to violent interactions, also brought much attention to this movement.[31]

In 2013 Black Lives Matter movement began organizing protest of the police brutality of African American teens in the United States. Trayvon Martin's death in a police shooting was the rallying point for the movement. The hashtags #BlackLivesMatter and #BLM were used on many social media outlets and sparked nationwide debate.[31]

Variants[edit]

Representative democracy is not generally considered participatory since it tends to assume a lack of time, knowledge or will in individual citizens to contribute to policy making.[32]

Pateman[33] characterizes the participatory model as one where maximum input (participation) is required, and where output includes not only policies but also the development of the social and political capacities of each individual. The literature generally emphasizes this combination of influence on policy making, quality of deliberation, and citizen engagement based on what has been argued that a successful institution of citizen participation is one that (i) provides a channel of influence in policy making, (ii) engages citizens in a process of deliberation and public communication, which in return provides legitimacy to the institution, and (iii) is able to attract a constant or increasing number of participants.[34]

Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of a law's legitimacy. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. When practiced by small groups, it is possible for decision-making to be both fully participatory and deliberative. But for large political entities, the democratic reform trilemma makes it difficult for any system of decision-making based on political equality to involve both deliberation and inclusive participation. With mass participation, deliberation becomes so unwieldy that it becomes difficult for each participant to contribute substantially to the discussion. Professor James Fishkin argues that random sampling to get a small but representative sample of the general population can mitigate the trilemma, but notes that the resulting decision-making group is not open to mass participation.[35]


Week 8: Adding to the Article_Rough Draft for Peer Review[edit]

Participatory Democracy

1) Add Overview or Philosophy after lead section:

Overview or Philosophy

Participation is commonly defined as the act of taking part in some action. 'Political participation', hence, is largely assumed as an act of taking part in 'political' actions. However, the definition of political participation often varies due to the ambiguities surrounding what can be conceived as political actions. Geraint Parry defines political participation broadly by the following: "[...] participation is defined briefly as 'taking part' and 'political participation' as 'taking part in the formulation, passage, or implementation of public policies." Under this definition's general umbrella, the varying perceptions of political participation derive from the differing modes, intensities, and qualities of participation that carry any normative significance in democratic designs. Considered from voting to directly implementing policies, the extent to which the conception of political participation diverges, or should diverge, is, to this day, under debate.

Political participation is not a novel concept and has existed under various political designs since the Athenian democracy. The theory of participatory democracy was developed from Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later promoted by J.S. Mill and G. D. H. Cole, who argued that extensive political participation is indispensable for the realization of a just society. Nevertheless, the degree to which the topic of participatory democracy experienced a sudden invigoration and popularity within the academic literature only began in the late 19th century. Two epistemological reasons for this phenomenon are often referenced by academics. The first claims that the revival of the significance of participation was a natural progression from the expanding assessment that representative democracies were in crisis. The declining organic relations between the elected elites and the public, the decreasing electoral turnouts, and increased political corruptions were alleged rationales behind crisis. Second, as argued primarily by David Plotke, is that the proponents of participatory democracy developed from the critics of 'minimal democracy', a theory popularly established by Joseph Schumpeter and later reinforced by Robert Michels and Anthony Downs. Plotke claims, "During and after the Cold War era, the nonCommunist left critics of minimal democracy tended to define their positions by reversing the latter's claims. [...] given this unappetizing menu, critics of minimal democracy advocated a sharp and sustained increase in political participation." Regardless of the causalities, the recent surge of participatory democracy and political participation has generated multiple institutional reforms, such as participatory budgeting, increasingly challenging the traditionally predominant form of representative democracy.

The critics of representative democracy, most eminently exhibited by the United States government, argue that representation is inherently deficient for truly democratic societies, leading to the debate on the definition/ideology of democracy. Benjamin Barber, a renowned proponent of 'Individual Democracy', criticizes representative democratic systems because "it alienates human beings from each other and, more important, because the epistemological basis on which liberalism stands is itself fundamentally flawed." Barber describes liberal democracy as 'thin' democracy, which has been annexed by authoritarianism and immobilism. Barber's contribution is the return to the epistemological basis of politics and democracy, and in that vein, he claims that a strong democracy should be a form of government in which all of the people participate in decision-making and implementation: "[w]hile recognizing that the complexity of modern society imposes limits on direct democracy, participation by all is imperative because it creates shared interests, a common will, and community action, all of which inevitably give legitimacy to politics."

2) History

  • Organize by different centuries/regions
  • remove unnecessary information (examples that are too short, not explored in depth)

3) Change Variants to In Democratic Theory

  • Add, if possible, to the information about representative democracy
  • Add a paragraph of how participatory democracy, along with deliberative democracy, direct democracy, etc, can be viewed under the umbrella of liberal democratic theory
  • Move "Pateman..." paragraph to Overview, if possible
  • Write a paragraph about the debated demarcation between participatory democracy and deliberative democracy
  • Write a paragraph, describing other forms of democracy that are not yet quite explored or researched

4) Add Major Criticisms if possible

  • Add Criticism (Strengths) subsection, explain the major criticisms agaianst participatory democracy
  • Add (?) the major arguments in defense of participatory democracy, going into its increasing feasibility (participatory budgeting, Porto Alegre) and the advancement in technology that may bolster the progress.

5) 'Variants' label change to Other Types of Democracy and moved to after Criticisms

Other Types of Democracy or Typology

Participatory democracy is one of the several variants of democracy developed to this day since the Athenian model. While these variations in models derive from different understanding/emphasis/ of elements within the general umbrella of democratic theory, it is important to establish boundaries among one another as the literature often clouts the distinctions...

The most relevant variation of democracy are representative, deliberative, and participatory. It is difficult to assess which preceded which, the more salient debate is how to distinguish them.... for example, Pateman claims, "Participatory democracy, I argue, is different from deliberative democracy. Deliberation, discussion, and debate are central to any form of democracy, but if deliberation is necessary for democracy it is not sufficient." In this vein, different scholars defend different aspects of the various strains of democracy, and the clear distinctions are unsettled and largely still; under debate...

Pateman characterizes the participatory model as one where maximum input (participation) is required, and where output includes not only policies but also the development of the social and political capacities of each individual. The literature generally emphasizes this combination of influence on policy making, quality of deliberation, and citizen engagement based on what has been argued that a successful institution of citizen participation is one that (i) provides a channel of influence in policy making, (ii) engages citizens in a process of deliberation and public communication, which in return provides legitimacy to the institution, and (iii) is able to attract a constant or increasing number of participants.

Representative democracy is not generally considered participatory since it tends to assume a lack of time, knowledge or will in individual citizens to contribute to policy making. EXPAND - Plotke:

"I argue that the opposite of representation is not participation. The opposite of representation is exclusion. And the opposite of participation is abstention. Rather than opposing participation to representation, we should try to improve representative practices and forms to make them more open, effective, and fair. Representation is not an unfortunate compromise between an ideal of direct democracy and messy modern realities. Representation is crucial in constituting democratic practices. “Direct” democracy is not precluded by the scale of modern politics. It is unfeasible because of core features of politics and democracy as such."

Pateman characterizes the participatory model as one where maximum input (participation) is required, and where output includes not only policies but also the development of the social and political capacities of each individual. The literature generally emphasizes this combination of influence on policy making, quality of deliberation, and citizen engagement based on what has been argued that a successful institution of citizen participation is one that (i) provides a channel of influence in policy making, (ii) engages citizens in a process of deliberation and public communication, which in return provides legitimacy to the institution, and (iii) is able to attract a constant or increasing number of participants.

Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of a law's legitimacy. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. When practiced by small groups, it is possible for decision-making to be both fully participatory and deliberative. But for large political entities, the democratic reform trilemma makes it difficult for any system of decision-making based on political equality to involve both deliberation and inclusive participation. With mass participation, deliberation becomes so unwieldy that it becomes difficult for each participant to contribute substantially to the discussion. Professor James Fishkin argues that random sampling to get a small but representative sample of the general population can mitigate the trilemma, but notes that the resulting decision-making group is not open to mass participation.

There are other notable variants of liberal democratic theory such as direct democracy, social democracy, and e-democracy. Likewise, the distinction, or even its significance, varies under different criteria of categorization and is much under scrutiny.

Week 6: Adding to the Article_Preliminary Outline[edit]

Under 'Philosophy of Political Participation'/'Political Philosophy':

  • Define 'participation' (including the political context). The birth of philosophy behind participatory democracy --> it was a response to the growing concern of the democratic deficit of the predominant system of representation as default for democracy. Academic debate on participation in democracy, and how participation entered the political science arena as well as how it stayed and was developed more concretely
  • Prominent authors should be exhibited and delved in depth who are in defense/promotion of participatory democracy as well as those that resisted participatory democracy (their rationale)
  • Philosophical dispute

Under 'Variants' --> *Consider name change and relocation within the article

  • Add contextual (or historical) information on the demarcation (or criteria of) between Participation and Representation, and why there should be one (evolution of democratic theory?)
  • Add examples to both deliberative and participatory democracy description (i.e. participatory democracy - participatory budgeting, deliberative democracy - citizen's assembly/deliberative polling) and why/how fundamentally they differ
  • 'Representation vs. Participation',
  • the role of participation in democratic regimes
  • The significance of participatory democracy in relation to the overall evolution of democracy and its science. Perhaps even its role.

Week 5: Final Topic & Find Sources[edit]

Participatory Democracy[edit]

Potential Sources:

  • Anderson. Participation in Politics.
  • Parry. Participation in Politics.
  • Frost. Putting Participatory Democracy into Action.
  • Wolfe. A Defense of Participatory Democracy.
  • Kumar. Perils of Participatory Democracy.
  • Pateman. Participatory Democracy Revisited.
  • Plotke. Representation is Democracy
  • Rehfeld. On Representing
  • Tormey, Disch, Ouziel, and Lawson. The End of Representative Politics?
  • https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legitimacy/

Week 4: Choosing Topic[edit]

Potential topics:[edit]

  1. Participatory Democracy
  2. German Reunification
  3. North Korean Politics

The most appropriate and selection for this course seems to be participatory democracy, especially examining how underdeveloped the article is. The principal theme to be ventured throughout the editing of this article is the philosophical conflict between ideology and social science (more specifically political science) and fundamentally calibrating objectivity/neutrality in either the scientific or the ideologic advancement of participatory democracy. Should one be deemed more apt and objectively the 'better route' to examine this field of social science? Several other ideas come to mind, in relation to the actual edits that I would like to make to the article. First, a stronger relationship should be researched and drawn to the other variants of democracy (i.e. representative, deliberative, direct and maybe e-democracy). What is the demarcation that separates these apart from one another distinctly? Second, a major renovation in the 'History' section. Lastly, there needs to be better organization. Several new sub-headings that may be needed are: 'Overview', 'Characteristics' or 'Model', 'Philosophy', and etc.

Week 3: Evaluating Article[edit]

Participatory Democracy[edit]

The article provides the basic elements for the audience but does not delineate any fundamental information as to why participatory democracy may be significant, specifically in relation to the ideology's position within the political literature. The variants are listed, but their descriptions stands independent from participatory democracy. What are the criteria of demarcation among the variants of democracy (representative, deliberative, participatory, direct, e-, etc.)? In similar vein, the article lacks any philosophical foundation behind participatory democracy or even the development of its ideology.

The display of its 'History' section is rather peculiar and unorganized. At the moment, all the information under the category is organized by strict chronology; nevertheless, the historic significance or contribution of each occurrence to participatory democracy as a whole is absent. Another criticism I would provide is that the examples themselves are too numerous yet brief. It would be conducive for the better understanding of the Wikipedians interested in the article to see fewer examples with more in-depth illustrations. Is there a model that can provide a comprehensive overview of what participatory democracy may look like in real life? If so, it would add a great deal of substance to the article.

Perhaps it is the lack of authoritative sources that the previous contributors suffered from in creating a more consistent article. In my process of editing the article, I will pay much attention to research to aggregate a more consistent and comprehensive foundation of data that can solidify the article in a more informative manner to any visitors.

  1. ^ a b Geraint., Parry, (1972). Participation in politics. Anderson, Bryce. Manchester,: Manchester University Press [Totowa, N.J.] Roman and Littlefield. ISBN 0874711312. OCLC 587215.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Wolfe, Joel D. (1985/07). "A Defense of Participatory Democracy". The Review of Politics. 47 (3): 370–389. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036925. ISSN 1748-6858. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ 1963-, Tormey, Simon,. The end of representative politics. Malden, MA. ISBN 9780745681955. OCLC 890310124. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ a b Plotke, David (1997). "Representation is Democracy". Constellations. 4 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00033. ISSN 1467-8675.
  5. ^ Pateman, Carole (2012/03). "Participatory Democracy Revisited". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1017/S1537592711004877. ISSN 1541-0986. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ 1939-2017., Barber, Benjamin R.,. Strong democracy : participatory politics for a new age (Twentieth anniversary edition with a new preface ed.). Berkeley. ISBN 0520242335. OCLC 54531414. {{cite book}}: |last= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Wolfe, Joel (Fall 1986). "Varieties of Participatory Democracy and Democratic Theory". Political Science Reviewer. 16: 1–38.
  8. ^ a b c Pateman, Carole (2012/03). "Participatory Democracy Revisited". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (1): 7–19. doi:10.1017/S1537592711004877. ISSN 1541-0986. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ a b c Wolfe, Joel D. (1985/07). "A Defense of Participatory Democracy". The Review of Politics. 47 (3): 370–389. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036925. ISSN 1748-6858. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ a b Wolfe, Joel D. (1985/07). "A Defense of Participatory Democracy". The Review of Politics. 47 (3): 370–389. doi:10.1017/S0034670500036925. ISSN 1748-6858. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ a b Plotke, David (1997). "Representation is Democracy". Constellations. 4 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.00033. ISSN 1467-8675.
  12. ^ Shirky, Clay Here Comes Everybody
  13. ^ Ross 2011, Chapter 3
  14. ^ Alternative Conceptions of Civil Society, edited by Simone Chambers and Will Kymlicka (Princeton University Press, 2002)
  15. ^ The Idea of Civil Society, by Adam B. Seligman (Princeton University Press, 1992)
  16. ^ Osborne 2006, pages 50 -56
  17. ^ Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, Karl Marx, 1871
  18. ^ The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State, Mikhail Bakunin, 1871
  19. ^ Principally in The Soul of Man under Socialism.
  20. ^ Elster 1998, pages 1-3
  21. ^ a b c d Ross 2011, Chapter 3
  22. ^ Simone Weil (2002). The Need for Roots. Routledge. pp. 44–55. ISBN 0-415-27102-9.
  23. ^ a b James Miller (2011-10-25). "Will Extremists Hijack Occupy Wall Street?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  24. ^ Fishkin 2011, passim, see especially the preface.
  25. ^ UK participatory budgeting homepage: a church sponsored charity that supports participatory budgeting in numerous local communities.
  26. ^ Krutka, Daniel G.; Carpenter, Jeffery P. (November 2017). "DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP in the Curriculum: Educators Can Support Strong Visions of Citizenship by Teaching with and about Social Media". Educational Leadership. 75: 50–55 – via EBSCOhost.
  27. ^ Won, No (April 2017). "Ideation in an Online Participatory Platform: Towards Conceptual Framework". Information Polity. 22: 101–116 – via EBSCOhost.
  28. ^ Mattson, Gary A. (Spring 2017). "Democracy Reinvented: Participatory Budgeting and Civic Innovation in America". Political Science Quarterly. 132: 192–194 – via EBSCOhost.
  29. ^ Laurie Penny (2011-10-16). "Protest by consensus". New Statesman. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
  30. ^ Michael Skapinker (2011-11-09). "The Occupy crowd is no match for banks" ((registration required)). Financial Times. Retrieved 2011-11-14.
  31. ^ a b c Gismondi, Adam; Osteen, Laura (2017). "Student Activism in the Technology Age". New Directions for Student Leadership. 2017: 63–74 – via EBSCOhost.
  32. ^ Fischer, Frank (1993). "Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases". Policy Sciences. 26: 165–187.
  33. ^ Pateman, Carole (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. ^ Serdült, Uwe; Welp, Yanina (2015). "How Sustainable is Democratic Innovation? Tracking Neighborhood Councils in Montevideo". Journal of Politics in Latin America. 2: 131–148.
  35. ^ Fishkin 2011, Chapters 2 & 3.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Minseungyoo/sandbox&oldid=893867027"