Public Law Studies Quarterly

Analysis of the Foundations of Participatory Democracy in Light of Habermas's Language-Based Political Philosophy

Document Type : Article

Authors

Ali Mashhadi 1
Alireza Dabirnia 1
Hasan Mohammadi 2

1 Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran

2 PhD Student in Public Law, Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2022.334171.2942
Abstract
The disruption of contemporary representative democracies in the reflection of the public will in legal-political systems has led to the rotation of the formal system of transfer of power to the informal system, depleting democracy and confronting contemporary societies with numerous crises, including the crisis of legitimacy. This article examines the concept of constitutional Power and the constitutional form in Jürgen Habermas's legal philosophy in order to determine the ideal system of exercising power. The paper argues that the concept of the constitutional Power must be embedded in a constitutional theory that can explain the difference between legitimate law and the mere use of power. Accordingly, Habermas a participatory democracy based on structural principles including a world life outside control of government and market, a public sphere based on communicative actions and the principles of behavior including legitimate law that has passed the filter of public discourse, realization of the ethics of discourse including freedom, equality and absorption and the backgrounda of modern society with Self-founded Reason prescribe foundation as a solution to crises of contemporary societies. Habermas's theory can convincingly state the general conditions of constitutionalism and legitimate legislation that exercise private and public autonomy in the legal system.

Keywords

Sovereignty
Philosophy of Language
Public Discourse
Law
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms,: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy . (trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge: Polity press.
    3. Habermas, J. (2003b). Truth and jastification. (trans. B. Fultner, cambridge, MIT press.
    4. Habermas, J. (1993c). jastification and application: remarks on discourse ethics. (trans. C. Cronin, cambridge: polity press
    5. Habermas, J. (d) (1996). Reply to symposium participants. Cardozo School of Law , review 17.
    6. Moser, P. K. (2002). the oxford hand book of epistemology. (oxford: oxford university press.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Baxter, H. (2002). Habermas's Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Buffalo Law Review, 50, p.238.
    3. Boyte, h. C. (1995). beyond deliberation: citizenship as public work. in www.cen.org/newcitizenship
    4. Charles, G.U., & Fuentes-Rohwer, L, (2015). Habermas, the Public Sphere, and the Creation of a Racial Counterpublic, 21 MICH. J. RACE & L. 1.
    5. Eva, Knodt (1994). Toward a Non- Foundationalist Epistemology :the Habermas/ luhmann, Controversy Revisited. New German Critique, Duke University Press, 61.
    6. Flyvbjerg, B. (2000). Ideal Theory, Real Rationality: Habermas Versus Foucault and Nietzsche. Political Studies Association’s 50th Annual Conference, The Challenges for Democracy in the 21st Century, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10-13 April 2000.
    7. Foley, B. (2006). verfassungspatriotismus: the key to understanding Jurgen Habermas`s political thought?. european social and political research, 13.
    8. Plant, R. (1982). Jurgen Habermas and the Idea of Legitimation Crisis. European Journal of Political Research, 10.

     

    Referances in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Ahmadi, B. (2001). Modernity and Critical Thought. Tehran: Markaz Publishing (In Persian).
    3. Bashirieh, H. (1999). History of Political Thought in the Twentieth Century: Liberalism and Conservatism. Vol. 2, First Edition, Tehran: Nashr-e Ney Publishing (In Persian).
    4. Golabi, F., & Shahbazi Qapchaq, E. (2014). Habermas and Popper epistemological researches. Tehran: Tisa Publishing (In Persian).
    5. Habermas, J. (2013). Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. translated by Jamal Mohammadi, Tehran: Afkar Publishing (In Persian).
    6. James, B., & Rehg, W. (2017). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Jürgen Habermas. translated by Vahid Gholamipour Fard, Tehran, Phoenix (In Persian).
    7. Lasse, T. (2016). The Habermas Riddle. translated by Mohammad Reza Gholami, Tehran: World Economy Publications (In Persian).
    8. Norberto, B. (1997). Liberalism and Democracy. translated by Babak Golestan, Tehran: Cheshmeh Publishing (In Persian).
    9. Pouladi, K. (2019). History of Political Thought in the West: Twentieth Century. Tehran: Markaz Publishing, Seventh Edition (In Persian).
    10. Pouzi, M. (2000). Jürgen Habermas. translated by Ahmad Tadayon, Tehran: Hermes Publishing (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Ahmadi, B. (1993). Public Extent in Habermas Critical Attitude. Cultural and Social Quarterly of Dialogue, 1 (In Persian).
    3. Alam, A., & Pourpasha Kashin, A. (2011). Habermas Dialogue Democracy: The Relationship or Ratio of Factors. Political Science, Politics, 17 (In Persian).
    4. Bustani, M., & Pouladi, K. (2017). A Study of the Elements of the Public Sphere in Habermas Thought. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 13(38) (In Persian).
    5. Eva, K. (2000). Towards Non-Fundamentalist Epistemology: The Revised Habermas / Luhmann Debate. translated by Reza Mosayebi, arghanun, 17 (In Persian).
    6. Fakouhi, N. (2009). Strengthening Citizenship Ethics: A Way to Transition to Participatory Democracy. Iranian Journal of Social Studies, 3(2) (In Persian).
    7. Ganji, A. (2003). Tradition and Modernity. Reflection of Thought, 38 (In Persian).
    8. Handal, P. (2002). Jürgen Habermas. Public Dominance, translated by Haleh Lajevardi, Tehran: Aghnoon Magazine, 20 (In Persian).
    9. Kaloon, C. (2010). History of the Concept of Civil Society and the Public Sphere. translated by Rahim Nobahar, Journal of Legal Research, 13(51) (In Persian).
    10. Mahmoudian, M. R. (1996). Exemplary state of speech. Farhang Magazine, 18 (In Persian).
    11. Mashhadi, A. (2015). From the Generalization of Private Law to the Privatization of Public Law: Legitimacy and the Realm of Government Intervention in Habermas Thought. Quarterly Journal of Public Law Studies, 45(2) (In Persian).
    12. Nejati Hosseini, M. (2009). Jürgen Habermas: From Law, Ethics and Liberal Politics to Law and Dialogue Democracy. Historical Sociology, (1) (In Persian).
    13. Nowruzi, H., & Salari, A. (2011). Study of structural change in the public sphere and its role in the process of democratization of power structure. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 15 (In Persian).
    14. vigeh, M. R. (2006). The New Concept of Sovereignty in Public Law. Political Science, Political-Economic Information, 231 & 232 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 3
Autumn 2024
Autumn 2024
Pages 1737-1760

  • Receive Date 21 November 2021
  • Revise Date 06 April 2022
  • Accept Date 22 May 2022

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us