Political Theory

H04(d) - Democratic Theory and Practice I

Date: Jun 3 | Time: 01:45pm to 03:15pm | Location:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Lucas Jerusalimiec (McGill)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Greg Dinsmore (Université de l'Ontario français)

Realist Multiculturalism and Radical Democracy: Caleb J. Basnett (Mount Allison University)
Abstract: In many liberal democracies, the far-right has recently been able to move from the fringes to political centre stage by mobilizing xenophobic rhetoric, casting new doubts on the multicultural project. While some advocate for governments to stay the course, noting that liberal multiculturalism has weathered criticism from the right and left for some thirty years, others advocate scaling back multiculturalism to shore up liberalism in the face of the far-right reaction. Yet the major parties in these debates tend to wed liberalism and multiculturalism, taking the legitimacy of the former as given, while debating the legitimacy of the latter. This paper problematizes liberal priority by asking: must multiculturalism be liberal to be legitimate? This paper argues in favor of democratic rather than liberal priority to understand political legitimacy by offering a theory of realist multiculturalism. Bringing together insights from political realism and critical theory, I argue that multiculturalism as minority rights should be understood as an attempt to render liberal political order legitimate in culturally diverse societies, and that Christoph Menke’s critique of rights demonstrates that this attempt fails. The liberal priority insisting that diverse cultural goods/practices be reconciled to liberal ones through minority rights ultimately limits diversity and reinforces forms of domination liberalism has not been capable of confronting. Instead, the diverse goods/practices of regular people should be empowered through participation in new, radically democratic institutions. Such democratic participation could decrease domination and increase legitimacy, thus undermining the sources driving the rise of the far-right while supporting diversity.

« Mettre de l’égalité partout » : l’égalité démocratique au-delà du politique: Nicolas Lacroix (Université de Montréal), Christian Nadeau (Université de Montréal)
Abstract: En tant qu’idéal politique, la démocratie est étroitement liée à l’égalité. Pourtant, la plupart des théories de la démocratie réduisent l’étendue de ce lien, tantôt en considérant que l’égalité a trait au seul domaine politique, tantôt en considérant que si l’égalité importe au-delà du domaine politique, c’est en autant qu’elle la renforce en son sein. Le rapport de l’égalité à la démocratie au-delà du domaine politique apparaît ainsi comme étant ténu et comme reposant sur une distinction marquée entre le politique et le social. À rebours de cette conception, cette communication avancera que la démocratie relève d’une lutte contre les inégalités dans l’ensemble des domaines de la vie sociale, et que le rapport de l’égalité à la démocratie doit être compris au prisme de cette lutte. En prenant appui sur les théories de la démocratie radicale (Balibar, Hayat, Ober, Rancière), et de l’égalité relationnelle (Anderson, Fourie, Young), cette communication procédera en trois temps. Elle avancera d’abord que l’égalité est non seulement un concept démocratique, mais aussi un concept abolitionniste et relationnel. Elle soutiendra ensuite que ces deux dimensions du concept d’égalité ouvrent à une relecture critique des théories de la citoyenneté héritées des travaux de T.H. Marshall : l’égalité apparaîtra comme concernant, sur son versant négatif, l’abolition des inégalités qui imprègnent différents domaines de la vie sociale et, sur son versant positif, l’instauration de rapports sociaux égalitaires dans ces mêmes domaines. Nous esquisserons enfin les implications d’une telle conception de l’égalité pour notre compréhension de la démocratie.

Multinational federalism: some unresolved tensions: Xavier Boileau (Université McGill)
Abstract: Multinational federalism theorists (Gagnon 2021; Requejo 2011; Seymour 2017; Mathieu 2022; McRoberts 2001; Bauböck 2001; De Schutter 2021) aim to propose a model that simultaneously meets the legitimate aspirations of stateless peoples for autonomy while ensuring the stability of the existing state structure. Therefore, these authors aim to offer a plausible solution to nationalist conflicts in divided societies. Theorists of multinational federalism argued against their critics that, far from leading to the disintegration of states, recognition of stateless nations inside the state is the best way to guarantee existing states' stability. While acknowledging the value of this project, I argue that there is an unsolved tension between the aim of political stability pursued by theorists of federalism and their other normative commitments (self-determination, non-subordination, asymmetry, etc.). One of the difficulties of multinational federalism is that it has still not succeeded in proposing a form of collective agency that does not rest on rigid territorial bases. However, adopting distinct forms of collective agency both challenges the way states traditionally organize their authority and our traditional understanding of self-determination. More precisely, their initial normative commitments place them in a position where they cannot: both preserve the contours of the political communities whose existence they wish to guarantee and conceive of a collective agency that does not reconduct the form of the nation-state they want to challenge. Compliance with the normative principles introduced by multinational federalism should lead to greater transformation and challenge to the state than theorists seem to recognize.

Elements of a Democratic Riot: Five Case Studies: Alexis Bibeau-Gagnon (University of Virginia), Yannick Dufresne (Université Laval)
Abstract: What is the relation between riots and democracy? While riots are a frequent occurrence in democracies, their normative relation to democratic norms, principles, and ideals remains contested. Recent theoretical research has sought to explore this question, but we still lack a comprehensive framework to analyze how riots might be considered democratic or not. This paper offers an analysis of what I term the “elements” of democratic riots, aiming to outline the basic elements that might render a riot more or less legitimate from a democratic standpoint. Using archival research, I provide a detailed analysis of the causes, unfolding, and repercussion of five cases—the 1965 Watts riot, the 1968 Montréal riot, the 2011 London riot, the 2020 Minneapolis riot, and the 2021 Capitol Hill riot—and investigate the democratic elements of each. By examining how elements such as the democratic motives, the representational claim-making, and the appeal to an audience played out in these riots, I assess whether, and to what extent, they might be considered as fulfilling these democratic elements. Examining these cases provides a critical perspective on normative theories of riots, which often emphasize moral judgment without engaging with the precise unfolding and historical complexities of the events. This paper also traces a new path for assessing the democratic credentials of riots, developing a typology of “democratic riots” that provides a nuanced framework for understanding when and how riots may be compatible with democratic norms, principles, and ideals.