Przejdź do głównego menu Przejdź do sekcji głównej Przejdź do stopki
Civitas baner

Tom 20 (2017): TAJNA POLITYKA

Temat numeru

Tajna polityka – próba uzasadnienia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35757/CIV.2017.20.07
Przesłane: 26 kwietnia 2020
Opublikowane: 30.06.2017

Abstrakt

The author raises the question of whether secret uses of power by democratic states can form a legitimate exercise of democratic authority. On the face of it, the answer seems negative. First, it is commonplace to think that in a democracy, political decisions are legitimate only if they are authorized by citizens. From this perspective, secret uses of power seem to lack democratic authority because, one argues, people cannot authorize what they are denied knowledge about. Second, the exercise of democratic authority requires that citizens be able to hold officials accountable, and to do that citizens must know what officials are doing and why. Yet how can citizens call their representatives to account for secret political decisions and processes if they are denied knowledge of them? The author analyses each of these two dimensions of democratic governance and argues that secrecy, under certain conditions, may be a legitimate form of democratic governance.

Bibliografia

  1. Christiano Th., The Constitution of Equality. Democratic Authority and Its Limits, Oxford University Press, New York 2008.
  2. Christiano Th., The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory, Westview Press, Boulder 1996.
  3. Estlund D., Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 2008, s. 65.
  4. Gutmann A., Thompson D., Democracy and Disagreement, Belknap Press, Harvard, MA 1996, s. 121.
  5. Hart H.L.A., Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982, rozdz. 10
  6. Hijzen C., The Dutch Practice of Parliamentary Oversight and Control of the Intelligence Community, „Security and Human Rights” 2014, nr 24, s. 227–238.
  7. Hobbes T., Lewiatan, czyli materia, forma i władza państwa kościelnego i świeckiego, przeł. Cz. Znamierowski, Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa 1954, s. 225.
  8. Kelsen H., General Theory of Law and State, Lawbook Exchange, Union, NJ 1999, s. 287–288.
  9. Kutz Ch., Secret Law and the Value of Publicity, „Ratio Juris” 2009, nr 22, s. 197–217, 214
  10. Lefkowitz D., A Contractualist Defense of Democratic Authority, „Ratio Juris” 2005, 18, s. 346–364.
  11. Manin B., The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997, rozdz. 5.
  12. Manin B., The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997, s. 234.
  13. Pitkin H., The Concept of Representation, University of California, Berkeley 1967.
  14. Pozen D., Deep Secrecy, „Stanford Law Review” 2010, nr 62, s. 257–339.
  15. Raz J., The Authority of Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1979.
  16. Raz J., The Morality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1986.
  17. Raz J., Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1995, s. 201.
  18. Sagar R., On Combating the Abuse of State Secrecy, „Journal of Political Philosophy” 2007, nr 15, s. 421.
  19. Thompson D., Democratic Secrecy: The Dilemma of Accountability, „Political Science Quarterly” 1999, nr 114, s. 182.
  20. Thompson D., Political Ethics and Public Office, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA 1987, rozdz. 1.
  21. Urbinati N., Representative Democracy. Principles and Genealogy, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL. 2006, s. 22, 28.
  22. Viehoff D., Democratic Equality and Political Authority, „Philosophy & Public Affairs” 2014, nr 42, s. 337–375.
  23. Volmert A., The Puzzle of Democratic Authorization, „Political Studies” 2012, nr 60, s. 287.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Podobne artykuły

1 2 3 4 > >> 

Możesz również Rozpocznij zaawansowane wyszukiwanie podobieństw dla tego artykułu.