A conceptual framework for assessing power and governance in contemporary democracy

• Authors: Mukesh Shankar Bharti

Abstracts

EN

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The objective of the article is to define the conceptual framework of the contemporary governmental system and its style of functionality to strengthen democratic values, norms, and the rule of law. The purpose of the article is to elaborate governance that shares state power to facilitate the democratic rights of the people in the contemporary world. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: This article aims to analyse the power and governance in the current structure of democracy. The article evaluates the dynamics of contemporary democracy and how the government shapes the power for better governance. Future research highlights the conceptual framework of the qualitative approach and relies on discourse analysis to find out the outcomes of this study. The study uses a theoretical approach to examine contemporary governance, different approaches and how to build socio-political cooperation. THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: It discusses various aspects of modern democracy in the context of the governability of those who hold power. Furthermore, the article argues how the states are shaping modern democracy. How a new political order pioneers the norms of the state through its governance. What is the legitimate principle of the work for the new political order? RESEARCH RESULTS: As a result, the article tries to find out that modern democracy is running under a populist government in various countries in the world. The emergence of ultra-right-wing power groups diminished the norms of liberal democracy. CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The article highlights the points as a conclusion of democracy facing many challenges in the new populist governance worldwide. The contemporary global communities are trying to make governance for peace, prosperity, and respect for the humanities but and on the other hand, international communities are failed in some places i. e. Afghanistan. This discussion recommends about international communities to create an environment for cooperation among different nationstates to make an international partnership for the establishment of peace, cooperation for the well‑being of the people, and stop conflicts and recurring wars.

Keywords

EN

Modern democracy; power and governance; international organisation; populism; government and politics

• Publisher: Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
• Journal: Horyzonty Polityki
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 44
• Pages: 31-46

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Mukesh Shankar Bharti

• Jawaharlal Nehru University

• https://orcid.org/0000000236937247

References

• Andeweg, R.B., & Irwin, G.A. (2005). Governance and Politics in the Netherlands. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Azmat, F. (2005). Good Governance and Market-based Reforms: A Study of Bangladesh. International Review of Administrative Sci-ences, 71(4), 625–638.
• Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustaina-ble Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Ef-fectiveness. European Environment, 16, 290–306.
• Behn, R. (2001). Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
• Bekkers, V.J.J.M., & Homburg, V.M.F. (2002). Administrative super-vision and information relationships. Information Polity, 7(2–3), 129–141.
• Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2004). Non-state Global Governance: Is Forest Certification a Legitimate Alternative to a Global Forest Convention? In J. Kirton & M. Treiblock (Eds.), Hard Choices, Soft Law: Combining Trade, Environment, and Social Cohesion in Global Governance (pp. 33–64). Aldershot: Ashgate Press.
• Björk, P., Bostedt, G., & Johansson, H. (2003). Governance. Lund: Stu-dentlitteratur.
• Bovens, M.A.P., Derksen, W., Witteveen, W., Becker, F., & Kalma, P. (1995). De Verplaatsing van de Politiek: Een Agenda voor Democrati-sche Vernieuwing. Amsterdam: Wiardi Beckman Stichting.
• Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326.
• Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive Democracy – Politics, Policy, and Politi-cal Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Crit-ics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dryzek, J., & Torgerson, D. (1993). Democracy and the policy scienc-es: A progress report. Policy Sciences, 26, 127–137.
• Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E.H. (2006). Managing stakeholder involve-ment in decision-making: a comparative analysis of six interac-tive processes in The Netherlands. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 417–446.
• Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.
• Habermas J. (1996). Three Normative Models of Democracy. In Ben-habib S. (Ed.), Democracy and Difference. Contesting the Boundaries of the Political. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Hanberger, A. (2001). Policy and program evaluation, civil society, and democracy. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 211–228.
• Hanberger, A. (2009). Democratic Accountability in Decentralised Gov-ernance, 32(1), 1–22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2008.00220.x
• Held, D. (2003). From executive to cosmopolitan multilateralism. In D. Held & M. Koenig-Archibugi (Eds.), Taming Globalization: Fron-tiers of Governance (pp. 160–186). Oxford: Polity Press.
• Held, D. (2006). Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hirst, P. (1994). Associative Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hirst, P. (2000). Democracy and governance (J. Pierre, Ed.; pp. 13–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• House, E.R., & Howe, K.R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social re-search. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
• Hupe, P., & Edwards, A. (2012). The accountability of power: De-mocracy and governance in modern times. European Political Sci-ence Review, 4(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773911000154
• Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.
• Keohane, R.O. (2003). Global Governance and Democratic Account-ability. In D. Held & Koenig-Archibugi (Eds), Taming Globaliza-tion: Frontiers of Governance (pp. 130–159). Wiley.
• Kjaer, A. (2004). Governance. Cambridge and Malden MA: Polity Press.
• Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2006). Introduction: Institutional diversity in global governance. In M. Koenig-Archibugi (Ed.), New modes of governance in the global system (pp. 1–30). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Kooiman, J. (2000). Societal Governance: Levels, Models, and Orders of Social-political Interaction. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating Govern-ance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy (pp. 138–164). Oxford: Oxford Press.
• Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Per-formance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press.
• Lindvall, J., & Rothstein, B. (2006). The fall of the strong state. Scan-dinavian Political Studies, 29(1), 47–63.
• March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: The Free Press.
• O’Dwyer, C., & Ziblatt, D. (2006). Does Decentralisation Make Gov-ernment More Efficient and Effective? Commonwealth and Com-parative Politics, 44(3), 326–343.
• Pateman C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pierre, J., & Peters, G. (2000). Governance, politics and the state. New York, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
• Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 189–214.
• Schumpeter J. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
• Smismans, S. (2004). Law, Legitimacy, and European Governance: Func-tional Participation in Social Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Stoker, G. (2018). Governance as theory: five propositions. Interna-tional Social Science Journal, 68(227–228), 15–24.
• Susskind, L. (2004). Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effec-tive Global Agreements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Tomsic, M., & Vehovar, U. (2006). Kakovost Vladanja v starih in novih clanicah evropske unije [The Quality of Governance in Old and New EU Member-states]. Teorija in Praksa, 43(3–4), 386–405.
• van Kersbergen, K., & van Waarden, F. (2004). Governance’ as a Bridge between Disciplines: Cross-disciplinary Inspiration Re-garding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy. European Journal of Political Re-search, 43, 143–171.
• Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic par-ticipation: How citizens and public officials harness the complex-ities of neighborhood decline. The American Review of Public Ad-ministration, 37(1), 17–50.
• Weber, E.P. (1999). The Question of Accountability in Historical Perspective: From Jackson to Contemporary Grassroots Ecosys-tem Management. Administration & Society, 31, 451–494.
• Weber, M. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations (translated by A.M. Henderson and T. Parsons). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
• Zovko, I. (2006). International Law-making for the Environment: A Question of Effectiveness. In Marko Berglund (Ed.), Interna-tional Environmental Law-making and Diplomacy Review 2005 (pp. 109–128). Joensuu: Department of Law, University of Joensuu.

Identifiers

DOI

10.35765/hp.2287

Biblioteka Nauki

2231697