Political Theory

Political liberals now defend what Rawls calls the “inclusive view” of public reason with the appropriate ideal of reasonable pluralism. Against the application of such a liberal conception of toleration to deliberative democracy “the open view of toleration is with no constraints” is the only regime of toleration that can be democratically justified. Recent debates about the public or nonpublic character of religious reasons provide a good test case and show why liberal deliberative theories are intolerant and fail to live up to democratic obligations to provide justifications to all members of the deliberative community. In a deliberative democracy, accommodations to religious minorities must be based on transformations in the current reflective equilibrium among the norms that make up the complex democratic ideal. This is not merely a conceptual enterprise of commensuration, since the need for any such transformation in standards of justification is due to changes in the nature of the polity itself, changes that in turn modify its regime of toleration.

How should liberal democratic states respond to cultural practices and arrangements that run afoul of liberal norms and laws? This article argues for a reframing of the challenges posed by traditional or nonliberal cultural minorities. The author suggests that viewed from up close, such dilemmas are revealed to be primarily intracultural rather than intercultural conflicts, and reflect the political and practical interests of factions of communities much more thandeep moral differences. Using the example of the reform of customary marriage laws in post-apartheid South Africa, this article makes the case for a more pragmatic, politically focused approach to resolving conflicts of culture that it is argued is both more democratic and effective than alternatives recently advanced by liberals and deliberative democracy theorists.

What is the connection between modern democratic thought and globalization? This article examines the rationale behind the present crisis of democracy. It demonstrates that the problem facing modern democratic thought has less to do with the asymmetries associated with the forces of globalization and more to do with an asymmetry within popular sovereignty itself: the fact that the boundaries of democracy cannot themselves be democratically legitimated. By making this argument the article seeks to move beyond the contemporary opposition between nationalism and cosmopolitanism. It shows that the appeal to globalization among contemporary political theorists to a large extent is analogous to the appeal to the nation during the French Revolution.