Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:04:26.593Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy and Amateurism—the Informed Citizen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Geraint Parry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ALTHOUGH THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE WAS AT the centre of classical political thought it has been only intermittently addressed in more recent theoretical writings. To the degree that modern political writing has concerned itself with the question of the kind of knowledge appropriate and possible in politics, it has focused on the capacity of core decision-makers to absorb and assess the information presented to them by experts.

Type
Article
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1989 , pp. 489 - 502
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sartori, G., The Theory of Democracy Revisited , Chatham, N.J., Chatham House Publishers, 1987, p. 432.Google Scholar

2 Sartori, op. cit., p. 433.

3 Self, P., Administrative Theories and Politics , London, Allen & Unwin, 1972, p. 149.Google Scholar

4 Sartori, op. cit., p. 432.

5 Parry, G. and Moyser, G., ‘Participants and Controllers’, in Kavanagh, D. and Peele, G. (eds), Comparative Government and Politics: Essays in Honour of S. E. Finer , London, Longman, 1984, pp. 169–94.Google Scholar

6 Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , London, Allen & Unwin, 1943, pp. 263.Google Scholar

7 ibid., pp. 216–22.

8 Compare state‐centered theory which is much influenced by Schumpeter: Nordlinger, E., On the Autonomy of the Democratic State , Cambride, Mass., Havard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar

9 Plamenatz, J., Democracy and Illusion , London, Longman, 1973, p. 194.Google Scholar

10 ibid., p. 193.

11 Douglas, M., Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences , London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.Google Scholar

12 Nelkin, D., ‘The Political Impact of Technical Expertise’, Social Studies of Science , 5, 1975, p. 40.Google Scholar

13 M. Douglas, op. cit., p. 22.

14 D. Nelkin, op. cit., p. 36.

15 M. Douglas, op. cit., p. 34.

16 Held, D., ‘Introduction: New Forms of Democracy?’, in Held, D. and Pollitt, C. (eds), New forms of Democracy , London, Sage, p. 7.Google Scholar

17 See Lively, J., The Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocqueuille , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 111 Google Scholar and passim. On the educative view of participation see Pateman, C., Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Parry, G., ‘Participation and political styles’, in Chapman, B. and Potter, A. (eds), W.J.M.M. Political Questions: Essays in Honour of W.J.M. MacKenzie , Manchester, ManChester University Press, 1974, p. 200;Google Scholar Elster, J., Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Barber, B., Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age , Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984, p. 167;Google Scholar See also the discussion of ‘preceptoral politics’ in the final chapter of Marquand, D., The Unprincipled Society , London, Fontana, 1988.Google Scholar

20 Barber, , op. cit., p. 65. See also Botwinnick, A., Wittgenstein, Scepticism, and Political Participation: An Essay in the Epistemology of Democratic Theory , Lanham, N.Y., University Press of America, 1985.Google Scholar

21 Oakeshott, M., ‘Rational Conduct’, in his Rationalism in Politics , London, Methuen, 1962, pp. 80–110.Google Scholar

22 Blunkett, D. and Jackson, K., Democracy in Crisis: The Town Halls Respond , London, Hogarth Press, 1987.Google Scholar

23 Moyser, G., Parry, G. and Day, N., Participation and Democracy , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar

24 See Hadley, R. I. and Hatch, S., Social Welfare and the Failure of the State , London, Allen & Unwin, 1981, pp. 112–69.Google Scholar

25 Owen, D., Face the Future , London, Jonathan Cape, 1981, pp. 390–5.Google ScholarPubMed

26 Mansbridge, J., Beyond Adversary Democracy , New York, Basic Books, 1980.Google Scholar

27 This important implication of pluralism is discussed in McConnell, G., Private Power in American Democracy , New York, Knopf, 1966.Google Scholar

28 Parry, G., ‘Tradition, Community and Self‐Determination’, British Journal of Political Science , 12, 1982, pp. 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Sartori, op. cit., p. 431.

30 Weale, A., Political Theory and Social Policy , London, Macmillan, 1983, pp. 178–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Barber, , op. cit.; Mclean, I., ‘Mechanisms for democracy’, in Held, D. and Pollitt, C., (eds), New Forms of Democracy , pp. 135–57.Google Scholar

32 A judicious discussion of the potential and the limitations of the new technology can be found in Arterton, F., Teledemocrecy: Can Technology Protect Democracy ?, Newbury Park, Cal., Sage, 1987.Google Scholar

33 Beiner, R., Political Judgment , London, Methuen, 1983, p. 163.Google Scholar

34 Sartori, op. cit., p. 432.