PANEL 8 / PUBLIC REASON AND POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
CONVENORS: JOANA PINTO, JOÃO CARDOSO ROSAS and ROBERTO MERRILL
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected]
Contemporary liberal democracies embrace diverse and many times irreconcilable worldviews, and political parties play a central role in representing these differences. Normative theories of public reason offer a framework for achieving stability and political legitimacy amidst this pluralism. They assert that political and legal decisions, to be deemed legitimate, must be justifiable to all citizens, advocating for different models of public justification among political agents. Our key question is: how can political parties, acting as representatives of differing worldviews, fulfill the requirements of public justifiability to all? Given the substantial legislative influence wielded by political parties, understanding their interplay with public reason is crucial for upholding political legitimacy. Scholars such as Bonotti (2017), Muirhead and Rosenblum (2006, 2020), along with White and Ypi (2016), significantly contribute to the discourse regarding the interconnection between political parties, normative theories of partisanship, political liberalism and the concept of public reason. This panel welcomes papers that further enrich and engage with this evolving debate.
Specifically, the panel welcomes contributions relating to (but not limited to) the following questions:
- In what ways can political parties and the practice of partisanship contribute to upholding the idea of public reason? Conversely, how might they undermine this mechanism?
- More specifically, how can diverse political parties, inherently adversarial and motivated by electoral competition, reconcile their partisan interests with the requirements of reasoned discourse and shared justification?
- Are there specific models of public reason that are more aptly suited for application within the realm of political partisanship?
- What potential guidelines or duties should an ideal of public reason impose on members affiliated with political parties, particularly elected officials? Are there distinct considerations for elected partisans compared to those not in elected positions?
- Do political parties have any leeway to disregard or surpass the requirements of public reason in any circumstance?
- To what extent can historical and cultural contexts shape the way political parties align with or challenge the idea and ideal of public reason in diverse liberal societies?
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to [email protected]
Contemporary liberal democracies embrace diverse and many times irreconcilable worldviews, and political parties play a central role in representing these differences. Normative theories of public reason offer a framework for achieving stability and political legitimacy amidst this pluralism. They assert that political and legal decisions, to be deemed legitimate, must be justifiable to all citizens, advocating for different models of public justification among political agents. Our key question is: how can political parties, acting as representatives of differing worldviews, fulfill the requirements of public justifiability to all? Given the substantial legislative influence wielded by political parties, understanding their interplay with public reason is crucial for upholding political legitimacy. Scholars such as Bonotti (2017), Muirhead and Rosenblum (2006, 2020), along with White and Ypi (2016), significantly contribute to the discourse regarding the interconnection between political parties, normative theories of partisanship, political liberalism and the concept of public reason. This panel welcomes papers that further enrich and engage with this evolving debate.
Specifically, the panel welcomes contributions relating to (but not limited to) the following questions:
- In what ways can political parties and the practice of partisanship contribute to upholding the idea of public reason? Conversely, how might they undermine this mechanism?
- More specifically, how can diverse political parties, inherently adversarial and motivated by electoral competition, reconcile their partisan interests with the requirements of reasoned discourse and shared justification?
- Are there specific models of public reason that are more aptly suited for application within the realm of political partisanship?
- What potential guidelines or duties should an ideal of public reason impose on members affiliated with political parties, particularly elected officials? Are there distinct considerations for elected partisans compared to those not in elected positions?
- Do political parties have any leeway to disregard or surpass the requirements of public reason in any circumstance?
- To what extent can historical and cultural contexts shape the way political parties align with or challenge the idea and ideal of public reason in diverse liberal societies?