In this article by way of reply, the author responds to the challenging comments on The Democratic Horizon provided by Michelman, Benhabib, White, Scheuerman and Laden. In response to Michelman, some reflections are propounded (1) on the function of judicial review, in order to alleviate the tension between two understandings of the mandate of the highest interpreter of the constitution as aimed at remedying either an occlusion of democratic authorship or a shortfall of agreement, and (2) on the need to rethink how the authority of the supreme interpreter relates to the will of the people in a deeply changed historical context. In response to Benhabib, the author discusses the new limits of the accommodation of diversity in Fairburg, a fictional polity that expands the Rawlsian standard of ‘reasonable disagreement’, and defends the normative relevance and democratic credentials of his notion of ‘multivariate polity’. In response to White, after recalling the importance of putting the ‘democratic ethos’ at the center of a reflection on the democratic quality of complex societies where formal procedures often mask elitist substance, the author defends the ‘political, not metaphysical’ credentials of ‘openness’ (as well as of ‘exemplarity’ as the ‘upstream source’ of openness) and accepts a complementarity of ‘openness’ and ‘presumptive generosity’. In response to Scheuerman, the author restates his focus on the democratic ethos as a supplement to, not a replacement of, the reflection on democratic procedures and defends the conceptual diversity of governance from government. In response to Laden, the author highlights the diversity of contexts to which his own and Laden’s versions of ‘democratic justification’ are responding and defends a more moderate version of ‘openness’, which still keeps constitutional essentials and political values shielded from ongoing questioning. Finally, the author interprets the debate aroused by The Democratic Horizon as indicative of the persistent vitality of the Rawlsian legacy in the 21st century.
Ferrara, A. (2016). Political liberalism revisited: A paradigm for liberal democracy in the 21st century. PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM, 42(7), 681-706 [10.1177/0191453716648558].
|Tipologia:||Articolo su rivista|
|Citazione:||Ferrara, A. (2016). Political liberalism revisited: A paradigm for liberal democracy in the 21st century. PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL CRITICISM, 42(7), 681-706 [10.1177/0191453716648558].|
|Settore Scientifico Disciplinare:||Settore SPS/01 - Filosofia Politica|
|Revisione (peer review):||Esperti anonimi|
|Digital Object Identifier (DOI):||http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453716648558|
|Stato di pubblicazione:||Pubblicato|
|Data di pubblicazione:||2016|
|Titolo:||Political liberalism revisited: A paradigm for liberal democracy in the 21st century|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||01 - Articolo su rivista|