The democratic legitimacy of political representation is not obvious. In the literature, however, it is often treated as such, mostly because the alternative of direct democracy is deemed...Show moreThe democratic legitimacy of political representation is not obvious. In the literature, however, it is often treated as such, mostly because the alternative of direct democracy is deemed unfeasible. In this thesis, I approach this issue based on the fundamental critique of representation as made by Rousseau, according to which democracy and representation are mutually exclusive, and representative democracy thus a contradiction in terms. I compare Rousseau’s position, supported by a more modern argument by Hanna Pitkin, to an attempt by modern authors in defending representation, which started with David Plotke. I support Plotke’s ideas with those put forward by Nadia Urbinati and Mark Warren, and also look at a more extreme position as argued by Frank Ankersmit. Comparing these positions to the critique by Rousseau and Pitkin, it becomes clear that defence of representation is lacking democratic justification that can withstand Rousseau’s fundamental critique. Finally, I discuss a potentially strong argument at providing such a justification, based on arguments by Laura Montanaro and Clarissa Hayward, which emphasizes the constructive role that representation plays in the shaping of people’s interests. Until the representative turn provides a substantial argument that people do not have politically relevant interests prior to representation, I argue, Rousseau’s critique remains intact, and we need to be more careful in ascribing democratic properties to representative systems.Show less
The exposure of Libya’s political fragmentation and societal disintegration after 2011 was picked up by academics, journalists, and policy researchers who have written on that aspect of the Libyan...Show moreThe exposure of Libya’s political fragmentation and societal disintegration after 2011 was picked up by academics, journalists, and policy researchers who have written on that aspect of the Libyan reality more than any other. Libya is perceived as a fragile state with hundreds of armed groups, multiple claims of governance and tens of warring tribes. Both local and international actors have contributed to this image, but this thesis attempts to argue that there is more than the fragile and disorganized state discourse to describe Libya. The fact that Libyan unity, sovereignty, and independence have survived this extreme level of fragmentation is a question that deserves to be investigated. Thus, through the use of wide range of theories, academic and policy papers, news articles, survey data, and political agreements reports, this thesis aims to answer why and how Libya managed to preserve its status as a state in such an environment. It treats the question as a question of sovereignty by arguing that the traditional definition of sovereignty limits our ability to comprehend the state issue in Libya fully. By focusing on different aspects of sovereignty and by selecting broader definitions of the concept, this thesis argues that Libya’s unity and sovereignty have been preserved so far because international and local actors benefit from this arrangement even though they may be (in)directly contributing to fragmentation in the country. The international community is not willing to let states fall-apart, and the Libyan people do not seem to favor division and separation movements. Local state and non-state actors realize this arrangement, and they have not challenged thus far.Show less
