KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy / 2018 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Right to Universal, Plural and Secret Vote: On the Lib-eral and Conservative Paradoxes of Mill's 'Elitist' De-mocracy

Evrensel, Çoğul ve Gizli Oy Hakkı: Mill’in 'Seçkinci' Demokrasi Ku-ramının Liberal ve Muhafazakâr Paradoksları Üzerine

DENİZ KUNDAKÇI
Sayfa
593–617
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In this paper, the reasons behind Mill’s elitist democracy approach are discussed in details and the nature of his theory of democracy is examined.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:During the era witnessing the development of representative democ-racy, Mill defended the right to “universal suffrage” and believed that individu-als should not be deprived of their political rights.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This can be seen as a reflec-tion of his modern, liberal, and democratic attitude.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In this paper, the reasons behind Mill’s elitist democracy approach are discussed in details and the nature of his theory of democracy is examined.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

During the era witnessing the development of representative democ-racy, Mill defended the right to “universal suffrage” and believed that individu-als should not be deprived of their political rights. This can be seen as a reflec-tion of his modern, liberal, and democratic attitude. However, by defining cer-tain mandatory prerequisites to have such voting right and adding that taking votes of each individual with an equal impact would be impossible, Mill also showed a contradicting position against his liberal and democratic attitude. The paradoxical limitations brought by Mill to the universal suffrage right can be interpreted as his presentation of an elitist democracy theory. In this paper, the reasons behind Mill’s elitist democracy approach are discussed in details and the nature of his theory of democracy is examined.

Abstract

Mill temsili demokrasinin gelişmeye başladığı bir çağda “evrensel oy” hak-kını savunarak hiçbir bireyin politik haklardan mahrum bırakılmaması gerekti-ğine inanmıştır. Bu, onun çağdaş, liberal ve demokrat tavrının bir yansıması ola-rak değerlendirilebilir. Ancak Mill seçmen hakkına sahip olabilmek için zorunlu birtakım ön koşulları belirleyip, bir de üstüne her seçmenin oyunun eşit derece-de bir etkiye sahip olamayacağını ekleyerek, onun liberal ve demokrat tavrıyla çelişkili bir pozisyonu da paylaşmıştır. Mill’in evrensel oy hakkı karşısında ge-tirdiği paradoksal sınırlamalar onun seçkinci bir demokrasi teorisi sunduğu şek-linde yorumlanabilir. Bu çalışmada Mill’in seçkinci demokrasi yaklaşımının te-mel nedenleri ayrıntılı bir şekilde tartışılıp, onun demokrasi teorisinin mahiyeti sorgulanmaya çalışılacaktır.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

KUNDAKÇI, D. (2018). Right to Universal, Plural and Secret Vote: On the Lib-eral and Conservative Paradoxes of Mill's 'Elitist' De-mocracy. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 593–617. https://ajindex.com/articles/147473

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Aristotle (1971). Aristotle’s Politics. (Trans. H. Rackham). London: The Loeb Clas-sical Library. Bowles S. & Gintis, H. (1986).
  2. Democracy and Capitalism, Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought. New York: Basic Books. Capaldi, N. (2004). John Stuart Mill: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.
  3. Finley, M. I. (1973). Democracy Ancient and Modern. London: Chatto & Windus. Giorgini, G. (2009). Radical Plato: John Stuart Mill, George Grote and the Reviv-al of Plato in Nineteenth-Century England. History of Political Thought, 30 (4), 617-646.
  4. Haliday, R. J. (1976). Government Bureaucracy and Voting. Political Thinkers IV: John Stuart Mill. London: Routledge, 125-140.
  5. Herodotos (1925). Herodotus IV: Books VIII-IX. (Trans. A. D. Godley). London: The Loeb Classical Library. Kendall, W. & Carey G. (1968). The “Roster Device”: J. S. Mill and Contempo-rary Elitism. The Western Political Quarterly, 21 (1), 20-39.
  6. Kern, P. B. (1972). Universal Suffrage without Democracy: Thomas Hare and John Stuart Mill. The Review of Politics, 34 (3), 306-322.
  7. Kinzer, B. L. (1978). J. S. Mill and the Secret Ballot. Historical Reflections, 5 (1), 19-39.
  8. Kinzer, B. L. (1992). Parlimentary Reform and the Radicalization of the Liberal Party. A Moralist In and Out of Parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 80-112.
  9. Locke. J. (1988). Second Treatise of Government. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 265-428.
  10. Machiavelli, N. (2008). The Prince. (Trans. J. Atkinson). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. Melleri, A (2014). Public Opinion in the Political Thought of John Stuart Mill. (MS. Thesis). Helsinki: Political and Economic Studies of Helsinki University. Mill, J. S. (1832). Pledge [2], Examine, July 15. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. XXIII. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 496-504.
  11. Mill, J. S. (1958). Considerations on Representative Government. New York: Forum Books. Mill, J. S. (1972). [Mill’s Letter] to Henry Jones Dates 13/06/1868. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. XVI. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972.
  12. Mill, J. S. (1977). Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. XIX. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  13. Mill, J. S. (2009a). On Liberty. Auckland: Floating Press.
  14. Mill, J. S. (2009b). The Subjection of Women. Auckland: Floating Press.
  15. Mill, J. S. (2009c). Utilitarianism. Auckland: Floating Press.
  16. Miller, J. (2003). On Plural Voting,