Poliarchie/Polyarchies is multi-disciplinary journal which aims at promoting the encounter of the social sciences and humanities, ranging from sociology and political science to history, economics, law and philosophy. The analysis of political and social change can indeed be investigated from different perspectives and with the help of a variety of methodological tools. Poliarche/Polyarchies embraces a range of contemporary issues: processes of supranational integration and democratization in the world; the transformation of contemporary societies under the pressure of immigration and environmental challenges; the crises of “electoral democracy” in Europe and the development of a deliberative model of democracy; the potential “clash of civilizations” and socio-religious conflict; the resurgence of nationalisms and micro-regionalism in Europe and in the world; the integration of policy processes into networks and of communities into new frameworks and governance systems. The journal has an anonymous referee system and two issues per year are expected.
The Diversity Inequality Forum (FDD) is an action research laboratory in which eight organizations of active citizenship participate (Fondazione Basso, ActionAid, Caritas Italiana, Cittadinanzattiva, Dedalus Social Cooperative, Community Foundation of Messina, Legambiente, Uisp), in coordination with a group of com-mitted researchers and academics. The aim of the FDD is the study of inequality and of its negative con-sequences on development. Through the meeting and collaboration between researchers and associations, FDD intends to produce, promote and influence proposals for collective action and public action that favor the reduction of inequalities and social justice, according to the address of Article 3 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic. The proposals drawn up by the FDD focus on private and common wealth inequalities and have been inspired by the Anthony Atkinson action program. They aim at modifying the main mechanisms that determine the formation and distribution of wealth, such as technological change, the relationship be-tween workers and those who control businesses, the generational passage of wealth itself.
The article analyzes the free, prior and informed consultation, as a device of intercultural dialog linked to the right of indigenous peoples to the territory and to self-determination. Prior consultation is a mechanism of legal participation. It requires that, before assuming any administrative measure, the State unveils the im-plementation of its projects of exploitation of natural resources that may affect directly indigenous peoples. The article focuses on the content of the Convention 169 of the ILO, which offers the legal framework for the implementation of prior consultation in Latin America. However, from the point of view of any government, it is the State that holds the sovereignty and the imperium, on the base of the argument that there would be a supremacy of the national interest over local and territorial claims. Therefore, the “reason of State” enters in conflict with right of indigenous peoples to the territory and to self-determination. In the conclusion, it is underlined that this approach of the State administration accentuates the ideological and political fracture between the State, the transnational capital and the indigenous peoples.
Interest groups are among the most relevant social actors who inhabit liberal-democracies. Yet, despite their relevance, they are poorly studied. This review explains the reasons for the minor attention that scholars reserve to interest groups. The first part examines the problems faced by scholars of United States (USA) and European Union (EU) groups systems when they study interest groups. The second part is dedicated to the way researchers overcome the problems related to measuring group influence on decision makers. Then is re-viewed the literature dedicated to the most important subject addressed by this sub-field of political science, namely the investigation over the biased – or unbiased – character of the system of interests in the USA and EU political systems. The impact of globalization on the group systems is highlighted in the last part of the survey. A final comment is dedicated to the pluralist or elitist nature of the group systems in our democracies.
In two previous papers (De Micheli and Fragnelli 2016, 2018), we analyzed the legislative procedures in
Italy, United Kingdom, France and Spain focusing on their strength, correlating it with the strength of the
government and of the Parliament, measured through two parameters, the governability and the fragmentation.
Here, we extend the analysis to two other European democracies: Belgium and Germany.