BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law - ECPv6.17.5//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cisrul.blog
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20180101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=UTC:20220523T000000
DTEND;TZID=UTC:20220524T235959
DTSTAMP:20220513T145140Z
CREATED:20210819T144440Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20220513T145140Z
UID:10000039-1653264000-1653436799@cisrul.blog
SUMMARY:Civil Society and Democratic Backsliding Conference (Istanbul)
DESCRIPTION:INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC/CIVIL SOCIETY CONFERENCE\n\n\n\nMon 23rd – Tues 24th May\, 2022 \n\n\n\nIstanbul\, Turkey \n\n\n\nHosted by Society and Legal Research Foundation (TOHAV) and Centre for Citizenship\, Civil Society and Rule of Law (CISRUL)\, Aberdeen University \n\n\n\nKeynote speakers: \n\n\n\nShalini Randeria President and Rector\, Central European UniversityMarlies Glasius\, Professor in International Relations\, University of AmsterdamAjay Gudavarthy\, Associate Professor\, Centre for Political Studies\, Jawaharlal Nehru University\n\n\n\nAn extraordinary range of countries across the world transitioned to democracy in the 1980s and subsequent decades\, introducing multi-party elections\, constitutional protection for minorities\, freedom of speech and conscience\, and other measures consistent with international human rights treaties and covenants. One set of pro-democracy actors came to be known as “civil society”: a loose term but which often refers to legally-established organizations and associations\, from NGOs and social movements to think tanks and the media\, which maintain a degree of autonomy from governments and political parties\, and which attempt to place pressure on governments through monitoring\, advocacy and policy recommendations. \n\n\n\nIn the past decade\, however\, authoritarian practices and policies have been on the rise in many contexts. Countries as different as Turkey\, Hungary\, Poland\, Brazil\, Mexico and Tanzania\, all held to be consolidating as democracies\, have been criticized for “democratic backsliding”. The term is not wholly satisfactory because some of the authoritarian practices are new – this is no simple return to old habits – and there is no single trend across countries. For example\, though much attention has been paid to shifts toward the political Right\, Mexico is a case of authoritarian practices on the Left. Neither are the processes exclusive to newer democracies: India is an older democracy that is now accused of authoritarianism\, and Trump’s USA was arguably another example. Yet “democratic backsliding” does seem to capture some of the experience of these countries: their governments have abandoned some of the democratic agendas and principles to which they appeared previously committed. \n\n\n\nOne common feature is precisely that governments tend to denounce “civil society” for being elitist and blocking the will of the people\, including by kow-towing to international donors and powers like the EU and the US. Civil society organizations that once struggled against military dictatorship or one-party rule have found that their longstanding strategies are ill-suited to these times. For example\, civil society was instrumental in drafting democratic constitutions and monitoring their implementation\, yet in recent years governments have modified the constitutions and turned them to authoritarian ends. Governments have also looked to harness the judicial institutions that civil society used to work through and with. Meanwhile\, civil society has found itself vulnerable to governments’ ability to rally new constituencies in order to command electoral majorities\, often by stigmatizing minorities which find themselves permanently excluded. Governments use their newfound political power to neutralize and frustrate attempts to limit that power\, whether by civil society organizations\, social movements\, opposition parties\, the media\, or autonomous institutions like electoral tribunals and human rights commissions. \n\n\n\nSociety and Legal Research Foundation (TOHAV) has joined forces with Aberdeen University’s Centre for Citizenship\, Civil Society and Rule of Law (CISRUL) to invite researchers to share their experience and understanding of civil society’s predicament\, debating these with civil society practitioners from across several countries. The following questions are indicative: \n\n\n\nHow does comparing countries help us to understand authoritarian practices? Does “democratic backsliding” capture recent authoritarian practices across countries\, or are other concepts more useful?How is “civil society” understood in each country\, and what role is envisaged for it? Is civil society considered different to activism\, for example? And have understandings of civil society changed over the decades\, and what does this reveal?What strategies have proved effective in the past in countering authoritarianism\, and do they remain effective in the present? Is there a need to find new kinds and methods of action? Do any of these go beyond “civil society” as understood previously? For example\, does civil disobedience prove effective and/or should organizations engage in electoral politics rather than remain aloof?How realistic is it to expect organizations who depend on donors\, grants\, and international funds (and are sometimes pilloried for that) to counter elected governments with ready access to public funds that engage in authoritarian practices?“Civil society” is often criticised as being elitist\, unrepresentative\, and accountable only to their donors. How can organizations best respond to those accusations?\n\n\n\nFurther information\, including the programme and details of how to join\, is available on the conference page.
URL:https://cisrul.blog/event/civil-society-and-democratic-backsliding-conference-istanbul/
CATEGORIES:Conference
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cisrul.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/istanbul-skyline-2-1.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20210430
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20210501
DTSTAMP:20211027T092018Z
CREATED:20210819T144100Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211027T092018Z
UID:10000034-1619740800-1619827199@cisrul.blog
SUMMARY:Council Democracy as a Mode of Autonomy: The Cases of Rojava\, Chiapas and Cherán seminar
DESCRIPTION:The Cases of Rojava\, Chiapas and Cherán\nDr. Hanifi Baris\nSeminar\, Friday 30 April at 2 – 3.30 pm via Zoom \nPlease email hanifi.baris@abdn.ac.uk to request the Zoom link.\n\nDr. Hanifi Baris\n\nDr Baris will present the results of the first 18 months of his Leverhulme Fellowship on experiments of council democracy launched by Kurdish movements in Turkey and Syria\, and two indigenous movements\, the Zapatistas and the town of Cheran\, in Mexico. Despite important differences\, what these movements share is that they invoke ancestral/communal forms of sovereignty but make no claim to independence. On the contrary\, they seek to reconcile their aspirations with the Turkish\, Syrian and Mexican constitutions.\n\nNevertheless\, the councils and assemblies set up by these movements appear to claim ultimate authority over public affairs within territories that constitute residential communities such as villages\, neighbourhoods\, towns and cities. Therefore\, autonomy based on councils appears to be at odds with the principles of parliamentary sovereignty.\n\nScholars have defined these experiments as stateless democracy and/or radical democracy. In this project\, Dr Baris considers further aspects of the politics of these movements: where did these models of autonomy come from? Do they introduce novel forms of government or are they projections of ancient and ancestral forms of self-rule? What implications do these models have with regard to autonomy and sovereignty? How can we reconcile them with the constitutions of the nation-states that host these movements? What appear to be their strengths and weaknesses in practice?\n\nCouncil democracy in these cases is conceived as a form of government alternative to representative democracy: citizens participate in political decision-making processes directly via convening in local councils and assemblies. Dr Baris describes these experiments as council autonomy and aims to compare them with one another as well as with the council system outlined theoretically by Hannah Arendt and her predecessors\, including Jewish experiments of anarchist communities\, the kibbutzim\, as well as the project of Mediterranean Federated States developed by Judah Leon Magnes.\n\nDr Baris will also dwell on the strengths and limitations of council democracy in theory and in practice and will use case studies to develop and contribute to political theory.\nThe project is funded by the Leverhulme Trust.
URL:https://cisrul.blog/event/council-democracy-as-a-mode-of-autonomy-the-cases-of-rojava-chiapas-and-cheran-seminar/
CATEGORIES:Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://cisrul.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Screenshot-2021-08-19-at-16.53.21.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20191212
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20191213
DTSTAMP:20211027T093102Z
CREATED:20210819T172058Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211027T093102Z
UID:10000051-1576108800-1576195199@cisrul.blog
SUMMARY:Arendt’s Cases of Council Democracy
DESCRIPTION:Hanifi Baris (Leverhulme Early Career Research Fellow\, CISRUL)\nRESEARCH SEMINAR\nTHURSDAY 12TH DECEMBER 2019\, 10AM\nThe seminar will present the results of the first stage of research for a Leverhulme project on “Council democracy as a mode of autonomy: a comparative approach”. The project will focus on experiments of council democracy launched by Kurdish movements in Turkey and Syria\, and two indigenous movements\, the Zapatistas and the town of Cheran\, in Mexico. These movements appear to explore new political possibilities with their emphasis on direct and semi-direct political participation\, and rejection of nationalism and national sovereignty\, although some form of community sovereignty seems to be invoked. The movements seem to experiment with an alternative form of government that echo Arendt’s arguments about the council system. In his first presentation\, Hanifi will summarize Arendt’s arguments on council democracy with special attention to the cases on which she appeared to draw: the town meetings of the American Revolution and local councils of the French Revolution\, the soviets of the Russian Revolution\, the kibbutzim\, Judah Leon Magnes’s vision of Mediterranean confederated states\, and Hungarian worker councils of 1956.
URL:https://cisrul.blog/event/arendts-cases-of-council-democracy/
CATEGORIES:Seminar
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://cisrul.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cisrul-logo.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR