Analisis Etika Diskursus Jurgen Habermas terhadap Demokrasi Cair pada Masyarakat Digital

Rika Febriani; Supartiningsih Supartiningsih; Sindung Tjahyadi; Rachmi Hertanti

doi:10.17977/um019v9i3p230-237

Analisis Etika Diskursus Jurgen Habermas terhadap Demokrasi Cair pada Masyarakat Digital

Rika Febriani, Supartiningsih Supartiningsih, Sindung Tjahyadi, Rachmi Hertanti

Abstract

The purpose of writing this article is to describe the basic concept of liquid democracy and analyze the principles of liquid democracy in digital society based on Jurgen Habermas’ discourse ethics. This study uses a historical-factual method based on the view that humans are historical creatures that develop in thought and experience. Liquid democracy is a system that allows each individual to convey aspirations directly or delegate aspirations to others who are more expert in the decision-making process. The application of liquid democracy in digital society is based on the principles of Jurgen Habermas’ discourse ethics which are divided into two types, namely universal and discourse principles. Universal principles relate to the interests and needs of each individual in the decision-making process. Discourse principles relate to procedures in the decision-making process based on certain norms.

Keywords

liquid democracy; discourse ethics; digital society

Full Text:

PDF

References

Agamben, G., & Heron, N. (2010). Introductory note on the concept of democracy. Theory & Event, 13(1).

Bergen, B. J. (2000). The banality of evil: Hannah Arendt and'the final solution'. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Bloembergen, D., Grossi, D., & Lackner, M. (2019, July). On rational delegations in liquid democracy. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 33, No. 01, pp. 1796-1803).

Blum, C., & Zuber, C. I. (2016). Liquid democracy: Potentials, problems, and perspectives. Journal of political philosophy, 24(2), 162-182.

Behrens, J. Kistner, A., Nitsche, A. and Swierczek B. 2014. The Principles of LiquidFeedback (p. 81). Berlin: Interaktive Demokratie eV.

Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in american politics. Oxford University Press.

Carabantes, M. (2020). Black-box artificial intelligence: an epistemological and critical analysis. AI & society, 35(2), 309-317.

Cunningham, S. (2014). Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. In Cultural Policy Review of Books (pp. 21-23). Routledge.

Coeckelbergh, M. (2022). The political philosophy of AI: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons.

Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.

Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale university press.

Deseriis, M. (2022). Is Liquid Democracy Compatible with Representative Democracy? Insights from the Experience of the Pirate Party Germany. Partecipazione E Conflitto, 15(2), 466-481.

Diamond, L. J., Linz, J. J., & Lipset, S. M. (Eds.). (1989). Democracy in developing countries: Latin America (Vol. 4). London: Rienner.

Ford, B. 2002. “Delegative democracy,” p.1-18 Manuscript. www.brynosaurus.com/deleg/deleg.pdf, accessed 28 February 2023.

Giddens, A. (1993). Modernity, history, democracy. Theory and Society, p. 289-292.

Gölz, P., Kahng, A., Mackenzie, S., & Procaccia, A. D. (2021). The fluid mechanics of liquid democracy. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 9(4), 1-39.

Habermas, J. (1988). Morality and ethical life: Does Hegel's critique of Kant apply to discourse ethics. Nw. UL Rev., 83, 38.

Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT press.

Habermas, J. (2018). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. John Wiley & Sons.

Hardiman, F. B. (2009). Demokrasi deliberatif: menimbang negara hukum dan ruang publik dalam teori diskursus Jurgen Habermas (Vol. 4). Kanisius.

Hardiman, F. B. (2021). Aku Klik maka Aku Ada. Yogyakarta. Kanisius.

Hardiman, F. B. (2023). Kebenaran dan Para Kritikusnya. Yogyakarta. Kanisius

Harefa, D., & Fatolosa Hulu, M. M. (2020). Demokrasi Pancasila di era kemajemukan. Pm Publisher.

Hardt, S., & Lopes, L. C. (2015). Google votes: A liquid democracy experiment on a corporate social network. pp. 1-16

Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, trans. C. Lenhardt and S. Nicholsen (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990)

Honneth, A. (2018). The other of justice: Habermas and the ethical challenge of postmodernism. In Jürgen Habermas, Volumes I and II (pp. 133-167). Routledge.

Jürgen, H. (2017). Three normative models of democracy. In Constitutionalism and democracy (pp. 277-286). Routledge.

Katsanevas, A. K. (2020). Visions of democracy in the information society: The theories of Daniel Bell, Manuel Castells, and Yochai Benkler. Stanford University.

Magnis-Suseno, Franz, 2006, 12 Teks Kunci Etika Abad Kedua Puluh, Yogyakarta: Kanisius

McNiff, J. (2013). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.

McCarthy, S. (2013). Demystifying complexity: Why worse is better in voting. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2342701. pp. 1-10

Miler, J. C., III 1969. “A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process,” Public choice, 7(1), pp. 107-113.

'Hara, I. (2022). Automated Epistemology: Bots, Computational Propaganda & Information Literacy Instruction. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(4), 102540. 1-7

Origgi, Gloria. (2012). “Designing wisdom through the web,” Collective Wisdom, eds. H. Landemore and J. Elster (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 38–55

Paulin, A. A. (2019). Smart city governance. Elsevier. pp. 143-158

Sumartias, S., Pulubuhu, D. A. T., Sudarmono, S., Noorlistyo Adi, A., &

Ratnasari, E. (2023). Democracy in the Indonesian Digital Public Sphere: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Users’ Responses to the Issue of Nationalism Knowledge Test at the Corruption Eradication Commission (TWK-KPK). Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Ilmu Politik, 26(3), 240-257.

Supartiningsih, S. (2007). Etika diskursus bagi masyarakat multikultural: Sebuah analisis dalam perspektif pemikiran Jürgen Habermas. Jurnal Filsafat, 17(1), 32-59.

Susen, S. (2018). Jürgen Habermas: Between Democratic Deliberation and Deliberative Democracy. In: Wodak, R. & Forchtner, B. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. (pp. 43-66). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Taylor, S. J., Bogdan, R., & DeVault, M. (2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.

Valsangiacomo, C. (2022). Clarifying and Defining the Concept of Liquid Democracy. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(1), 61-80.

Wheeler, G. R., & Pereira, L. M. (2004). Epistemology and artificial intelligence. Journal of Applied Logic, 2(4), 469-493.

Woolley, J. T. (1991). “Institutions, the election cycle, and the presidential veto,” American Journal of Political Science, pp. 279-304.

Woolley, S., & Howard, P. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents – introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4882–4890

Woolley, S., & Howard, P. (2017). Computational propaganda worldwide: Executive summary.

Woolley, S., & Guilbeault, D. (2019). United States:Manufacturing consensus online. In S. Woolley, & P. Howard (Eds.), Computational propaganda: Political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um019v9i3p230-237

Refbacks

There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View My Stats

Username
Password
Remember me