A_01 Democratic Cohesion Between Inclusion and Exclusion: Theoretical Foundations, Legal Constitution, and Political Dynamics

A distinctive feature of RISC’s research program is its differentiation between a general, non-normatively defined concept of cohesion and more specific conceptions. This allows for a more precise theoretical and empirical analysis of such conceptions, particularly with regard to their normative specificity and their inclusive or exclusionary implications.

The present work package (WP) focuses on one of these conceptions: democratic cohesion. It asks how a normative theory of democratic cohesion can be more precisely defined, which legal constitution characterizes democratic cohesion, and which exclusions are produced even when certain inclusion criteria are taken into account? Building on the results of the first funding phase, the WP seeks to answer these questions through interdisciplinary collaboration. In doing so, it provides important conceptual and normative foundations for RISC’s research agenda in the second funding phase, in which the preconditions and implications of democratic cohesion play a central role.

By combining philosophical, constitutional, and European legal perspectives, the team investigates the overarching question of the first focal point of the research area of how democratic cohesion can emerge, and should be politically promoted or legally stabilized, in societies shaped by plural worldviews and diverse conflicts. The conception of democratic cohesion is understood, on the one hand, normatively as an ideal type and, on the other hand, empirically, particularly as a guiding model that is effective in practice. These two perspectives are brought together in a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion—with the key insight that certain forms of inclusion cause or obscure exclusions and that this, in turn, has repercussions for society.

The research of the WP is structured into five modules, each assigned to a principal investigator (PI). The research results of the modules are regularly synthesized in WP workshops and consolidated in joint events and publications.

Module 1

Rainer Forst’s political-theory module aims, through engagement with contemporary democratic theory and the debate on social cohesion, to develop a reflexive conception of democratic cohesion. Central to this effort is the practice of justifying normative orders, which explicitly foregrounds questions of inclusion and exclusion. In dialogue with research in the social sciences and legal studies, the module seeks to resolve the following (apparent?) paradox: democratic cohesion, particularly in pluralistic societies, presupposes a renunciation of privileging cultural homogeneity in order to realize inclusive democratic justice—yet, according to many, this risks eroding the cultural “substance” of an egalitarian form of social justice that is fundamental to an inclusive democracy. This leads to the critical question of the extent to which certain understandings of the concept of “cohesion” represent an ideologically suspicious attempt to produce exclusion through the demand for inclusivity (with the recent debate on reforming citizenship law serving as an example).

Module 2

From a legal perspective, Judith Froese’s module addresses the (constitutional) legal conditions for the success of democratic cohesion, particularly the components of political equality of opportunity, participation, and representation, as well as possibilities for unity in a diverse society. Political and legal discourses on this complex of themes are especially suitable as reference material for examining the ambivalent relationship between inclusion and exclusion: unequal participation based on characteristics such as gender and ethnic origin is increasingly regarded as a legally relevant problem that should be addressed through binding regulations. By contrast, a gap in the discourse is evident with regard to other inequalities, particularly social differences. A lack of resources and recognition among the economically “others” affects social cohesion and can undermine the legitimacy of political institutions, which is why this aspect requires more in-depth research.

Module 3

Through a comparison between Germany and the United States, Uwe Volkmann’s module examines the role of constitutional institutions, as well as constitutions as such, for democratic cohesion. Constitutions can be understood as attempts to establish a demanding form of cohesion that dispenses with ethnic, cultural, or religious homogeneity and instead produces legal mechanisms of inclusion. A role that has not yet been sufficiently researched is that of constitutional courts: through their decisions, they can have a socially integrative effect, as can largely be observed in Germany, but they can also contribute to societal polarization, as demonstrated by the debate surrounding the abortion rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The comparative legal analysis therefore investigates the conditions under which constitutional courts can contribute to democratic cohesion. This analysis is not limited to the level of legal doctrine but also includes a social-science component.

Module 4

Klaus Günther’s contribution is based on the assumption that the preconditions of inclusive democratic justice are both highly complex and must be reproduced through conflict-laden processes. Especially in times of major crises, this can lead to experiences of exclusion, which manifest, among other ways, in fears of loss of control and freedom as well as existential insecurity. Under such conditions, conceptions of order that seek to respond by reducing complexity and by asserting the absolute primacy of an allegedly homogeneous democratic majority will gain increasing support. One example is the opposition of democracy to fundamental and human rights, including constitutional judicial review, which would in turn provoke exclusions, for instance of minorities. It is therefore necessary, first, to show whether and to what extent complexity and conflict are necessary conditions of inclusive democratic justice; second, to determine when complexity and conflict endanger democratic justice; and, third, to explore how an adequate level of democratic “hierarchical complexity” can be designed in such a way that it avoids destructive effects and does not motivate simplifying reductions.

Module 5

The dynamics of inclusion and exclusion are examined from the perspective of migration law in Daniel Thym’s module. The contribution starts from the observation that debates on social cohesion often emphasize the goal of equal recognition and participation, while insufficiently acknowledging that cohesion within, and equal participation in, a particular society are always based on exclusions. Against this background, Thym uses migration law as an analytical lens to make visible graduated forms of membership and legally sanctioned exclusions. This is particularly evident in the case of the European Union, whose law, from a legal perspective, significantly shapes inclusion and exclusion effects at the national level. While European unity until recently appeared as the epitome of an opening movement that overcomes borders, more recent research emphasizes the contrast between internal freedom of movement and strict external border controls. The exclusions that accompany this are often justified by emphasizing real or perceived dangers, including cultural markers of differentiation. For a comprehensive conception of cohesion, awareness of these mechanisms of demarcation is central—both with regard to internal exclusions of people without voting rights and to the external non-participation of persons affected by state measures.