Constitutional inclusion in divided societies: Conceptual choices, practical dilemmas and the contribution of the grassroots in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
J. McEvoy, J. Todd
{"title":"Constitutional inclusion in divided societies: Conceptual choices, practical dilemmas and the contribution of the grassroots in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland","authors":"J. McEvoy, J. Todd","doi":"10.1177/00108367221147790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Processes of constitutional discussion increasingly invite widespread popular inclusion and participation. Conceptual and practical problems remain, not least the respects in which inclusion is to take place. In deeply divided places, these challenges are intensified, first in the difficulties of conceptualising inclusion, and second in the practical dangers participation may pose to peace. We tackle these problems empirically by looking at a hard case of constitutional discussion amid division: the re-emergence of debate about Irish unity in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Through focus groups and interviews, we explore how ‘others’, disengaged from the main political groups and defined transversally, approach the discussion, showing that they welcome the prospect of participation and seek to remove discursive triggers of conflict by focussing on shared everyday experience. We discuss the implications for the constitutional process and the likely impact on polarisation. The analysis has implications for the literature on divided societies, for constitutional theory and for policy. We argue that it is both possible and desirable to remedy group exclusion while facilitating universalistic discussion and lessening the dangers of polarisation. The policy implications are quite radical.","PeriodicalId":47286,"journal":{"name":"Cooperation and Conflict","volume":"58 1","pages":"393 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cooperation and Conflict","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221147790","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Processes of constitutional discussion increasingly invite widespread popular inclusion and participation. Conceptual and practical problems remain, not least the respects in which inclusion is to take place. In deeply divided places, these challenges are intensified, first in the difficulties of conceptualising inclusion, and second in the practical dangers participation may pose to peace. We tackle these problems empirically by looking at a hard case of constitutional discussion amid division: the re-emergence of debate about Irish unity in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Through focus groups and interviews, we explore how ‘others’, disengaged from the main political groups and defined transversally, approach the discussion, showing that they welcome the prospect of participation and seek to remove discursive triggers of conflict by focussing on shared everyday experience. We discuss the implications for the constitutional process and the likely impact on polarisation. The analysis has implications for the literature on divided societies, for constitutional theory and for policy. We argue that it is both possible and desirable to remedy group exclusion while facilitating universalistic discussion and lessening the dangers of polarisation. The policy implications are quite radical.
分裂社会中的宪法包容:北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国的概念选择、实际困境和基层的贡献
宪法讨论进程越来越多地邀请民众广泛参与。概念和实际问题仍然存在,尤其是在包容方面。在分歧严重的地方,这些挑战加剧了,首先是包容概念化的困难,其次是参与可能对和平构成的实际危险。我们通过观察分裂中的宪法讨论的一个棘手案例来从经验上解决这些问题:北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国重新出现了关于爱尔兰统一的辩论。通过焦点小组和访谈,我们探讨了脱离主要政治团体并横向定义的“其他人”如何参与讨论,表明他们欢迎参与的前景,并通过关注共同的日常经验来消除引发冲突的话语。我们讨论了对宪法程序的影响以及对两极分化可能产生的影响。该分析对关于分裂社会的文献、宪法理论和政策都有启示。我们认为,在促进普遍性讨论和减少两极分化危险的同时,纠正群体排斥是可能的,也是可取的。政策影响相当激进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Published for over 40 years, the aim of Cooperation and Conflict is to promote research on and understanding of international relations. It believes in the deeds of academic pluralism and thus does not represent any specific methodology, approach, tradition or school. The mission of the journal is to meet the demands of the scholarly community having an interest in international studies (for details, see the statement "From the Editors" in Vol. 40, No. 3, September 2005). The editors especially encourage submissions contributing new knowledge of the field and welcome innovative, theory-aware and critical approaches. First preference will continue to be given to articles that have a Nordic and European focus. Cooperation and Conflict strictly adheres to a double-blind reviewing policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信