The Politics of Democratic Inclusion

                       Once again I'd like to thank all people doing this worldwide movement for political inclusion stronger than ever. But for some unknown reason for me, even with this wish demonstrated daily by millions, few people, but influents, seems to be against my political rights.I hope that the will expressed mainly since 2020 election through this movement and expressed also by the results of election here since 2008 can prevail, like the humanist values must always prevail. Who is against my political rights must understand that I am not against them, and we all should join forces for the common good and together to build a better city for everyone. This is a summary of the book with the title above, published in 2009 at https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/183/edited_volume/chapter/1792179/pdf

                        The Politics of Democratic Inclusion seeks to contribute to our understanding of the processes and mechanisms by which traditionally underrepresented groups have and ahve not achieved political incorporation and representation.  The issue of democratic inclusion has been central to politics. The challenges are evident in the juxtaposed perceptions of historical dillemas. The suggestion of an open, pluralistic system in which diverse groups are eventually able to achieve influence in the political system and the political position of disadvantage groups are structurally and centrally problematic and unequal. Using different lenses and considering distinct phenomena, the chapters in this volume seek to determine how various institutions have, or have not served as mechanisms for democratic inclusion. The chapters evaluate and advance our understanding of the ways in which the structure, processes, rules and context of the American political order encourage, mediate, and hamper the representation and incorporation of disadvantage groups. The politics of inclusion are central to an understanding of the quality of democracy. The standards of political equality and popular sovereignty imply broad and deep representation of the governed. Not coincidently, recent decades also have seen the emergence of a rich body of research examining the political activitesand experiences of disadvantage groups where once attention to such issues was underdeveloped. The primary argument of this volume is that an understanding of the politics of inclusion requires close attention to the role of institutions. As we argue below, institutions determine the context in which political elites respond to demands for inclusion. Reviving group consciousness has been a key concept for understanding how minorities have overcome prejudice, discrimination and barriers to achieve democratic inclusion. The feelings of identification and solidarity that accompany group consciousness have helped motivate these groups to engage in collective action to secure equal rights in society. Studies of the civil rights movement, for example, suggested that group consciousness helped galvanize thousands of disadvantaged African Americans to engage in collective action and demand equal rights that would pave the way for their political incorporation. The classic literature on early immigrants to the U.S. also emphasized group identification as a resource for political engagement. Among the factors that promote participation: civic skills, psychological engagement and political mobilization, group consciousness was another psychological resource that made politics relevant to people's lives and supplied them with reasons to become active. Social movements, political parties and interest organizations, sit at the intersection between the public and the institutions that govern them. As such, they play a central role in democratic functioning. They socialize the public as to its civic duties. They mobilize people into political activity and involvement. They provide vital information about public debates. They recruit and promote candidates. They influence and organize the activities of government officials. They provide representation of diverse issues and interests. Political movements provide opportunities for the development of group leadership. Social movements demands create a context that encourages greater influence in government decisions. Social movements in many ways offers the most positive assessment of mediating institutions' potential for facilitating democratic inclusion. In the American experience movements often have functioned as effective mechanisms for those excluded from the promise of democratic equality to press for and achieve "new arrangements of power". Social movements as political forms flew largely underneath the radar of scholarly investigation. Sociologists, historians, and psychologists studied movements and their members, but tended to focus on their social rather than political features. Historically, most of America's experience with movements have been as catalysts for democratic inclusion, seeking to broaden democratic forms. Without going into details, social movements became swallowed up in a pluralist/elitist debate in which a well-informed and politically engaged electorate was viewing social movements as mechanisms for political inclusion. Sidney Tarrow (1998) has noted that when Alexis de Tocqueville visited America in the 1830s, against the blazing backdrop of social movements in his native France, he completely failed to recognize their American counterparts, including the religious revivalism of the period as well as the mounting contention over slavery. De Tocqueville missed the passions simmering in the moral beliefs of the abolitionists and in the efforts of Protestantism to appropriate interpretation of democracy to itself, while moving to stem the inflow of Catholic immigrants. American history was viewed more as a search for equilibriums than a crucible for change.