This was circulated by David Miller of Strathclyde Uni - a conference call
but with a very sharp summary of questions of government/nance in Europe and
America, including a challenge to modes that we like to think of as
participatory.

A.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Organized by the Universities of Poitiers (MIMMOC), Caen (ERIBIA) and Paris
Ouest Nanterre (CREA)
22-24 November 2012
Université de Poitiers, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société. 
CALL FOR PAPERS
"Who governs in the Americas and in Europe?"
At the beginning of the 1960s, a controversy about the nature of domestic
American political power opposed C. Wright Mills author of The Power Elite
(1956) and Robert A. Dahl, Professor of Political Science at Yale
University. C. Wright Mills, a radical sociologist, suggested that the
American democratic system was merely an illusion. According to him, power
was confiscated by an elite consisting of a restricted social group where
financial, military and political interests formed an intertwined closed
system that he called “the Power Elite” in his famous book. Robert Dahl
countered, from the so-called 'pluralist' perspective, arguing that in a
democracy, decision-making bodies are far from being monolithic and that
elites are not homogenous. In his book, Who Governs? Dahl defines the
American democratic system as a 'polyarchy' where the separation of powers
is the rule, and where political power is split between the different
competing dominant groups seeking to have their choices and ideas accepted
and implemented. The point he made then predated the emergence of the notion
of 'governance' which has become more widely used since the 1990s. The
notion of “governance”, which was initially used to designate the way in
which a government exercises its economic, political and administrative
powers and manages its resources and development, was subsequently extended
to cover other areas. This explains why the concept has been widely used by
theoreticians of public policy, political scientists and sociologists. In
fact, “Governance” serves as a means to legitimize political processes, the
relationship between political institutions and the body politic, and their
inter-relations and the relations between society and the different economic
actors. It is a theory of social regulation that can be applicable at all
levels of government, hence the genesis of the term local governance, urban
governance, territorial governance, European governance, world governance.
The notion is also applied to non-state organizations in the local, national
and international arenas.
Critics of this notion denounce it as the ideological underpinnings of the
1980s neo-liberalism that continues to weaken the Welfare State. It is for
this reason that some academics see “governance” as a theoretical
justification for the 'dismantling' of the State. They denounce the
replacement of the term 'government' by that of “governance”, explaining
that the new term indicates the diminishing of the decision-making powers of
the State as a guarantor of popular sovereignty in favor of a “participatory
democracy” which has no real political attributes. For the latter, the shift
from government to governance demonstrates the existence of a transition
from a culture of popular sovereignty enshrined in republican law, the
guarantor of the public interest, to a pragmatic and utilitarian society,
that safeguards special economic interests, where the notion of the common
good has become irrelevant.  
Thus, the notion of governance remains within the contours of the debate
started by C. Wright Mills and Robert A. Dahl on the nature of power. The
debate is far from over. The question now is to determine whether the
passage from the notion of 'government' to that of 'governance' is
indicative of a mere semantic modification or rather implies a major
ideological shift. Is governance really grounded in 'responsibility',
'transparency', the 'rule of law' and 'participation' as its proponents
maintain or does it lead instead to the erosion of the notion of public good
to the benefit of that of private interests embodied in the activities of
lobbies and other special interest groups? Does the splintering of
decision-making centers and the multiplication of actors involved in the
elaboration and the implementation of public policies lead to the emergence
of a real participatory democracy or does it on the contrary contribute to
the weakening of public authorities, the sole and unique guarantors of the
equality of all citizens before the law? Sheldon Wolin’s theory that
'democracy incorporated' has led to new forms of totalitarianism can also be
of reference (Democracy Incorporated; Managed Democracy and the Specter of
Inverted Totalitarianism, 2008).
These questions and many others are key to the main issues to be discussed
in the conference. 
This multidisciplinary conference will be of interest to specialists in a
variety of fields, including but not limited to, political science,
sociology, cultural studies, area studies, history and others. In addition
to political philosophy and theory, papers with a country-specific or
comparative studies focus are equally welcome. 
Languages: French and English. 
Proposals (maximum 500 words, with a short CV) should be sent by 15 April
2012. Accepted papers will be notified by 15 June 2012. 
Contacts: Salah OUESLATI ([log in to unmask] ) Pierre GUERLAIN
([log in to unmask]) Taoufik DJEBALI ([log in to unmask] )