Volume 47, Issue 1 - Focus: Work and Democracy in Conflict

A series of studies show that unions and works councils have an influence on workers’ political activities and attitudes. However, at issue are the transmission channels through which worker representation impacts workers’ political activities and attitudes. This article discusses from a theoretical and empirical viewpoint whether the influence of worker representation reflects increased workplace democracy. The article also discusses possible policy implications.

Most democracy theories neglect the aspect of resistance to authoritarianism. Especially in times of an autocratic wave, the need for rebellion should be emphasised. In this article, I suggest conceptual considerations to enrich the debate on democratic competences and their strengthening in the context of the workplace. Our experiences at work affect our political behaviour and attitudes. Those who primarily encounter authoritarian conditions in their socialisation will find it more difficult to develop democratic skills. However, existing concepts of competences for a democratic culture are designed for times when democracy functions well and is not questioned. In phases of anti-democratic tendencies, these are not enough; what is needed then is democratic resilience. Theoretically, this can be argued with Erich Fromm, Albert Camus and Carole Pateman. She emphasised the need to democratise workplaces. However, assumptions of spillover do not consider democratic resilience. In this article, I explore three main aspects. First, I argue that rebellion and resistance to authoritarianism are at the core of democracy in all our social interactions. I then show that the aspect of resilience is neglected in existing concepts of democratic competences. Finally, I offer conceptual suggestions for democratic resilience in the context of workplaces.

This article focuses on the lived experiences of highly-qualified employees facing contradictions in working life in contemporary Turkish society, engendered by the ambivalence between the managerial discourse, which promotes employees’ subjectivity, and de-democratization of society manifested specifically by the limitations of freedom of expression. The empirical research discussed in this article examines humoristic narratives shared by highly-qualified employees on social media, highlighting the contradictions they experience in corporate life. The study analyzed social media accounts that humorously critique working conditions, corporate culture, indebtedness, and co-worker relationships. It employs a qualitative approach, using content analysis to interpret the narratives and explore how humor is used to express negative working life experiences due to de-democratization of the society. The main findings of the study demonstrate that highly qualified employees, working in corporate companies, use humorous narratives to critique four key areas: psycho-social risks , corporate culture , co-worker relationships and indebtedness.

Traditional versions of workplace democracy imply that the decisions in which workers should have a say primarily concern governance issues. Worker cooperatives are, therefore, often cited as some of the most promising examples of workplace democracy. In this paper, I argue that a comprehensive and fully developed theory of workplace democracy should aim to democratize both spheres of power: governance and management. Indeed, there exists a broad spectrum of intermediate decision-making – carried out by middle and line management, such as team leaders, supervisors, superintendents, and foremen – that constitutes an often-overlooked site of power in worker cooperatives. The primary responsibilities of managers – which should remain subject to oversight by the workers – should therefore include facilitating and fostering democratic deliberation on work-related issues, supporting coordination efforts, and providing assistance to workers. This perspective also supports the view that managers themselves should be elected rather than appointed by the cooperative’s general manager or board of directors, as is usually the case.

Mondragon’s worker-owned-and-governed cooperatives are rooted in the socialist utopian tradition of envisioning alternative economic organizations designed to promote worker well-being, workplace democracy, and community embeddedness. For many years, they have challenged capitalist logic and hierarchical power structures while remaining economically viable and democratically governed, countering the predictions of degeneration theories. However, recent transformation of Mondragon’s largest industrial cooperatives into multinational coopitalist hybrids, maintaining a cooperative core of worker-members while operating capitalist subsidiaries with wage workers lacking membership rights, pose risks to their democratic structures. This paradox highlights the tension between economic survival in global capitalism and cooperative identity. By examining Mondragon’s trajectory, the paper questions whether internationalization can coexist with economic democracy or whether global expansion inevitably compromises cooperative principles, forcing adaptation to market-driven imperatives. Understanding these tensions is crucial for the future of economic democracy and the development of sustainable alternative organizations.

This paper argues that democratizing corporations requires more than simply allocating control rights to employees while leaving ownership structures intact, because such an arrangement leaves democratic decision-making vulnerable to the persistent threat of disinvestment. True democratic control requires a deeper transformation – specifically, a foundation in social ownership. To this end, various models of social ownership are critically examined. While none offers a satisfying solution on its own, their strengths can be combined. From this emerges the concept of Plural Cooperativism : a hybrid, society-wide model of cooperative ownership that systematically integrates other forms of social ownership, allowing for limited private stock ownership, counterbalanced by public stock ownership and a more democratic reallocation of control rights over private ownership.

Jürgen Habermas’s work is analyzed as an outstanding combination of hermeneutic sensitivity to different theories and systematic theory integration. Habermas’s theoretical method revolves around a problem-centered understanding of theory that interprets it as a response to specific problems. The methodological reconstruction of key texts shows that he used the distinction of theory and problem as an all-purpose device for interpretation, critique, and theory construction. This method is superior to other, more common ways of integrating theoretical plurality.

According to Jeff McMahan, Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas’s aggression, but the Palestinians too had a right to fight against Israel to undo the injustice of its occupation of Palestinian territories. Thus, both sides had a just cause for war. However, both sides failed to satisfy other ad bellum conditions, with Hamas failing only the necessity condition and Israel failing both the necessity and proportionality conditions. McMahan concludes that Israel’s war against Hamas was unjust, unlike Ukraine’s war against Russia, which he views as ‘paradigmatically just.’ I reject his view, arguing that: (a) The strategic goals of Hamas are the annihilation of Israel, the murder of many of its civilians, and the expulsion of others – goals that are manifestly immoral – thus it had no just cause for war. (b) Even on McMahan’s premises, it is absurd to imply a symmetry in the unjustness of Israel and Hamas. (c) McMahan’s understanding of ad bellum necessity and proportionality is untenable. (d) Israel did, in fact, satisfy the necessity condition. (e) If Ukraine’s war is proportionate, as McMahan assumes, then all the more so is Israel’s war in Gaza.

In ‘McMahan on the War Against Hamas,’ Daniel Statman systematically criticizes arguments advanced in the essay, ‘Proportionality and Necessity in Israel’s Invasion of Gaza, 2023–2024,’ which was published in this journal in 2024. The arguments in that essay assessed Israel’s war by reference to moral principles commonly recognized as governing the resort to war: in particular, principles of just cause, necessity, and proportionality. The present essay not only defends the arguments and claims of the earlier paper against Statman’s challenges, but also reinforces the earlier arguments with many new arguments intended to demonstrate that Israel’s war has been and continues to be an unjust war. It also includes further material comparing Israel’s war in Gaza with Russia’s war in Ukraine. The essay concludes with an appendix containing a short piece written in 2021 about the previous war in Gaza at that time. Its publication was censored then; hence it appears here for the first time.