Privacy Rights/Culture and Politics/Depends on governance: Difference between revisions
Import-sysop (talk | contribs) (transformed) |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? | |questionHeading=Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)? | ||
|pageLevel=Question | |pageLevel=Question | ||
|contents= Rhoda Howard and Jack Donnelly ([[Probable year::1986]]) | |contents=Rhoda Howard and Jack Donnelly ([[Probable year:: 1986]]) describe six regime types: liberal, minimal, traditionalist, communist, corporatist (authoritarian), and developmental. When comparing regime type to the ‘valuation of privacy,’ liberal regimes are ranked highly, and minimal regimes are ranked very highly (Howard & Donnelly, [[Probable year:: 1986]], 814). The other regime types, all communitarian regimes rather than individualistic, were ranked low or very low regarding privacy (Howard & Donnelly, [[Probable year:: 1986]], 814). At their cores, communitarian regimes do not have privacy because it can be argued, as Howard and Donnelly ([[Probable year:: 1986]], 211) do, that the allowance of freedoms may lead to self-destruction. Thus, privacy is ignored (Howard & Donnelly, [[Probable year:: 1986]], 211). Fatos Lubonja agrees with this sentiment, writing that privacy did not exist in Albania under the totalitarian regime, and cites his experience in Albanian prisons as an example (Lubonja, [[Probable year:: 2001]]) . He also admitted to self-censorship in the private diaries which originally got him arrested, supposing many others had censored themselves in the same way (Lubonja, [[Probable year:: 2001]], 247). | ||
Resources | Resources | ||
Howard, R.E., & Donnelly, J. ([[Probable year::1986]], Sept.) Human dignity, human rights, and political regimes. The American Political Science Review 80(3), 801-817. https://doi.org/10.[[Probable year::2307]]/ 1960539 | Howard, R.E., & Donnelly, J. ([[Probable year:: 1986]], Sept.) Human dignity, human rights, and political regimes. The American Political Science Review 80(3), 801-817. https://doi.org/10.[[Probable year:: 2307]]/ 1960539 | ||
Lubonja, F. ([[Probable year:: 2001]]) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4097[[Probable year:: 1449]] | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:41, 20 March 2023
Is this right exercised in different ways depending on the political governance regime in place (democracy, autocracy, hybrid regime)?
Rhoda Howard and Jack Donnelly (1986) describe six regime types: liberal, minimal, traditionalist, communist, corporatist (authoritarian), and developmental. When comparing regime type to the ‘valuation of privacy,’ liberal regimes are ranked highly, and minimal regimes are ranked very highly (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 814). The other regime types, all communitarian regimes rather than individualistic, were ranked low or very low regarding privacy (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 814). At their cores, communitarian regimes do not have privacy because it can be argued, as Howard and Donnelly (1986, 211) do, that the allowance of freedoms may lead to self-destruction. Thus, privacy is ignored (Howard & Donnelly, 1986, 211). Fatos Lubonja agrees with this sentiment, writing that privacy did not exist in Albania under the totalitarian regime, and cites his experience in Albanian prisons as an example (Lubonja, 2001) . He also admitted to self-censorship in the private diaries which originally got him arrested, supposing many others had censored themselves in the same way (Lubonja, 2001, 247).
Resources
Howard, R.E., & Donnelly, J. (1986, Sept.) Human dignity, human rights, and political regimes. The American Political Science Review 80(3), 801-817. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 1960539
Lubonja, F. (2001) . Privacy in a totalitarian regime. Social Research 68(1), 237-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40971449