ABSTRACT
As a theoretical proposition, democratic sovereignty reflects and acts upon “the moral resources within existing social arrangements which political actors can harness for radical purposes” (Linklater 1998: 5). This praxeological approach as Linklater calls it focuses on overcoming conditions of oppression given existing resources-material, ideal, or otherwise. Practically speaking, praxeological emancipation may be accomplished, at minimum, through progressive reform including international (donor, lending, and assistance) conferences, domestic and international legislation, acts of civil disobedience, and other forms of non-violent pressure exerted upon governments to modify and halt harmful policies. At maximum, the project warrants forceful opposition-even revolution-to aggressive, predatory policies. Being for and about people’s welfare, democratic sovereignty generally downplays revolution and violence as a primary means to quash despotic policies, structures, and behaviors. Given the omnipotence of states (i.e. the plethora of military hardware and instruments of violence possessed by and available to states) revolution seems, I think, untenable, and would surely invite states to annihilate those they would perceive as “enemies.” Hence, this study emphasizes less violent ways in which the exercise of democratic sovereignty reforms state policy.
