With reference to the third dimension of justice, it is important to understand that Fraser distinguishes two distinct levels of politics. ‘First-order’ or justice constitution of the decision rules ‘ordinary-political’ concerns ‘the … by which [the state] structures calls this the level of contestation’. She since the character of the itself is not called into frame representation’ question. In other words, the current boundaries of the political community are taken for granted. At this first level, justice is achieved when the decision rules of that community are formulated so that its members enjoy equal voice. In particular circumstances, this might entail measures such as proportional electoral systems, gender quotas and or multicultural rights. ‘Second-order’ justice nature of the This is the ‘meta-level’ concerns ‘the state’s jurisdiction’. level at which what Fraser call politics of takes place. Here the ‘the framing’ identity of frame itself is subject to scrutiny as the fairness of the prevailing boundaries are challenged. At this level, justice requires that political boundaries are drawn in such a way that individuals who are significantly affected by political decisions are members of the deliberative community which has the opportunity to shape those decisions. Thus regarded as an outcome notion, participatory parity can be used to evaluate the justice of social arrangements by asking if members of a political association have the economic resources, cultural status and political voice that they need in order to participate on a par with their fellows. This final requirement of political voice suggests how participatory parity can also function as a process notion. The political preconditions of participatory parity are realized when all those affected by the exercise of power enjoy equal
With reference to the third dimension of justice, it is important to understand that Fraser distinguishes two distinct levels of politics. ‘First-order’ or ‘ordinary-political’ justice concerns ‘the constitution of … the decision rules by which [the state] structures contestation’. She calls this the level of representation’ since the character of the frame itself is not called into question. In other words, the current boundaries of the political community are taken for granted. At this first level, justice is achieved when the decision rules of that community are formulated so that its members enjoy equal voice. In particular circumstances, this might entail measures such as proportional electoral systems, gender quotas and multicultural rights. ‘Second-order’ or ‘meta-level’ justice concerns ‘the nature of the state’s jurisdiction’. This is the level at which what Fraser call ‘the politics of framing’ takes place. Here the identity of frame itself is subject to scrutiny as the fairness of the prevailing boundaries are challenged. At this level, justice requires that political boundaries are drawn in such a way that individuals who are significantly affected by political decisions are members of the deliberative community which has the opportunity to shape those decisions. Thus regarded as an outcome notion, participatory parity can be used to evaluate the justice of social arrangements by asking if members of a political association have the economic resources, cultural status and political voice that they need in order to participate on a par with their fellows. This final requirement of political voice suggests how participatory parity can also function as a process notion. The political preconditions of participatory parity are realized when all those affected by the exercise of power enjoy equal