1 / 15

Is the Crisis of Democracy an Invention (of Democratic Theorists)?

Is the Crisis of Democracy an Invention (of Democratic Theorists)?. Wolfgang Merkel Harvard, CES. Content. Democracy as a contested concept Crisis as an undefined concept Three strategies to „ test “ the Crisis Hypothesis Experts Demos (Partial Analyses )

marychambers
Download Presentation

Is the Crisis of Democracy an Invention (of Democratic Theorists)?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is the Crisis of Democracy an Invention (of Democratic Theorists)? Wolfgang MerkelHarvard, CES

  2. Content Democracy as a contestedconcept Crisisas an undefinedconcept Threestrategiesto „test“ theCrisis Hypothesis Experts Demos (Partial Analyses) 4. Isrightwingpopulism a threat? Conclusion

  3. Four Types of Crisis • Mass withdrawal of support Legitimacy crisis (Habermas; Offe) • Overly participation and citizens’ demands Overload crisis (Trilateral Commission) • Globalization Postdemocratic crisis (Crouch) • Multiculturalism Crisis of the political community (Huntington 2004)

  4. Three Concepts of Democracy Minimalists: Schumpeter, Downs (input) Mid-Range: FH, Habermas, Merkel, Pateman, (input and throughput) Maximalists: Heller, Meyer, Latin American democratic theorists (input, throughput, output) Choice of concept determines the answer to the crisis question Hypothesis: The more minimalist, the less crisis Minimalist concepts are analytically inappropriate for the crisis question 4

  5. Two Meanings of Crisis I 1. Acute crisis: Death or life? • Crossroad • Existential threat • Fundamental decisions/medicine are required • Examples: • Italy 1920-1922 • Weimar 1930-1933 • Spain 1933-1936/9 • Greece 1965-67 • Chile 1970-1973

  6. Two Meanings of Crisis II 2. Latent crisis: Slow decline, erosion • Unfulfilled normative promises of democracy (min or max) • Erosion: Worsening of quality, chronic diseases • Diminished subtype: Defective, illiberal, exclusive democracies, but no collapse/regime transition • Threshold question not resolved! • Reference: a “golden age of dem” or a “normative model of true democracy”? Hypotheses: If Type I, the smaller the crisis sample (clearer defined)  If Type II, the bigger the crisis sample (and less defined)

  7. Quality of Democracy in the 30 „best democracies“ (1990-2012)

  8. Satisfaction with democracy (1973 – 2013) Source: Eurobarometer 1976 – 2014. Note: Weighted data. EC/EU average according to historical composition.

  9. Vertrauen in Institutionen in EU-Staaten Source: Eurobarometer.

  10. 5 Partial Regime as Units of Analysis • Electoral Regime: Who votes? Decline; increase of social selectivity • Political Rights: Who is represented? inequal substantial representation (class); better representation of minorities; better descriptive representation of women. • Civil Rights: Who is protected? better protection of minority rights; trade off between freedom rights and security needs (not new) • Horizontal Accountability: Who controls? Parliaments loser of globalization & Europeanization • Power to Govern: Who governs? Loss of state power to markets; loss of nat. govt to supranat. Org, & regimes

  11. Is right-wing populism a threat? • DestinctionbetweenPopulism in opposition & in gov`t • Stable & unstabledemocracies • Normatively: problematicprograms (texts & subtexts) • Socioeconomically: Rebellion of losers? • Cultuarlly: Cosmos & Comus • Functionally • Polarizing/ mobiliz. society: only negative? (Mouffe/ Laclau) • Filling a representationalgap? • Bringingthelowerclass back in?

  12. CONCLUSION Trends behindtheveil of trendlessfluctuations: • Shiftingaxes of Leg: from non-maj. institutionstomaj. Institutions • Political Inequalitymatters: 2/3 democracy • Deregulation of markets matter • „Majority of citizens“ lesscriticalthanthe „criticalcitizenshypothesis“ assumes • Bad News: Democratic innovationsmayacceleratethedemocraticdissease • Noacutecrisiswithin (old) OECD

  13. Appendix

  14. Conclusion 2Can dem innovations help? • Referenda? • Deliberative Democracy? • Digital Democracy? • Counter Democracy/ Monitory Democracy • More Europe and supranational Governance? • Perspective: Tho-Third-Democracy

  15. „Embedded Democracy“ – internal and external challenges Socio-economic Inequality Heterogeneity C B Political Rights(de jure; in use) Civil Rights • Freedom: challenged? • Fairness: obsolete? • Minorities: protected? • Participation: selective? • Representation: gap? • Parties: decline? A Electoral Reg • Money? • PR campaigns? • Inequality? • Decline of parliaments? • Dominance of the Executive? • Loss of ext & int Souvereignty? • Ilegitimate decision makers? Horizontal Accountability Effective Power to Govern D E Globalisation Europeanization

More Related