Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
- democracy (4)
- representation (4)
- representative claim (3)
- constructivist turn (2)
- populism (2)
- Brazil (1)
- Czech Republic (1)
- DDR (1)
- Demokratie (1)
- Deutschland (1)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (6)
- Präsidium (1)
Scholars are coming to terms with the fact that something is rotten in the new democracies of Central Europe. The corrosion has multiple symptoms: declining trust in democratic institutions, emboldened uncivil society, the rise of oligarchs and populists as political leaders, assaults on an independent judiciary, the colonization of public administration by political proxies, increased political control over media, civic apathy, nationalistic contestation and Russian meddling. These processes signal that the liberal-democratic project in the so-called Visegrad Four (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) has been either stalled, diverted or reversed. This article investigates the “illiberal turn” in the Visegrad Four (V4) countries. It develops an analytical distinction between illiberal “turns” and “swerves”, with the former representing more permanent political changes, and offers evidence that Hungary is the only country in the V4 at the brink of a decisive illiberal turn.
The established notion of political representation is challenged on multiple accounts—theoretically, conceptually, and empirically. The contributions to this thematic issue explore the constructivist turn as the means for rethinking political representation today around the world. The articles included here seek to reconsider representation by theoretically and empirically reassessing how representation is conceptualized, claimed and performed—in Western and non-Western contexts. In recognition that democratic representation in Western countries is in a process of fundamental transformation and that non-Western countries no longer aim at replicating established Western models, we look for representation around the world—specifically in: Belgium, Brazil, France, Germany, China, and India. This enables us to advance the study of representative democracy from a global perspective. We show the limits and gaps in the constructivist literature and the benefits of theory-driven empirical research. Finally, we provide conceptual tools and frameworks for the (comparative) study of claims of representation.
The system of representative democracy is under considerable strain. Its institutions are struggling to maintain legitimacy, and its elected representatives are failing to keep their monopoly on (formal) political representation. An emerging multitude of (new) claim makers contests the authority of elected representatives as well as the functioning of the existing system of representative democracy by alleging misrepresentation. In this article, we identify a significant shortcoming in Saward’s claims-making approach; specifically, we argue that it offers little direction in addressing misrepresentation. We distinguish between claims of representation and claims of misrepresentation, and show how the latter can fulfill one, two or all three of the following functions: (1) they appeal to an enemy/antagonist (strategy), (2) identify causes of misrepresentation related to policies, politics, and polity (persuasion), and (3) claim to create a new linkage to "the people", sometimes present themselves as new representatives (reframing). To test this proposed framework, we compare claims of misrepresentation in Brazil made by civil society groups (before and during the presidential impeachment between 2014 and 2016) and in Germany (focusing on the parliamentarians of the Alternative for Germany during the first six months of mandate). Our results suggest that claims of misrepresentation are not intrinsically democratic or undemocratic, but are instead ambiguous, have different manifestations and disparate impacts on the representative system. Our article contributes to the conceptual development of the claims approach and to further understanding several critical and current challenges to representative democracy.
Prof. Brigitte Geißel und ihr Team von der Forschungsstelle Demokratische Innovationen an der Goethe-Universität beschäftigen sich mit der Krise der repräsentativen Demokratie, wie sie im Augenblick unter dem Eindruck der letzten Bundestagswahl verstärkt auch in der Öffentlichkeit diskutiert wird. „Wahlen und Parteienwettbewerb sind lediglich die Form, die wir heute am besten kennen; dieses institutionelle Set ist aber nicht der innerste Kern von Demokratie“, so das Team der Forschungsstelle in seinem folgenden Beitrag.
Der Band untersucht die Ursachen, Ausprägungen und Reaktionen auf die Entstehung bzw. Erstarkung populistischer Parteien und Bewegungen in Deutschland und Ostmitteleuropa.
Inhaltsverzeichnis:
Arthur Benz: Populismus als Herausforderung für Wissenschaft und Praxis - Einleitung
Dirk Jörke: Populismus – Ursachen und falsche Antworten
Michael Edinger: Mobilisierung gegen das Establishment. Zu einem Wesensmerkmal populistischer Strömungen
Claudia Landwehr und Nils D. Steiner: Populismus – eine Nachfrageperspektive
Joachim Klose: Ein Land, zwei Perspektiven? Zum Populismusin Ost- und Westdeutschland
Petra Guasti und Lenka Buštíková: Populismus in Ostmitteleuropa und der Verzicht auf Politik
This article seeks to build a bridge between the empirical scholarship rooted in the traditional theory of political representation and constructivist theory on representation by focusing on the authorization of claims. It seeks to answer how claims can be authorized beyond elections - selecting three democratic innovations and tracing claims through the claim-making process. Different participatory democratic innovations are selected - providing various claims and taking place in different institutional contexts, i.e., (elected) members of the Council of Foreigners Frankfurt; individual citizens in participatory budgeting procedures in Münster; and citizen’s associations elected politicians in the referendum campaign in Hamburg. We first analyze the claims raised by the different claim-makers to identify their claimed constituency eligible to authorize claims. In the second step, we focus on the authorization by the claimed constituency and the relevant decision-making authority. The article finds that claim-making in democratic innovations is fractured and incomplete. Nevertheless, this is not the reason to dismiss democratic innovations as possible loci of representation; on the contrary, seen through the prism of claim-making, all representation – electoral and nonelectoral – is partial. Focusing on the authorization of claims in democratic innovations provides novel inferences about the potential and limits of democratic innovations for broadening democratic representation.
Populismus artikuliert vernachlässigte Unzufriedenheit durch die Herstellung einer antagonistischen Beziehung zwischen "der Elite" und "den Menschen" (Canovan 1984, 1999). Die populistische Politik verlässt sich dabei nicht nur auf das Versagen des bestehenden politischen Prozesses. Populisten liefern sowohl die Diagnose (die alten Eliten sind korrupt, ineffizient oder beides) als auch die Kur (Nativismus, technokratische Effizienz).
Der Ursprung des gegenwärtigen Populismus in Ostmitteleuropa ist tief in der kommunistischen Ära verwurzelt. Während des Kommunismus wurde der Populismus des "gewöhnlichen Menschen" benutzt, um das bürgerschaftliche Engagement zu demobilisieren und eine Politik der ethischen Verantwortlichkeit zu verhindern. Unsere Analyse (Bustikova, Guasti 2017, 2018) zeigt, dass diese Art von Populismus weiterhin als Methode zur Demobilisierung des bürgerschaftlichen Engagements und zur Verdrängung einer Politik der ethischen Rechenschaftspflicht verwendet wird. Die populistische Politik versucht, das politische Gemeinwesen nach ihrer technokratischen Vision neu zu gestalten.
Representation is a process of making, accepting, or rejecting representative claims (Disch, 2015; Saward, 2014). This groundbreaking insight challenged the standard assumption that representative democracy can be reduced to elections and activities of elected representatives (Pitkin, 1967). It broadened the scope of representative democracy to encompass representation activities beyond those authorized by elections, transformed our thinking and provided a new perspective, putting claims and their reception into the center. This paradigm shift erased the distinction between elected and non-elected representatives and disclosed the potential of non-elected actors’ claims to represent (Andeweg, 2003; Kuyper, 2016; Rosanvallon & Goldhammer, 2008; Saward, 2006, 2009; Van Biezen & Saward, 2008). In spite of this lively debate, we identify an important gap in the literature: while this paradigmatic shift inspired many authors, conceptual frameworks that can be applied for systematic empirical analysis of real-life cases are missing. In this article, we fill this gap and propose frameworks for assessing and validating a variety of real-life claims. Our study provides empirical substance to the ongoing theoretical debates, helping to translate the mainly theoretical ‘claim approach’ into empirical research tools. It helps to transform the conventional wisdom about what representation can (not) be and shines a new light on the potential future of (claims on) representation.
