Advertisement

Post-liberal and Post-populist Democracy: Rethinking Democratic Representation

  • Enrique PeruzzottiEmail author
Original Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

The triumph of democracy over its authoritarian adversaries inaugurated a novel political scenario in the democratized world increasingly characterized by the confrontation between “liberal” and “populist” forms of democracy. Each model is predicated on a specific reading of what democracy is and each, respectively, proposes strategies to realize their democratic ideal. In a way, liberal and populist conceptions of democracy reflect each other’s shortcomings: liberals accuse populists of authoritarianism and lack of respect for established institutions, while populists regard liberal arrangements as intrinsically elitist and conservative. The outcome is an apparent theoretical and political standoff between two antagonistic visions of what democracy should be. A central argument of this article is that despite their differences, populism and liberalism share some common assumptions regarding the workings and nature of democracy. They both rely upon variants of an electoral approach to democratic representation. To overcome the apparent standoff between those two allegedly contrasting visions of democracy requires breaking with some of their shared assumptions to develop a stronger understanding of what democratic accountability means. That notion should move beyond: (a) a purely electoral understanding to democratic representation; and (b) a notion of accountability as limited government. In brief, a democratic notion of accountability should be predicated on both post-liberal and post-populist presuppositions.

Keywords

Democracy Liberalism Accountability Elections Post-liberal democracy 

References

  1. Arato, Andrew. 2017. Populism, Constitutional Courts and Civil Society. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  2. Avritzer, Leonardo. 2009. Participatory Institutions in Democratic Brazil. Baltimore/Washington, DC: The John Hopkins University Press/The Woodrow Wilson Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bercovich, Luciana, and Gustavo Maurino (eds.). 2013. Los Derechos Sociales en la Gran Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires: EUDEBA.Google Scholar
  4. Borowiak, Craig. 2011. Accountability and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheresky, Isidoro. 2015. El Nuevo Rostro de la Democracia. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  6. Conaghan, Catherine, and Carlos de la Torre. 2008. The permanent campaigning of Rafael Correa: Making Ecuador’s plebiscitary presidency. Journal of Press and Politics 13: 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl, Robert. 1957. A Preface to Democratic Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, Russell J. 2007. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices. The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg, Eds. (2002), Parties Without Partisans. Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Finchelstein, Federico. 2017. From Fascism to Populism in History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fukuyama, Francis. 2006. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, Anthony (ed.). 1986. Durkheim on Politics and the State. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gargarella, Roberto. 2018. El Nuevo constitucionalismo dialógico frente al sistema de pesos y contrapesos. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  14. Germani, Gino. 1978. Política y Sociedad en una Epoca en Transición. Buenos Aires: Paidós Editorial.Google Scholar
  15. Ginsberg, and Martin Shefter. 2002. Politics by Other Means: Politicians, Prosecutors and the Press from Watergate to Whitewater. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  16. Huntington, Samuel P. 1991. Democracy’s third wave. Journal of Democracy 2 (2): 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kalyvas, Andreas. 2008. Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Laclau, Ernesto. 2007. On Populist Reason. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  19. Lefort, Claude. 1986. The Political Forms of Modern Society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Loughlin, Martin, and Neil Walker. 2007. The Paradox of Constitutionalism. Constituent Power and Constitutional Form. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Mair, Peter. 2013. Ruling the Void. The Hollowing of Western Democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Negretto, Gabriel. 2016. El Poder Constituyente en la Tradición Constitucional Americana. El Legado Problemático de los Escritos Federalistas. Revista Chilena de Derecho 43 (3): 787–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Negri, Antonio. 2009. Insurgencies. Constituent Power and the Modern State. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1994. Delegative democracy. Journal of Democracy 5(1):55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1999. Horizontal Accountability or the Legal Institutionalization of Mistrust. In The Self-Restraining State, ed. Andreas Schedler, Larry Diamond, and Marc Platner.Google Scholar
  27. Panizza, Francisco (ed.). 2007. Populism and the Mirror of Democracy. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  28. Peruzzotti, Enrique. 2019. Laclau’s Theory of Populism: A Critical Review. In The Routledge Handbook on Populism, ed. Carlos De la Torre, 33–43. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Peruzzotti, Enrique. 2013. Populism in Democratic Times: Populism, Representative Democracy, and the Debate on Democratic Deepening. In Latin American Populisms of the Twenty First Century, ed. Carlos De la Torre and Cynthia Arnson. Baltimore/Washington, DC: The John Hopkins University Press/Woodrow Wilson Press.Google Scholar
  30. Peruzzotti, Enrique. 2014. Accountability deficits of delegative democracy. In Reflections on Uneven Democracies. The Legacy of Guillermo O´Donnell, ed. Daniel Brinks, Marcelo Leiras and Scott Mainwaring. Baltimore: The Hohn Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Plotke, David. 1997. Representation is Democracy Constellations. An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory, April 1997Google Scholar
  32. Postero, Nancy. 2006. Now We Are Citizens. Indigenous Politics in Post Multicultural Bolivia. Palo Alto: Sanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Przeworski, Adam, Bernard Manin, and Susan Stokes. 1999. Democracy, Representation and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quiroga, Hugo, and Osvaldo Iazzetta. 1997. Hacia un nuevo consenso democrático. Conversaciones con la política. Rosario: Homo Sapiens.Google Scholar
  35. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2017. La democracia del siglo XXI. Nueva Sociedad 269.Google Scholar
  36. Rosanvallon, Pierre. 2007. La Contrademocracia. Buenos Aires: Editorial Manantial.Google Scholar
  37. Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schedler, Andreas, Diamond, Larry, and Marc Plattner. eds. 1999. The Self-Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne RiennerGoogle Scholar
  39. Segura, Maria Soledad, and Silvio Waisbord. 2016. Media Movements: Civil Society and Media Policy Reform in Latin America. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  40. Scheuerman, William E. 2004. Liberal Democracy and the Social Acceleration of Time. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schmitt, Carl. 2008. Constitutional Theory. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2018. Real-existing democracies and its discontents: Sources, conditions, causes, symptoms and prospects. Chinese Political Science Review. Google Scholar
  43. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2004. The ambiguous virtues of accountability. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2001. Parties are Not What They Once Were. In Political Parties and Democracy, ed. Larry Diamond and Richard Gunther, 67–89. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Thompson, John B. 1995. The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory of the Media. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Urbinati, Nadia. 2006. Representative Democracy. Principles and Genealogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waisbord, Silvio. 2013. Vox Populista. Medios, Periodismo, Democracia. Buenos Aires: Gedisa.Google Scholar
  48. Wampler, Brian. 2015. Activating Democracy in Brazil. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  49. Warren, Mark, and Nadia Urbinati. 2006. The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 387–412.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Fudan University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidad Torcuato Di Tella-CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations