What’s the Problem with Populism?

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Constitutional Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-16 DOI:10.1017/S1574019622000505
M. Tushnet
{"title":"What’s the Problem with Populism?","authors":"M. Tushnet","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000505","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"‘A specter, one reads, is haunting more than just Europe’.1 So writes Justin Collings in his contribution to Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy. The spectre is right-wing populism – not, I think, ‘majoritarian democracy’ as such. Marx and Engels had an account of where the spectre they thought was haunting Europe in 1848 came from: capitalist development – the economy, in short. The spectre, that is, had a specific political content and a specific economic cause, and for Marx and Engels the remedy was social and economic transformation. But, it turned out, they were wrong: capitalists were able to push the spectre away by a series of institutional reforms of governance. Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy is representative of a spate of scholarship on the contemporary crisis of democracy, if that’s what it is. That scholarship differs from Marx and Engels’s work not solely because it is academic analysis rather than political polemic. It differs as well because it elides politics and economics and attends almost exclusively to institutional matters. Politics is elided by replacing a specifically right-wing populism with populism in general or, as here, with majoritarian democracy. Economics is elided by gesturing in the direction of causes of the crisis located outside of governing institutions – something like a combination of neoliberalism with modes of decision-making enabled by modern communication technologies (‘social media’, ‘the Internet’, and the like) – without seeking to change anything associated with those causes. And, as before, the remedies for the crisis are to be found within the design of governance institutions, generally – though not universally – by restricting the","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000505","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

‘A specter, one reads, is haunting more than just Europe’.1 So writes Justin Collings in his contribution to Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy. The spectre is right-wing populism – not, I think, ‘majoritarian democracy’ as such. Marx and Engels had an account of where the spectre they thought was haunting Europe in 1848 came from: capitalist development – the economy, in short. The spectre, that is, had a specific political content and a specific economic cause, and for Marx and Engels the remedy was social and economic transformation. But, it turned out, they were wrong: capitalists were able to push the spectre away by a series of institutional reforms of governance. Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy is representative of a spate of scholarship on the contemporary crisis of democracy, if that’s what it is. That scholarship differs from Marx and Engels’s work not solely because it is academic analysis rather than political polemic. It differs as well because it elides politics and economics and attends almost exclusively to institutional matters. Politics is elided by replacing a specifically right-wing populism with populism in general or, as here, with majoritarian democracy. Economics is elided by gesturing in the direction of causes of the crisis located outside of governing institutions – something like a combination of neoliberalism with modes of decision-making enabled by modern communication technologies (‘social media’, ‘the Internet’, and the like) – without seeking to change anything associated with those causes. And, as before, the remedies for the crisis are to be found within the design of governance institutions, generally – though not universally – by restricting the
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
民粹主义有什么问题?
贾斯汀·科林斯(Justin Collings)在《法治与主要民主》(Rule of Law vs Majoritarian Democracy)一书中写道:“一个幽灵不仅仅困扰着欧洲。”。幽灵是右翼民粹主义,而不是我认为的“多数民主”。马克思和恩格斯对他们认为1848年困扰欧洲的幽灵的来源有一个描述:资本主义发展——简而言之,就是经济。幽灵,也就是说,有特定的政治内容和特定的经济原因,对马克思和恩格斯来说,补救办法是社会和经济转型。但是,事实证明,他们错了:资本家能够通过一系列治理制度改革来赶走幽灵。《法治与主要民主》代表了一系列关于当代民主危机的学术,如果真是这样的话。这种学术与马克思和恩格斯的作品不同,不仅仅是因为它是学术分析,而不是政治争论。它也有所不同,因为它忽略了政治和经济,几乎只关注制度问题。通过用民粹主义取代特定的右翼民粹主义,或者像这里一样,用多数民主取代政治。经济学被排除在外,因为它指向了管理机构之外的危机原因——有点像新自由主义与现代通信技术(“社交媒体”、“互联网”等)促成的决策模式的结合——而不寻求改变与这些原因相关的任何事情。而且,和以前一样,危机的补救措施应该在治理机构的设计中找到,通常——尽管不是普遍的——通过限制
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.
期刊最新文献
How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices A Doctrinal Approach to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Sweden Constitutional Courts as Guarantors of EU Charter Rights: A Rhetorical Perspective on Constitutional Change in Austria and Germany Constitutional Referrals by Ordinary Courts: A Platform for Judicial Dialogue and Another Toolkit for Judicial Resistance? Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1