An ambiguous tool of demos accountability: taking the metaphorical concept of majoritarian tyranny seriously

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Exchange Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734
Andreas Schedler
{"title":"An ambiguous tool of demos accountability: taking the metaphorical concept of majoritarian tyranny seriously","authors":"Andreas Schedler","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.
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
一个模棱两可的公民问责工具:认真对待多数专制的隐喻概念
甚至在现代民主发明之前,政治理论家就警告过“多数专制”的危险。虽然这个概念一直被怀疑是一种反民主的策略,但我建议将其重新评估为公民之间横向问责的反民粹主义工具(“民众问责”)。它颠覆了大众团结和美德的民粹主义叙事,允许愤愤不平的少数群体要求他们的多数公民同胞为他们参与制造的不公正负责。然而,考虑到它的隐喻性质,以及它根植于个人暴君的形象,多数专制的概念带有深刻的民主模糊性。我认为,要认识到这些模糊性,我们需要抵制其生动隐喻的暗示力量,并认真对待其逻辑构建模块的经验复杂性:暴政的行使,少数群体的独家目标,以及多数人的集体行动。我对多数主义暴政的这三个构成要素的逐步分析重建揭示了两个隐喻性的陷阱,它们威胁着这一概念的民主丰富性:它的诽谤和它的简化假设。
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
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Online repression and transnational social movements: Thailand and the #MilkTeaAlliance Did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unite Europe? Cohesion and divisions of the European Parliament on Twitter Quantifying the ideational context: political frames, meaning trajectories and punctuated equilibria in Spanish mainstream press during the Catalan nationalist challenge Breakdown by disengagement: Tunisia’s transition from representative democracy Merging the Great Patriotic War and Russian warfare in Ukraine. A case-study of Russian military patriotic clubs in 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