The Crisis of Democracy and the Legitimate Rule of Law: Kelsen, Populism, and the Politics of Recognition

David B. Ingram

doi:10.35765/hp.2575

Data publikacji : 2024-03-30

Tom 15 Nr 50 (2024)

The Crisis of Democracy and the Legitimate Rule of Law: Kelsen, Populism, and the Politics of Recognition

David B. Ingram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35765/hp.2575

Dział: ARTYKUŁY TEMATYCZNE / THEMATIC ARTICLES

Abstrakt

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This essay examines how deliberation and recognition contribute to our understanding of democracy as a form of government combining two sources of legitimacy, one based on a legal procedure and the other based on ideological faith commitment.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: Although joint deliberation about policy aims and recognition of person’s political identities are often assumed to be complementary (Habermas, 1996; Honneth, 2014; Taylor, 1994), I argue that this need not be the case. Political identities oriented by faith commitments pose a challenge to deliberation oriented by rational compromise. A one-sided emphasis on deliberation or recognition as exclusive sources of democratic legitimation threatens to debase the res publica to an arena of identity politics whose populist proclivities are antithetical to liberal democracy. Exacerbating this trend is the phenomenon of political polarization caused in large part by the economic stratification and socio-cultural fragmentation of a global, digital form of capitalism. My method for examining and resolving the problem relies on notable philosophers who have written about the legal and political implications of deliberation and the politics of recognition: Charles Taylor, Jürgen Habermas, and Hans Kelsen.

THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The paper begins by summarizing the importance of recognition for political life and its ambivalent humanistic and nationalistic (and sub-nationalistic) senses (Part 1). I then turn to Kelsen’s critique of recognition as incompatible with the rule of law, followed by his qualified endorsement of recognition, understood as a necessary political ethos underwriting a liberal, deliberative form of democracy (Parts 2 and 3). Turning to our contemporary democratic crisis, I show how structural transformations within and between political parties and the public sphere have given rise to authoritarian forms of populism (Part 4). I conclude by noting how imperatives within digital capitalism produce ambivalent effects regarding the restoration...

Szczegóły

Bibliografia

Statystyki

Autorzy

Pobierz pliki

pdf (English)

Zasady cytowania

Wskaźniki altmetryczne

Licencja

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Uwagi dotyczące praw autorskich

Autorzy publikujący w tym czasopiśmie wyrażają zgodę na następując warunki:

Autorzy zachowują prawa autorskie, przyznając czasopismu prawo do pierwszej publikacji swojego tekstu jednocześnie zarejestrowanego pod numerem licencji CC BY-ND, która pozwala innym na korzystanie z tego tekstu z uznaniem autorstwa tekstu oraz pierwotnej publikacji w tym czasopiśmie.
Autorzy proszeni są o nawiązywanie odrębnych, dodatkowych porozumień wynikających z umowy, dotyczących dystrybucji opublikowanej w czasopiśmie wersji tekstu nie na prawach wyłączności (np. opublikowanie go w repozytorium instytucji lub w innym czasopiśmie), z potwierdzeniem pierwszej publikacji w tym czasopiśmie.

Wyraża się zgodę i zachęca autorów do publikacji ich tekstu w Internecie (np. w repozytorium instytucji lub na jej stronie internetowej) przed lub podczas procesu składania tekstu jako, że może to prowadzić do korzystnych wymian oraz wcześniejszego i większego cytowania opublikowanego tekstu (Patrz The Effect of Open Access). Zalecamy wykorzystanie dowolnego portalu stowarzyszeń badawczych z niżej wymienionych:

Bibliografia

Adorno, T.W. (1991). Freudianism and the Pattern of Fascist Propa-ganda. In D. Ingram, Critical Theory: The Essential Readings (pp. 84–192). New York: Paragon House.

Bernstorff, J.v. (2010). The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen: Believing in Universal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Brunkhorst, H. (2009). “Dialectical Snares: Human Rights and De-mocracy in the World Society”, Ethics and Global Politics, 2(3), 219–239.

Gerbaudo, P. (2018). The Digital Party. Political Organization and On-line Democracy. London: Pluto Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. Two, Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Transl. T. McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Transl. W. Rehg. Cam-bridge: MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (2009). Europe: The Faltering Project. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Honneth., A. (1996). The Struggle for Recognition. The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Honneth, A. (2014). Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Demo-cratic Life. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ingram, D. (1991). Critical Theory: The Essential Readings. New York: Paragon House.

Ingram, D. (2021). Recognition and Positive Freedom. In J. Christ-man (Ed.), Rethinking Positive Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ingram, D., & Bar-Tura, A. (2014). The Public Sphere as Site of Emancipation and Enlightenment: A Discourse Theoretic Critique of Digital Communication. In D. Boros, & J. Glass (Eds.), Re-Imagining Public Space: The Frankfurt School in the 21st Century. New York: Palgrave.

Kelsen, H. (1920a). Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts: Beitrag zu einer reinen Rechtslehre. Tübingen: J.C. Mohr.

Kelsen, H. (1920b). Vom Wesen und Wert der Demokratie. Tübingen: J.C. Mohr.

Kelsen, H. (1952). Was ist ein Rechtsakt?, Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht, 4(3), 263–274.

Kelsen, H. (1955). Foundations of Democracy, Ethics, 66, 1–101.

Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure Theory of Law. Transl. M. Knight. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kirchheimer, O. (1966). The Transformation of the Western Europe-an Party Systems. In J. La Palombara, & M. Weiner (Eds.), Political Parties and Political Development (pp. 177–200). Princeton: Prince-ton University Press.

Laclau, E. (2005). On Populist Reason. London: Verso Press.

Manin, B. (1997). The Principles of Representative Democracy. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, E.S. (1988). Inventing the People: The Rise of Popular Sover-eignty in England and America. New York: Norton.

Mouffe, C. (2013). Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.

Mouffe, C. (2018). For a Leftist Populism. London: Verso.

Runciman, D. (2018). How Democracy Ends. New York: Basic Books.

Schmitt, C. (1988). The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy. E. Kennedy (Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Taylor, C. (1994). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition: An Essay by Charles Taylor. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Taylor, C. (2023). Democratic Regression: Three Easy Paths Toward Regression. The 2017 American Academy of Berlin Fritz Stern Lec-ture, American Academy, https://www.americanacademy.de/democratic-degeneration-three-easy-paths-regression/ (accessed on 13th March 2024).

Urbinati, N. (2019). Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democ-racy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vinx, L. (2007). Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: Legality and Legiti-macy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, I.M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Total abstract views : 22

PDF Downloads : 52