half A century after Willy Brandt’s government statement, “want to dare more democracy” to spread the impression of a crisis of democracy from opposing directions: a call for a return to democratic popular sovereignty, while the others keep the same demand for populist and democracy hazardous to the. This confusing Situation of the Bremer, a political scientist Philip Manow explained by the fact that an ever-increasing democratisation of democracy go hand in hand with their simultaneous de-democratization. We don’t have to do with a crisis of democracy as such, but with such a massive expansion of political participation opportunities that a crisis of representation will effect, because this has become inclusive, and no selection more makes.
Manow diagnosed, therefore, not a “post-democracy” in the sense of Colin Crouchs; rather, the candidate selection by the parties, members had decisions been so radically democratized that the conflicts between the parties would be removed. At the same time, the journalistic interest in people have the intra-party competition exacerbated conflicts. That is why, cheap Manow, according to the Western democracies, but is easily multiplied to set sufficient forms of political conflict. For all this, Donald Trump, could prevail with a relatively modest campaign budget intra-party is, for example, because of his lack of consideration a unprecedented polarization.
Little Manow may represent a crisis of democracy as such, as he clearly identifies that this lack of crisis causes another crisis: the radicalisation of progressive democratization. The place of political rationality, come hate speech, and the “celebrity-ization” of the leadership staff, with the paradoxical result of a de-democratization of democracy as a result of their further enforcement. Because while deferrals were previously focused on the external relationship to non-democratic States, whether it came with the progressive enforcement of democracy to a “re-entry of the distinction, democratic/undemocratic in the democratic argument itself”, in the political opponents to the anti-democratic enemies and the political dispute within the democracy to a destructive dispute over democracy.
understanding for the populism
In this democratic “autoimmune reaction”, the opponents are no good intentions more immigration, but to view him as an every-preventing anti-democratic, see Manow a ghostly survival of the “dead competing utopias of the twentieth century, fascism and communism” in the sense of mutual suspicion, the political rival of wool deform the democracy “either nationalist or internationalist dissolve”.
This analysis is well thought out and thoroughly documented, and provides a comprehensive and convincing interpretation of the political present. Nevertheless, Manow overstretched its approach to important Places. He promotes an understanding of populism as a “Bearer of bad news” of the crisis of democracy, because of the desire for the recovery may appear to be political sovereignty, while demagogic and hypocritical, but democratically could mobilize and, therefore, must be understood, especially as it’s come to the choice of the populists, without that you could recognize in it the “order for the abolition of democracy.”
False Stereotypes
This approach is all the more incomprehensible, as Manow lists an impressive example of how, not only in Central and Eastern Europe, but also in the Western States democratic principles to be fought, if, for example, the British Prime Minister, Johnson has tried to sidetrack Parliament, or the American President reserves the right, election results do not recognize. You must be between populism and extremism, and irrationality allows no understanding, as in the case of the Eastern European Fears of Migration, which is only a projection of the horror on the non-greater Exodus of its own population.
