This article assesses the referendums in Hungary in 2004, 2008, and 2016 diachronically. The review is framed by two competing liberal parliamentary approaches to direct democracy: A useful democratic corrective to the distortions of particracy, or a risky option leading to tyranny of the majority? Rather than choosing sides, this article shows how the conundrum conceals another, more interesting question: Which are the constraints under which the liberal parliamentary viewpoint shifts from the one to the other? Theorizing on post-democracy and populism provides a provisional answer: A consensualized, “post-political” parliament is key, as this, in combination with widening social-economic disparities, incentivizes illiberal populist parties to harness referendums, which prompts liberal parliamentarianists to change their minds. The referendums in 2004, 2008, and 2016 in Hungary substantiate this suspicion. Taken together, they offer a step-by-step blueprint for how, in a thoroughly postpolitical situation, a referendum evolves into a perfect catalyst for populists on their road to power, enabling them with (a) agenda-setting; (b) an explosive emphasis on popular legitimacy; (c) arousing voluntarism, while luring opponents into campaigning for boycott and political apathy; (d) combining social equalitarianism with identarian protectionism, and most importantly; (e) bypassing parliament itself. This article is part of the special cluster titled Political Parties and Direct Democracy in Eastern Europe, guest-edited by Sergiu Gherghina.

This article describes a turn from a regular discourse analytical perspective to a radical empiricist sensibility and "new materialist" approach, triggered by studying the remarkable wave of political ecology movements in Eastern Europe in the years around the collapse of state socialism. Such a "turn" is not new in itself. Most importantly, it has been pioneered in science and technology studiesin the work of Bruno Latour, Isabelle Stengers, John Law and Donna Haraway. More recently it has been picked up in political theory, by Jane Bennett among others, and is currently gaining momentum with the advent of the Anthropocene, the epoch in which mankind has become the predominant geological determinant, turning the biophysical sciences from a politically "neutral" domain into one that stands today at the heart of political debate. When it comes to the current discourse analysis community, however, taking biophysical actors and materiality into account, as co-shaping political processes, turns out to have its own particular intricacies. In the first part of this study two of the most influential schools in English-language discourse analysis are reviewed in this light -Essex Discourse Theory (DT) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) -focusing on their approach to political ecology and global warming.It appears that CDA, to make strong critique possible, assumes it must project a separate world of intransient 'real' relational structures behind discourse, leading to insensibility over the agency of materiality, animals or physical things, as CDA associates them with this intransient world. DT, on the other hand, relies on Derridean post-structuralism, and refuses to separate a static extra-discursive realm, but tends to regress into narrow linguistic reductionism. In the second part of the study, a three-stepped procedure is proposed for solving these problems, as an expansion of "new materialist" political theory thus far, and an anchor point for further discussion among discourse analysts. It consists of: (1) breaking with the reservations to empiricism, within both the DT and CDA community, by adopting the "radical empiricism" of American pragmatist William James; (2) rooting politicality in materiality by turning to the controversial Carl Schmitt, which reverses critical realist approaches to politicization; (3) drawing material and biophysical objects, humans, and language in the same analytical orbit, without abolishing difference overall, as achieved by Bruno Latour among others. Finally, the third part of this paper shows how the approach that so emerges answers the aporia in CDA and DT, provides a note on its methodic consequences, and emphasizes intersections between current ecological crises, the Anthropocene, and feminist and postcolonial theory, which should further convince that turning to materiality today is rather congruent with the equalitarian and participatory aims of discourse analystsbut also places an urgent call to do away with classic forms of critical realism, and make work of bre...