Invocatio Populi. Autoritärer und demokratischer Populismus

Möller, Kolja

doi:10.5771/9783845287843-254

Cited by 94 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 25. This remains true of the attempt in Mouffe (2018) or Moeller (2017) to describe a ‘democratic’ constitution of ‘the people’, for the aim in this constitutive activity remains a body of persons without ideological fissure vis-à-vis the political; or else, as in Moeller’s (2019) ‘reflexive’ (= pluralist) constitution or Riofrancos’s (2017) ‘left populism’, the proposal is to move from populism to pluralist deliberative inclusive will-formation. There simply is no room in the Schmittian basic approach for a cooperation despite political disagreements , which is the paradigm of politics for deliberative or pluralist democrats.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

The meaning of ‘populism’

Mueller

2019

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay presents a novel approach to specifying the meaning of the concept of populism, on the political position it occupies and on the nature of populism. Employing analytic techniques of concept clarification and recent analytic ideology critique, it develops populism as a political kind in three steps. First, it descriptively specifies the stereotype of populist platforms as identified in extant research and thereby delimits the peculiar political position populism occupies in representative democracies as neither inclusionary nor fascist. Second, it specifies on this basis analytically–normatively the particular stance towards liberal representative democracy (in particular towards popular sovereignty and democratic legitimacy) that unifies populism’s political position and explains how populist politics can be compelling for democratic citizens. The normative core (populist ideology) turns out to require no more than two general principles of legitimizing political authority by elections. Surprisingly, it does not need a separate anti-pluralist or exclusionary commitment: it entails it. Third, this normative model allows a response to a contested question in the theoretical discussion, namely, whether populism (properly specified) can be democracy-enhancing. The article defends the negative answer in virtue of the normative core alone and does so as much vis-à-vis a minimal (purely electoral) as vis-à-vis a normatively ambitious (liberal) conception of democracy. The reconstruction of the normative core of populist ideology enables a novel argument to show that populism is incompatible with the continued democratic legitimation of political authority even in the normatively most austere conception of ‘electoral democracy’, not just with ‘liberal democracy’. Assuming a normatively more ambitious concept of democratic legitimation in terms of political autonomy, the model also produces an extremely direct argument showing that populists cannot fulfil their promise of ‘taking back control’ over political decision-making to the population.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

The meaning of ‘populism’

Mueller

2019

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The question then is why a populist rhetoric peaks in certain historical phases and how we could differentiate between problematic, acceptable and even desirable forms (cf. Möller, 2017). As to European integration and the existential dangers it faces in our days, it seems a valuable endeavour to examine more closely the different threads and forms of EU critique instead of banning them into the isolation of Euroscepticism.…”

Section: Naming a Pathology: Euroscepticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU critique beyond Euroscepticism and progressive stories: Introduction to the special issue

Schünemann¹,

Barbehön²

2019

CPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical stances towards the EU have long been marginalized. In the political realm, they have been, and still frequently are, depicted as the business of "Eurosceptics" who are fundamentally questioning an established normative consensus. In the academic realm, integration theory somewhat similarly builds on "stories of progress" which construct a simplistic and largely uncritical history of European integration. In this introduction to the special issue, we argue that these tendencies do more harm than good, as they stand in the way of meaningful investigations of the diversity, the ambivalences, the symbolic underpinnings and the socio-political functions of EU critique. We picture how and with what consequences EU critique is typically delineated as a marginal phenomenon, and we sketch alternative perspectives based on an idea of EU critique as a field of knowledge that emerges in discourse and practice. Ultimately, both the introduction and the papers in this special issue make the case for freeing EU critique from its outside position in order to get a more nuanced picture of European integration and the current challenges it faces.

show abstract

“…This denial of contingency, suggestive of a heightened potential for authoritarianism, is characteristic of (if not exclusive to) discourses that naturalise "the people" in terms of a transcendental (e.g. ethnic or nativist) essence in addition to pitting it in populist terms against a power bloc (Stavrakakis and Katsambekis 2014;Möller 2017;Stavrakakis et al 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

… Because the homeland cannot be in opposition: analysing the discourses of Fidesz and Law and Justice (PiS) from opposition to power

Kim

2020

East European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on Ernesto Laclau's theory of discourse, hegemony, and populism, this paper analyses the development of the discourses of Fidesz in Hungary and Law and Justice (PiS) in Poland from opposition to power with a focus on how authoritarianism is articulated, especially in relation to populism. The postfoundational discourse analysis finds that populism takes on an authoritarian expression only in certain discursive combinations, mostly with nationalism, while authoritarianism follows a range of different logics (populist and non-populist alike), including nationalism and social welfarism without populism (PiS) or what Laclau refers to as institutionalism (Fidesz).

show abstract

Invocatio Populi. Autoritärer und demokratischer Populismus

Cited by 94 publications

References 0 publications

The meaning of ‘populism’

The meaning of ‘populism’

EU critique beyond Euroscepticism and progressive stories: Introduction to the special issue

… Because the homeland cannot be in opposition: analysing the discourses of Fidesz and Law and Justice (PiS) from opposition to power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About