RoloTomasi hat geschrieben : ↑ So 1. Sep 2024, 15:45
Ich finde die Definitionshinweise von Consul für das Thema sehr hilfreich. Zum Beispiel: "Während der Radikalismus somit eine "Systemveränderung" zum Ziel setzt, strebt der Extremismus nach einer "Systemüberwindung"". Nach dieser Definition müsste man dann schauen, was Systemüberwindung heißt, um dem Extremismusthema auf der Spur zu bleiben. Ich denke, dass Abschaffung der Demokratie sicherlich unter Systemüberwindung fallen dürfte, oder?
Man muss unterscheiden zwischen der Abschaffung der Demokratie
überhaupt und der Abschaffung der
liberalen Demokratie.
"Demokratie definiert man am besten als die Verbindung von Volkssouveränität und Mehrheitsprinzip; nicht mehr, nicht weniger. Demokratie kann daher direkt oder indirekt, liberal oder illiberal sein." (Mudde/Kaltwasser—siehe unteres Zitat!)
Der Politologe Takis Pappas definiert
Populismus gar als
demokratischen Illiberalismus. (
Populism and Liberal Democracy, Oxford UP, 2019. S. 33)
"Die meisten nationalpopulistischen Wähler wollen mehr Demokratie – mehr Referenden und mitfühlendere sowie besser zuhörende Politiker, die dem Volk mehr Macht übertragen und den etablierten wirtschaftlichen und politischen Eliten weniger Macht. Diese 'direkte' Auffassung von Demokratie unterscheidet sich von der 'liberalen', die im Westen nach der Niederlage des Faschismus eine Blütezeit erlebte, und die in ihrem Charakter zunehmend elitärer geworden ist. "
[© meine Übers.]
———
"[M]ost national-populist voters want more democracy – more referendums and more empathetic and listening politicians that give more power to the people and less power to established economic and political elites. This ‘direct’ conception of democracy differs from the ‘liberal’ one that has flourished across the West following the defeat of fascism and which…has gradually become more elitist in character."
(Eatwell, Roger, & Matthew Godwin. National Populism: The Revolt Against Liberal Democracy. London: Pelican, 2018. pp. xi-xii)
Jan-Werner Müller ist der Meinung, dass eine populistische Direktdemokratie im Grunde eine Pseudodemokratie ist.
"Populismus…kann häufig als demokratisch, gar radikaldemokratisch erscheinen. Er kann bisweilen auch positive Effekte für die Demokratie zeitigen. Entscheidend ist jedoch, dass Populismus an sich nicht demokratisch, ja der Tendenz nach zweifelsohne antidemokratisch ist."
(Müller, Jan-Werner. Was ist Populismus? Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2016. S. 14)
"Ein möglicher Einwand könnte an dieser Stelle lauten, dass gerade Populisten immer wieder nach Volksabstimmungen rufen. Doch wenn Populisten ein Referendum fordern, dann nicht, weil sie einen offenen Diskussionsprozess unter den Wählern auslösen wollen, sondern weil die Bürger bitte schön bestätigen sollen, was die Populisten immer bereits als den wahren Volkswillen erkannt haben (welcher halt von den illegitimen, im Zweifelsfall am Eigennutz orientierten Eliten perfiderweise nicht umgesetzt wird)."
(Müller, Jan-Werner. Was ist Populismus? Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2016. S. 45)
"Populism and (liberal) democracy
Just like populism, democracy is a highly contested concept in the academic realm and public space. The debates not only concern the correct definition of democracy, but also the various types of democracy. Although this is not the place to delve too deeply into this debate, we need to clarify our own understanding of democracy, before we can discuss its complex relationship with populism.
Democracy (sans adjectives) is best defined as the combination of popular sovereignty and majority rule; nothing more, nothing less. Hence, democracy can be direct or indirect, liberal or illiberal. In fact, the very etymology of the term democracy alludes to the idea of self-government of the people, i.e., a political system in which people rule. Not by chance, most “minimal” definitions consider democracy first and foremost as a method by which rulers are selected in competitive elections. Free and fair elections thus correspond to the defining property of democracy. Instead of changing rulers by violent conflict, the people agree that those who govern them should be elected by majority rule.
However, in most day-to-day usages the term democracy actually refers to liberal democracy rather than to democracy per se. The main difference between democracy (without adjectives) and liberal democracy is that the latter refers to a political regime, which not only respects popular sovereignty and majority rule, but also establishes independent institutions specialized in the protection of fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression and the protection of minorities. When it comes to protecting fundamental rights, there is no one-size-fits-all approach, and, in consequence, liberal democratic regimes have adopted very different institutional designs. For instance, some of them have a strong written constitution and Supreme Court (e.g., United States), while others have neither (e.g., United Kingdom). Despite these differences, all liberal democracies are characterized by institutions that aim to protect fundamental rights with the intention of avoiding the emergence of a “tyranny of the majority.”
This interpretation is very close to the one proposed by the late U.S. political scientist Robert Dahl, who maintained that liberal democratic regimes are structured around two separate and independent dimensions: public contestation and political participation. While the former refers to the possibility to freely formulate preferences and oppose the government, the latter alludes to the right to participate in the political system. Moreover, to ensure the optimization of both dimensions, he believed a demanding set of so-called institutional guarantees is required, including freedom of expression, right to vote, eligibility for public office, alternative sources of information, among others.
Now that we have clear definitions of democracy and liberal democracy, it is time to reflect on how they are affected by populism. In short, populism is essentially democratic, but at odds with liberal democracy, the dominant model in the contemporary world. Populism holds that nothing should constrain “the will of the (pure) people” and fundamentally rejects the notions of pluralism and, therefore, minority rights as well as the “institutional guarantees” that should protect them.
In practice, populists often invoke the principle of popular sovereignty to criticize those independent institutions seeking to protect fundamental rights that are inherent to the liberal democratic model. Among the most targeted institutions are the judiciary and the media."
(Mudde, Cas, & Cristobal Rovira Kaltwasser. Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.pp. 80-1)
