Review Article: Modus vivendi versus public reason and liberal equality: three approaches to liberal democracy

Liberal democracy constitutes a particularly attractive political model with its emphasis on both popular sovereignty and individual liberty. Recently several new and innovative articulations of the liberal democratic ideal have been presented. This article reviews three of these recent theories and particularly their democratic credentials. The selection includes theories emphasizing modus vivendi, Rawlsian political liberalism and liberal equality. Taken together these theories show different ways to conceptualize democracy within liberal thought. I argue that ultimately all three approaches struggle with articulating a persuasive conception of democracy, but nevertheless these theories show that liberals do think seriously about the role of democracy in their theories.     

Václav Havel's Absurd Route to Democracy

Abstract

This article examines Václav Havel's unconventional route to democracy. At the core of the enquiry is an analysis of the role his Absurdism played in the development of his thought and activism. The essay illustrates how a typically literary, non-democratic intellectual orientation sustained Havel in his struggle for democratic political change against the abuses of really existing socialism. Yet, Havel's thought did not stop there; he eyed Western liberal ism critically as well. Springing from his Absurdist sensibility was a vision of democracy that was neither wholly liberal nor socialist, yet quite practical. By making a case for reconsidering ideas that typically fall outside the purview of democratic theory, this article also suggests the possibility of critically rethinking democracy itself.     

Democratization,civil society,and women's organizing in post-revolutionary Mozambique and Nicaragua

Mozambique and Nicaragua have each experienced a transition from a Marxist–Leninist, revolutionary state to a liberal–democratic–capitalist, multi-party state in the 1990s. However, in Mozambique, the historic party of the revolution, FRELIMO, remains the party in power, whil in Nicaragua the Sandinistas have been the opposition party since 1990. What impact have these transitions had on democracy, civil society, and the nature of women's organizing in the post-revolutionary period in each country? This article offers a critical examination of the notions of “democratization” and “civil society” by assessing the gains and losses that each country has experienced in terms of political, economic, and participatory democracy in the post-revolutionary period. Then, using the example of contemporary women's movements and current constructions of “feminism” emerging in each country, this article attempts to show the potential of autonomous women's organizing in civil society today.     

Ideology,socialism and the everyday: forgotten lessons from the inter-war years?

Abstract

One of the great contributions of the Journal of Political Ideologies to the study of politics has been the emphasis it has given to recovering lost ideological traditions or subtraditions. With regard to the recent history of the United Kingdom, contributions to the Journal have long argued that there is far greater ideological complexity in British politics than is usually credited and that analysis of this complexity might throw up powerful arguments for contemporary political argument. In this essay, I take inspiration from that notion in order to establish whether a lost tradition of twentieth century British socialist thinking – that associated with a series of inter-war and mid-century thinkers who were sceptical of both modernism and the state – might throw new light on the failings of recent British Labour ideology, especially that associated with Ed Miliband’s failed attempt to secure victory in the 2015 general election. The essay contends that the arguments of these earlier thinkers – and especially their obsession with crafting a ‘socialism of the everyday’ – could have provided a vital warning to Miliband’s Labour, had it chosen to heed it.     

Laski on Rights and the Problem of Liberal Democratic Theory

From 1919 until the mid-1920s Laski developed a cogent egalitarian theory of democratic rights. In the 1930s he turned his attention to the conflict between such rights and the capitalist property rights of liberal theory. His defence of democratic rights is significant in the context of contemporary discussions of rights, autonomy and democracy.     

A Defence of Sceptical Authoritarianism

Vittorio Bufacchi argued in this journal that democracy was under threat from two extreme philosophical positions: totalitarianism and nihilism. Sandwiched between these polarities is liberal democracy. Bufacchi believes that one of liberal democracy's distinctive properties is an endorsement of scepticism, which he then attempts to illuminate. In contrast, this article will argue that an authoritarian government bound by a constitution permitting civil liberties might also adopt political scepticism. This removes the aforementioned distinctiveness of liberal democracy in this regard and, in addition, leads us toward a rethinking of the possibility of a more plausible consideration of democracy.     

A Socialist State of Grace: The Radical Reformism of Jean Jaurès*

Jean Jaurès (1859–1914) forged an innovative theory of radical reform by adopting a universalistic conception of human rights from the liberal tradition and a theory of capitalism and class from Marxism. He urged the labor movement to place less emphasis on the hope of a post-revolutionary “paradise” and instead to “live always in a socialist state of grace,” understanding socialism as a regulative ideal guiding a reformist practice. This liberal socialist politics could only take shape, he suggested, to the extent that liberal norms intersected with the self-interest of existing social movements: Jaurès's socialism, thus, is highly contingent, and makes no promises about political success. Jaurès prompts us to shift the focus of left democratic theory from the polity to the social movement, from “radical democracy” to “radical reform.”     

Liberal Justifications for Local Government in Britain: The Triumph of Expediency over Ethics

It is shown in this article how theories justifying local government in Britain are largely based on the expedience of providing administrative efficiency or stable democracy for the central state rather than ethical grounds that justify local government as an independent entity in its own right. The article critically reviews the development of theories justifying local government within Britain and argues that it is possible on the basis of Mill's arguments within On Liberty to establish a strong ethical justification for local government. It is shown how Mill did not develop this line of thought but established substantive arguments concerning the value of local government for securing a stable liberal democracy and how successive mainstream theorists have modified but not substantially departed from this approach.     

民主是社会主义固有的东西——马克思主义政治学学习笔记

在马克思主义经典作家那里,民主是社会主义的本质属性,是无产阶级和人民群众的原则,更是无产阶级政党的旗帜,甚至某种程度上说,民主就是社会主义。社会主义民主重在实践,没有民主的实践就不可能有社会主义,而社会主义国家如果不实行充分的民主,就不能保证它所取得的胜利。社会主义民主的切实落实必须要有制度保障,其中废除干部职务终身制和在适当的时候实行普选制是两项关键举措。     

Silent citizens: reflections on community,habit, and the silent majority in political life

This article identifies two different senses in which the concept of ‘community’ can be seen to underpin the norm of vocal participation in democratic politics. The first is a broadly liberal view of community – traceable to Alexis de Tocqueville – that promotes active, vocal, and autonomous citizens and acts as a buffer between the state and the individual. A second broadly conservative view of community in the writings, for example, of Edmund Burke and T.S. Eliot treats community as organic, passive, and largely silent. It valorizes habit and habitual relationships as supporting political life through obedience to the law and respect for authority. While these two traditions stand apart, what is striking about both views of community is the one point about which both agree: citizens' sense of community is in decline within liberal democracies today. Thus silence and silent majorities are problematic to both traditions, albeit for different reasons.     

Social Democracy or Social Liberalism? Ideological Sources of Liberal Democrat Policy

Liberal Democrat policy has been labelled as social democratic, yet the party has been reluctant to so describe itself. Taking Crosland's The Future of Socialism as a reference point, there appears to be much shared ground between social democracy and Liberal Democrat policy. Meanwhile, the party's tax policy adopted in 2006 takes the Croslandite approach of taxing wealth rather than income. Despite this, the article argues that the party is a social liberal rather than a social democratic one. These two political philosophies have so much in common that it is understandable that some commentators see the influence of social democracy where they might instead perceive social liberalism. Yet the two differ in their attitudes to the state. Both see a positive role for the state in furthering social goods. However, social liberalism shares classical liberal concerns about the dangers of an over-mighty state. This approach underpins Liberal Democrat policy.     

Sheldon Wolin and Democracy: Seeing Through Loss

This article offers an interpretation of Sheldon Wolin’s political thought and assesses its ongoing significance in the context of a Donald Trump presidency. Given the inegalitarian aspects of Trump’s efforts to “Make America Great Again,” there may now be a temptation to spurn any political narrative rooted in a sense of loss for American democracy’s Golden Age. However, while Sheldon Wolin is a thinker of the Left, the “archaic” vision of decentralized democracy that he advances in the 1980s also warns against the loss of local memories, cultures, and practices. This perspective validates conservative concerns regarding rapid economic and social shifts and yields distinctive insights into the failings of liberalism. The article traces how Wolin’s archaic vision of democracy first develops out of his postwar critique of liberalism and his engagement with student activism of the 1960s. It then examines the limitations of Wolin’s focus on loss and traces shifts in his thought over time. Ultimately, his work urges the Left to be attentive to local traditions and narratives of loss but also suggests that democracy should be understood as “polymorphous.”     

The Dismissal of Prime Ministers in the Asian Commonwealth: Comparing Democratic Deconsolidation in Malaysia and Sri Lanka

This article comparatively analyses processes of democratic deconsolidation in the Asian Commonwealth states of Malaysia and Sri Lanka by examining two recent constitutional crises in which the head of state dismissed, or attempted to dismiss, the serving prime minister during a parliamentary term. These episodes brought to a close fledgling reform movements that had obtained historic electoral mandates in both countries. The article discusses the Westminster-derived constitutional provisions concerning government formation as well as the distinctive features of political culture that animate those formal frameworks in the two countries. It is argued that while Malaysia and Sri Lanka possess the formal institutions of liberal democracy that notionally enable both pluralistic democracy and greater democratisation, their political cultures still have sufficient potency to be a counteracting force against the deeper consolidation of constitutional democracy. Democratisation therefore remains a work in progress in both countries.     

UTOPIA DEFENDED AGAINST THE LIBERALS

Abstract. The polarity between the Utopian form of thought and liberalism is analysed first with the unsatisfactory mediation of the idea of totalitarianism, then through a comparison of liberal empiricist epistemology with the necessarily rationalist, theoretical approach of Utopians. Incompatible world-views make utopianism anathema to liberals, whatever its content. Utopia is defended against charges of intolerance, unfreedom and coerciveness, partly through a critique of liberal concepts. The utopianism which liberals denigrate appears largely their own invention. Utopians conversely eschewed liberal democracy because, with some justification, they thought elites natural. Similarities between utopianism and radical democracy are elucidated. The apparent, surprising rapprochement between the Utopian outlook and that of pluralist democracy is analysed. Finally, the value of a Utopian approach to political theory is asserted.
Even with the best intentions of making heaven on earth [utopianism] only succeds in making it a hell—that hell which man alone prepares for his fellow-men.     

Liberal Democracy: One Form or Many?

This article examines whether there are significant differences between liberal democracies which warrant them being classified as different forms of democracy. The article begins by outlining six features of liberal democracy which are crucial in understanding how this type of government works. The subsequent section examines the origins of liberal democracy and considers the relevance of arguments derived from American 'exceptionalism'. Attention is then focused on liberal democratic governments today - by reference to Lijphart's distinction between 'majoritarian' and 'consensus' democracies. Finally, the article looks at whether the form of liberal democracy is changed substantially when it is transplanted into a cultural context different from the one in which it originated. The general conclusion is that there is no case for identifying different forms of liberal democracy.     

Globalisation,liberal theory and the spatiality of governance in Sub‐Saharan Africa

The debate over development and democracy is a highly charged one, because the two concepts are open to such divergent interpretation. In recent years, while academics were discovering globalisation, the major international financial institutions have been championing a particular version of the democracy‐development debate centred upon the notion of governance. They contend that democratisation and institutional reforms must occur before or alongside economic development. This article argues that their vision of governance is highly normative and simplifies reality for ideological purposes. This revolves around a particular reading of liberal political economy which sees political institutions as neutral arbiters and civil society as a space of freedom for plural voices. These formulations are implicitly spatial since they see political space as divided neatly into the international, national and local and thereby ignore the multiple power flows between these sites. The article concludes by trying to reformulate some of these concerns around the idea of the developmental state and progressive democracy.     

Über die Notwendigkeit und Bestimmung liberaler Bürgertugenden

Numerous sociological studies describe the status of contemporary liberal democracy as frightening. Taking up these investigations, this article asks for the pre-conditions of liberal democracy, particularly for their moral foundations. In contrast to the classic political theory of liberalism, these moral foundations are not assumed to be locked in the institutional order of the state, but in a certain morality of the citizens. The first target of the investigation is to proof that a moral quality of the citizens is a necessary prerequisite for the persistence of a liberal democracy. The second aim of the work is to show how these moral orientations (liberal virtues) should be shaped within each citizen. This is clarified by discussing three liberal thinkers (Charles Larmore, John Rawls, and Ralf Dahrendorf). The so distilled central liberal virtue is formulated as follows: The political convictions of the citizens must be justifiable for everybody, i.e. also to citizens with a different world view. Political convictions and values, which are expressed during the political process and which influence the voting-behaviour, should therefore not rely exclusively on one’s own set of moral values. The work closes with a discussion of the implications of this normative claim.     

Norberto Bobbio,liberal socialism and the problem of language

Norberto Bobbio's theory of procedural democracy grows out of his refusal of totalising knowledge in favour of a belief that the ‘sparrow's’ view is preferable to that of the ‘eagle’. Only in this way is irreducible human difference protested. History is reduced by Bobbio from both its liberal and its marxist presumptions about its total sense to a realm of partial empirical proof for assertions about the good. It cannot be understood as more than a contested area of facts whose overall laws and telos cannot be known. The good can only be agreed upon in a debate. Thus he sees politics as a place where all voices must be heard and consensus arrived at on contingent and limited goods. Thus practically politics becomes today the practice of more representative democracy in more places. The condition for such a practice is a liberal socialist regime of rights. His valuable theory of procedural democracy as the defender of difference in society finds its limits in an undeveloped theory of communication across difference. What is a common acceptable, undistorted language for the debate?     

Populisms and liberal democracy – business as usual?

Populism is often thought to mark a sharp break with liberal democracy. But to what extent is this the case? In this contribution the connections between populism and liberal democracy are sketched in the context of several areas where discussions about populisms have stressed their discontinuity with the liberal democratic tradition and its practices. The discussion concentrates upon the notions of the people, their representation, elites, constitutional issues and economic policies. In each case it is suggested that continuities are as strong, and sometimes stronger, than discontinuities in these relationships. The contribution ends with a discussion of how it might be possible to defend liberal democracy from a non-liberal position in the face of the critique from populisms.