Populism versus Democracy

This article provides a comparative conceptual analysis of the logic of populism and the logic of (constitutional) democracy. Populism is defined as a thin-centered ideology which advocates the sovereign rule of the people as a homogeneous body. The logic of this ideology is further developed in reference to the work of Carl Schmitt and is shown to generate all the characteristics typically ascribed to populism. The logic of democracy is analyzed on the basis of the work of Claude Lefort and defined as a regime in which the locus of power remains an empty place. This analysis replaces the widespread model of constitutional democracy as a paradoxical combination of a constitutional and a democratic pillar. This two-pillar model fails to appreciate the internal coherence and some of the main features of the (constitutional) democratic logic. Thereby, the two-pillar approach gives rise to an understanding of populism as continuous with the democratic promise of constitutional democracy. In contrast, our analysis explains populism as the closure of the empty place of democracy. This highlights the antagonistic discontinuity between the logic of populism and the logic of democracy.     

Communitarian Antidotes to Populism

Populism is rising in the United States, and this has ramifications for its democratic institutions. The rise is attributable in part to the alienation many Americans feel in their own country, which in turn stems from a combination of various sociological challenges. This article uses a liberal communitarian approach to examine these issues, and calls for the nurturing of communities as a way to reduce violence and xenophobia. It discusses cultural changes brought about by free trade, immigration, and the extension of individual rights and offers moderate policy solutions that encourage communities to flourish by facilitating cultural adjustments while also weighing the concerns of all members of society.     

Populism: a deflationary view

This paper takes a critical, synoptic view of the current upsurge of populism. Populism, it is argued, has long been a feature of liberal democracies in so far as claims are made for democracy to be as directly expressive as possible of the will of its subjects. Yet populisms are hybrid in form and parasitic on existing political arrangements. What unites them is more to do with what they oppose than what they espouse. Above all, it is the norms of liberalism that are brought into question by populist proponents of direct democracy with their characteristic hostility towards elites, experts and the so-called establishment. In so far as all populisms can be dangerous this lies in the degree to which they oppose the existing norms of liberalism and seek to undermine its moderating institutions. Rather than relying on generic theories of populism to explain contemporary developments, what needs investigation is the degree to which particular populisms prioritize fear over judgement, unqualified assertion over reasoned deliberation and resentment over the moderation of power.     

Populism and Feminism: Odd Bedfellows

In this era of populist insurgency breaking the mold of democratic politics, two movements clashed.They represented opposite sides of the political spectrum, one emancipatory, the other exclusionary. One may be identified as feminism, the other as populism. This essay analyzes both concepts and explores their connection.     

反腐民本主义：内涵与模型

民本主义重视民众在社会生活中的特殊地位,将民众视为国家治理的根本。腐败是一个复杂的社会现象,民众与之始终脱离不了联系。民众是腐败的直接或间接推动者,也是治理腐败的重要力量。反腐民本主义包括以下内容:第一,反腐败以增进民众利益为终极目标。这是反腐民本主义的最重要的元素,其他方面均由此衍生而来。第二,了解民众对反腐败的需求。第三,降低民众对腐败的容忍度。第四,增强民众对反腐败的信心。第五,为民众参与反腐创造条件。政府必须提供民众参与反腐的渠道,保护民众参与反腐的权利。第六,解决民众身边的腐败问题。     

网络民粹主义：反话语表征与消解策略

网络民粹主义是社会底层通过互联网的技术赋权与话语赋权,以话语策略生产参与公共政策的博弈,如参与公共事件舆论、社会运动等,集体聚合来影响行政权力。网络民粹主义在本质上仍然为民粹主义,其具有民粹主义反抗精英、推崇人民、批判性、暴戾性、非理性的基本特征。结合网络民粹主义反话语表征,可以发现其内在机理与背后折射出当前社会的发展弊端。以此提出改善民生、阶层糅合,话语融合、平衡阶层,完善网络法律法规建设,网络社会组织的赋权,提升公众参与网络舆论表达的实践能力来对网络民粹主义的滥觞进行消解,从而使公共政策能够真正回归至公共利益的诉求。     

Populism and the politics of the extraordinary in Latin America

Building on past and current experiences of populism in Latin America, this article makes four arguments. First, whereas populist movements seeking power promise to democratize society by challenging the legitimacy of exclusionary institutions, populist governments often include the excluded at the cost of disfiguring democracy. Second, during populist events the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘the people’ are disputed. When social movements are weak, and when the institutions of liberal democracy are discredited, a populist leader could attempt to become the embodiment of the will of the people. Third, even though the concept of the people is central to populism, it could be constructed differently. It could be imagined as heterogeneous and plural, or as the people-as-one, as an entity that shares one identity and interest that could be embodied in a leader. Fourth, populism shares with fascism an imaginary construction of the people-as-one. Yet differently from fascism, which staged extraordinary politics as war against internal and external enemies, populists staged their extraordinariness as winning popular elections and did not establish dictatorships.     

Measuring Populism: Comparing Two Methods of Content Analysis

The measurement of populism – particularly over time and space – has received only scarce attention. In this research note two different ways to measure populism are compared: a classical content analysis and a computer-based content analysis. An analysis of political parties in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy demonstrates that both methods can be used to measure populism across countries and over time. Recommendations are presented on how to combine these methods in future comparative research on populism.     

Invocations of Chinese Traditions in International Relations

Chinese writings on international relations increasingly invoke history. In the past Chinese and foreigners alike have seen China??s foreign policies through the lens of history, but recent Chinese stress on the ??harmonious world?? resulting from Confucianism has shifted the discussion. It serves as a guide to resurgent claims for leadership, a source of legitimation for why China deserves leadership, and a warning of how its leadership may be abused to the detriment of countries agreeing to regionalism or multilateralism. Claims to superiority raise tensions in Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere where hopes had existed for a shared view of history. They arouse controversy among advocates of socialist ideology who fear that Confucianism will eclipse communism. The increasingly hereditary elite of Party leaders continues to bridge the gap between these two types of memory, but they face an ideological challenge at home and a credibility challenge abroad.     

一个学科、两种传统和三个方法论层面

公共管理学科在我国兴起的时间并不长,其发展还处于库恩所说的"范式前阶段"。但是,散布在其他学科,与公共管理学科紧密相关的,或者说本来就应归属于公共管理学科的教学和科研活动却并不逊于其他学科。在我国改革不断向纵深发展、社会急剧转型的今天,公共管理的教育与科研活动势必要面对社会需求,把自身作为一个学科来建设,并且需要加快建设步伐,才能够走向成熟。而如何把公共管理学科建设好,是"业内"人士必须予以关注的问题。为此,在学报2006年1月召开编委会年会之际,我们和与会的专家学者商定,以笔谈的方式开设公共管理学科建设专栏,大家各抒己见,以期引起反响。在此,我们诚邀对此论题感兴趣的同道学人赐稿,为公共管理学科建设献智献力。     

公共组织研究的传统与突破

公共组织研究是在工业社会确立过程中兴起的。传统的公共组织研究集中在以官僚制为基础的常规组织上,这是适应工业社会稳定条件下的机械化大生产的组织形式。任务型组织是一种相对于常规组织的以任务为导向的组织形式,将成为高复杂度、不确定性骤增的后工业社会的主要组织形式,这是公共部门组织研究的新动向。