Suchergebnisse

In the last two decades, multiple Islamic parties have become incumbent parties and/or joined coalition governments. Such a development brought debate as to whether these parties could moderate into democratic actors à la Christian Democratic Parties in Western Europe, or whether they were aiming at the formation of an Islamist state and society through electoral means. What remains relatively unaddressed in the literature, however, is to what degree Islamic parties truly derive their socio-political agenda from Islam. Hence, this paper will ask, how do Islamic parties utilize Islam? To answer this question, this paper will use a single case-study approach to test and to rethink Islamic political parties and what is "Islamic" about them in the Turkish case. This paper will study the Turkish case because the country's incumbent party, the Justice and Development Party (JDP), has been governing Turkey since 2002, making the Party the longest ruling Islamic party still in power. Based on the literature on populism, this paper will argue that the way the JDP utilized Islam can be characterized as populism flavored by religion that is based on (i) a thin theological foundation, (ii) a majoritarian rather than a multivocal interpretation of Islam, and (iii) a Muslim unity rhetoric.

Discussions on the relation between populism and democracy have become growingly frequent in the literature. Some authors consider that there is a virtuous relation between both phenomena, while others define the relation between populism and democracy as ambiguous, and a third stream views populism as a threat for democracy. In this article I review three books that are paradigmatic examples of the mentioned currents, and I support the following position: populism is compatible with democracy, and it reinforces its participatory dimension, but it presents certain tensions with political pluralism. In addition, the analysis performed in the present article suggests that the relation between populism and democracy takes specific forms in each case, and systematic comparative research on populist and non-populist actors is needed to better identify the distinctive features of populism. ; Los debates sobre la relación entre populismo y democracia son cada vez más frecuentes en la literatura. Ciertos autores consideran que existe una relación virtuosa entre ambos fenómenos, mientras otros definen la relación entre populismo y democracia como ambigua, y una tercera corriente ve el populismo como una amenaza para la democracia. En este artículo analizo tres libros que son ejemplos paradigmáticos de las mencionadas corrientes y sostengo la siguiente postura: el populismo es compatible con la democracia y refuerza su dimensión participativa, pero el populismo presenta ciertas tensiones con el pluralismo político. Además, el análisis realizado en el presente artículo sugiere que la relación entre populismo y democracia adopta formas específicas en cada caso, y se necesita investigación comparada sistemática sobre actores populistas y no populistas para identificar mejor las características distintivas del populismo.

Donald Trump, Silvio Berlusconi, Marine Le Pen, Hugo Chávez—populists are on the rise across the globe. But what exactly is populism? Should everyone who criticizes Wall Street or Washington be called a populist? What precisely is the difference between right-wing and left-wing populism? Does populism bring government closer to the people or is it a threat to democracy? Who are "the people" anyway and who can speak in their name? These questions have never been more pressing. In this groundbreaking volume, Jan-Werner Müller argues that at populism's core is a rejection of pluralism. Populists will always claim that they and they alone represent the people and their true interests. Müller also shows that, contrary to conventional wisdom, populists can govern on the basis of their claim to exclusive moral representation of the people: if populists have enough power, they will end up creating an authoritarian state that excludes all those not considered part of the proper "people." The book proposes a number of concrete strategies for how liberal democrats should best deal with populists and, in particular, how to counter their claims to speak exclusively for "the silent majority" or "the real people." Analytical, accessible, and provocative, What Is Populism? is grounded in history and draws on examples from Latin America, Europe, and the United States to define the characteristics of populism and the deeper causes of its electoral successes in our time.

Examines the relationship between the principles of democracy & populism to argue that populism is contradictory to democracy. The development of populism is traced, highlighting significant political differences between Europe & the US & drawing on Plato, Alexander de Tocqueville, & Michael Kazin (1995). While US populism refers to both political participation & a political language, "good" populism disappeared in Europe with the appearance of constitutional democracies. Contemporary European populism emerged with the decline of the Left & the prominent role of intellectuals. It is contended that the nature & practice of populism stem from a vision of democracy hostile to political liberty in that it stalls the political dialectics among citizens & groups, prevents the mediation of political institutions, & replaces equality with unity, in opposition to social/political pluralism & without consideration of the nondomination inherent in democracy. While democracy encourages a broader range of political resources, populism faces the danger of becoming minoritarian or despotic. J. Lindroth

The core populist claim is that 'the people' have been unjustly neglected by government. This core claim, while unexceptionable on its face, tends to be associated with claims that would corrode liberal democratic institutions. It is important that political and legal theorists identify the claims made by citizens who may be attracted by populist political forms, lest they manifest themselves in political forms toxic to (broadly understood) liberal democratic norms and institutions. They must address these claims, even as they also consider ways in which to confront these political forms. An example of how this work might proceed can be gleaned from some recent democratic theory and practice, which has 'democratized' membership in political parties as well as the process of selection of the party leader. This apparent democratization both disserves the cause of democratic deliberation, and opens the door to the risk of populist takeover of traditional parties.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan once argued, "The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society." Today, politics, as conventionally understood, illustrates the unspoken danger in Moynihan's point. Politics itself reflects larger trends that point not toward success but toward social failure. Superficial sloganeering, domination by marketplace modes of thought, and bitter sectarian divisions—cultural patterns also evident in politics—made "being political" an accusation of choice in the 2002 elections. These patterns are creating a civic illness that seems both all-pervasive and ineluctable.