Suchergebnisse

Freiheit und Gleichheit, Volkssouveränität und Repräsentation, Individuum und Gemeinschaft - sechs Paare solcher nicht aufzulösenden Gegensätze bilden in dieser Studie den roten Faden in der Betrachtung zentraler Streitpunkte der Demokratie von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Der normative Anspruch der Demokratie erschließt sich uns erst dann, so Hidalgo, wenn wir sie an der Anerkennung der Gleichrangigkeit ihrer widersprüchlichen Ideale messen: Die antinomische Struktur wird so zum Maßstab authentischer Demokratie. Der Autor erprobt die politische Relevanz seiner Untersuchung zudem an aktuellen.

ZusammenfassungDie wichtige Debatte um den israelbezogenen Antisemitismus ist aktuell in eine Sackgasse geraten. Um zur Versachlichung der wissenschaftlich-öffentlichen Diskussion beizutragen, schlägt der vorliegende Artikel eine Differenzierung von subjektiv bewussten und unbewussten antisemitischen Ressentiments vor und bettet diese Unterscheidung in ein demokratietheoretisches Argument ein. Vor dem Hintergrund eines Demokratiebegriffs, der die komplexe Koexistenz von Einheit und Pluralität in demokratischen Gesellschaften ebenso impliziert wie das grundsätzliche Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Religion und Volksherrschaft, wird es dabei nicht nur möglich, den Staat Israel in nicht-antisemitischer Weise als jüdisches Kollektiv zu reflektieren, sondern auch einschlägige Aporien im Nahostkonflikt zu veranschaulichen. Auf dieser Basis erfolgt eine ausgewogene Auseinandersetzung mit dem von Kritiker:innen lancierten Apartheidvorwurfs gegenüber der israelischen Regierung sowie eine Einschätzung der palästinensischen Boykottbewegung BDS.

The important debate on Israel-centered antisemitism has currently reached an impasse. In order to contribute to the objectification of the academic and public discussion, this article proposes a differentiation between subjectively conscious and unconscious anti-semitic resentments and reformulates this distinction in terms of democratic theory. Against the background of a concept of democracy including the complex coexistence of unity and plurality in democratic societies as well as the fundamental tension between religion and popular sovereignty, it becomes available to reflect the state of Israel as a Jewish collective in a non-antisemitic way, while illustrating relevant aporias in the Middle East conflict at the same time. On this basis, a well-balanced discussion of the apartheid accusation against the Israeli government is as possible as a plausible assessment of the Palestinian boycott movement BDS.

In theory, the idea of democracy consists of several insoluble contradictions, aporias, and conflicts. In practice, democracy demands an effective balancing of its essentially opposing principles and values in order to preserve an authentic character as well as to avoid its inherent self-destructive tendencies. In this regard, the concept of value trade-offs promises a heuristic tool to grasp both the analytical and normative impact of a political theory which takes the complexity of democracy seriously. Proceeding from this, the contribution will demonstrate to what extent the conceptualisation of democratic antinomies and the notion of value trade-offs can be seen as a kind of communicating vessel. The article's general argument is that democracy is defined by several antinomies that are irreducible in theory and therefore require trade-offs in political practice. Moreover, it will discuss three relevant issue areas to suggest the approach's empirical relevance and to prove the existence of value trade-offs as an operating benchmark for the legitimacy and consolidation of democratic processes on the one hand but also for their shortcomings and risks on the other. Correspondingly, the article concerns the antinomic relationships between freedom and security, economic growth and sustainability, and finally, democracy and populism to underpin the general perception that the success of democratic institutions first and foremost depends on the balance of the necessarily conflicting principles of democracy.

In theory, the idea of democracy consists of several insoluble contradictions, aporias, and conflicts. In practice, democracy demands an effective balancing of its essentially opposing principles and values in order to preserve an authentic character as well as to avoid its inherent self-destructive tendencies. In this regard, the concept of value trade-offs promises a heuristic tool to grasp both the analytical and normative impact of a political theory which takes the complexity of democracy seriously. Proceeding from this, the contribution will demonstrate to what extent the conceptualisation of democratic antinomies and the notion of value trade-offs can be seen as a kind of communicating vessel. The article's general argument is that democracy is defined by several antinomies that are irreducible in theory and therefore require trade-offs in political practice. Moreover, it will discuss three relevant issue areas to suggest the approach's empirical relevance and to prove the existence of value trade-offs as an operating benchmark for the legitimacy and consolidation of democratic processes on the one hand but also for their shortcomings and risks on the other. Correspondingly, the article concerns the antinomic relationships between freedom and security, economic growth and sustainability, and finally, democracy and populism to underpin the general perception that the success of democratic institutions first and foremost depends on the balance of the necessarily conflicting principles of democracy.

Die Formulierung der Idee eines "gerechten Friedens", wie sie die christliche Friedensethik in Deutschland in den letzten Jahrzehnten geleistet hat, wurde als Gegenvorschlag zur (katholischen) Tradition des "gerechten Krieges" entwickelt, ohne in seiner Konsequenz einem strikten Pazifismus zu unterliegen. Gleichwohl würde es zu erheblichen Missverständnissen führen, den "gerechten Frieden" als Kompromiss oder Mittelweg zwischen bellum iustum und absoluter Gewaltfreiheit verstehen zu wollen. Stattdessen will der vorliegende Beitrag demonstrieren, dass der "gerechte Frieden" seine normative Überzeugungskraft erst zu entfalten vermag, wenn sein unabdingbarer Gegensatz zum Prinzip des "gerechten Krieges" hypostasiert wird. In seiner Argumentation nimmt der Aufsatz vor allem Anleihen bei Immanuel Kant, um jene spezifische theoretische Frontstellung zu verdeutlichen. ; The theoretical framework of "just peace", as developed by the Christian peace ethicsduring the last decades, obviously presents an alternative to the Catholic tradition of"just war" without demanding a strict pacifism in return. However, it would be completelymisleading if we understood "just peace" as a sort of compromise, balance or mediumbetween the classical concept of bellum iustum and the absolute claim for non-violence.In contrast, this contribution attempts to demonstrate that "just peace" is able to unfoldits normative persuasiveness only by hypostatizing its indispensable oppositionto the principle of "just war". In order to provide a consistent line of argumentation,the article predominantly refers on Immanuel Kant to illustrate this specific theoreticaland conceptual implication.