Suchergebnisse

AbstractHuman fervor is two-sided. On the bright side, it operates as the great driving-force for human progress, well-being and prosperity, gain of knowledge and pursuit of happiness. On the dark side, it motivates humans to tyranny and despotism, dogmatism and hatred, ruthlessness and cruelty. Therefore, we would be well advised to find a way of governing ourselves that prevents us from the gloomy part of human passions. Liberal democracy has been invented to be exactly such a temperate mode of governance. Recently, however, it is showing signs of dysfunctions. Facing multiple challenges, liberal democracy is in deep trouble to keep on working as intended. Human fervor, so my argument goes, generates outcomes that have detrimental impact on liberal democracy. My paper addresses two sources fostering the rise of dysfunctional democracy. First, I will deal with the bounded capability of liberal democracy to cope with "untidy" problems. Second, I will discuss several symptoms for overstrained institutions. In doing so, I will also show why liberal democracy is facing the rise of "tragic" institutions. At the outset of my paper, I will offer some considerations on the crucial question of how we recognize a dysfunctional liberal democracy when we see one.

The article aims at opening a debate by offering some ideas about how we can avoid analytical confusion in future inquiry on European collective identity. I discuss two important theoretical deficiencies that impede advancement in the research on this topic. These shortcomings are: (1) the two-level problem in analysing collective identities; and (2) the issue of equating 'belonging to' with 'belonging together'. In doing so, I will also make some proposals on how we can deal with these problems. Finally, I present a few considerations on further research questions and point to several empirical desiderata. Adapted from the source document.

I. Einleitung II. Kritik an Operationalisierung und Methode III. Droht die Entmachtung der Politik? IV. Was will die Bevölkerung? V. Fazit