{"id":41047,"date":"2021-02-18T11:59:07","date_gmt":"2021-02-18T10:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/libmod.de\/?p=41047"},"modified":"2021-02-18T12:01:36","modified_gmt":"2021-02-18T11:01:36","slug":"michael-zuern-rethinking-liberalism-globalisation-and-democratic-regression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/libmod.de\/en\/michael-zuern-rethinking-liberalism-globalisation-and-democratic-regression\/","title":{"rendered":"Rethinking Liber\u00adalism: Global\u00adi\u00adsation and Democ\u00adratic Regression"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

Yavuz Meyveci \/\u200b Shutterstock.com<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css=\u201d.vc_custom_1508251598805{margin-top: 30px !important;}\u201d][vc_column width=\u201c2\/3\u201d css=\u201d.vc_custom_1508252250311{padding-right: 20px !important;}\u201d][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

Has global\u00adi\u00adsation led to the triumph of democracy? Only temporarily, says Michael Z\u00fcrn, Director at the Berlin Social Science Center. It has also brought forth new opponents of liberal democracy, both at home and through author\u00adi\u00adtarian powers. [1]<\/a><\/h3>\n

<\/p>\n

Global\u00adi\u00adsation has led to the temporary triumph of democracy. It foiled the socialist world\u2019s strategy of isolation from the dynamics of capitalist and democ\u00adratic societies. It increased the pressure for renewal in these societies and ultimately brought them crashing. Without global\u00adi\u00adsation there would have been no 1989.<\/p>\n

At the same time, global\u00adi\u00adsation has brought forth and strengthened the new opponents of liberal democracy. On the one hand, through the export of capital and knowledge, it has intro\u00adduced economic dynamism to regions that for a long time failed in the face of the challenges of catch-up devel\u00adopment. East Asia in particular has benefited from global\u00adi\u00adsation and found its own path to prosperous modernity. Initially, this process could be observed in societies that also democ\u00adra\u00adtised in the course of their economic dynamism. After 1989, on the other hand, China in particular proved that there need not be a close connection between successful capitalist devel\u00adopment and democracy. Global\u00adi\u00adsation thus also enabled the success story of an autocratic political system like China. Since the financial crisis at the latest, liberal democracy of Western prove\u00adnance has been facing regulatory compe\u00adtition that, in contrast to real existing socialism, is both different and<\/em> successful.<\/p>\n

Global\u00adi\u00adsation has also brought forth the new opponents of liberal democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is different because it explicitly does not link the flour\u00adishing of economic market dynamics to the insti\u00adtu\u00adtions of liberal democracy and thus questions the seemingly insep\u00ada\u00adrable connection between market and democracy. It is successful because the author\u00adi\u00adtarian ruling elites in countries like China and Singapore cannot be easily dismissed as selfish despots. Their policies have a recog\u00adnisable common good component and can point to a track record of consid\u00aderable progress, especially in the fight against poverty. They have also proven to be more successful in fighting the pandemic than Western European and North American countries. These states show that social progress is possible \u2500 and this without the democ\u00adratic control of those in power and the guarantee of individual rights, combined with far-reaching surveil\u00adlance and reward systems. This under\u00admines the notion advocated, especially after 1989, that liberal democracy has no alter\u00adna\u00adtives. If China is seen as a regulatory alter\u00adnative in parts of the Global South today, then the question of the right political order is back on the global agenda.<\/p>\n

Rapid change has strengthened the opponents of liberal democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

Global\u00adi\u00adsation has also strengthened the internal enemies of liberal democracy. Within the Western world, it has led to a dramatic increase in cultural diversity, to growing economic inequality and to the alien\u00adation of parts of the population from a political class perceived as aloof. These are the devel\u00adop\u00adments that have made the rise of populists possible. This refers to the parties and political movements that claim to give the ordinary people a voice again in the name of democracy, but at the same time represent a funda\u00admental danger to liberal democracy. Indeed, contem\u00adporary populism is primarily an author\u00adi\u00adtarian<\/em> populism. It is a political ideology that builds on a de-proce\u00addu\u00adralised form of majority repre\u00adsen\u00adtation and turns nation\u00adal\u00adis\u00adti\u00adcally against \u201cliberal cosmopolitan elites\u201d. The topos our nation first<\/em> expresses the nation\u00adalism. De-proce\u00addu\u00adral\u00adi\u00adsation refers to the rejection of democ\u00adratic argument about what is right. There is no need to negotiate what is right. It is set. \u201cHe knows what we want\u201d was to be found on an election poster of the Austrian Freedom Party referring to H.C. Strache.<\/p>\n

Author\u00adi\u00adtarian populist parties have a potential of about 20 percent of the vote in almost all liberal democ\u00adracies in Western Europe. More impor\u00adtantly, a signif\u00adicant proportion of the world\u2019s population is governed by author\u00adi\u00adtarian populists. The best-known names are: Jair Bolsonaro, Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan, Lech Kaczy\u0144ski, Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orb\u00e1n, Vladimir Putin and, until recently most notably, Donald J. Trump. These are almost all large countries, which is what makes author\u00adi\u00adtarian populism so powerful for the inter\u00adna\u00adtional order. Author\u00adi\u00adtarian populism has spread globally in a relatively short period of time.<\/p>\n

<\/p> Michael Z\u00fcrn is Professor of Inter\u00adna\u00adtional Relations at Freie Univer\u00adsit\u00e4t Berlin and Director of the Department of Global Gover\u00adnance at the Berlin Social Science Center. Together with Tanja B\u00f6rzel, he is the spokesperson for the Cluster of Excel\u00adlence \u201cContes\u00adta\u00adtions of the Liberal Script (SCRIPTS)\u201d. <\/div>\n

Author\u00adi\u00adtarian populism is widespread globally<\/strong><\/p>\n

Wherever author\u00adi\u00adtarian populists have come to power, we are experi\u00adencing a democ\u00adratic backsliding<\/em>. In all eight countries mentioned (Brazil, Turkey, Poland, Venezuela, India, Hungary, Russia and the USA), the Gothenburg Democracy Barometer V\u2011Dem shows a clear deteri\u00ado\u00adration in the quality of democracy. At the same time, the quality of democ\u00adratic gover\u00adnance has worsened even in supposedly consol\u00adi\u00addated democ\u00adracies. If the decline of democracy was for a long time regarded as something that only took place in distant countries, from the perspective of Western Europeans, the strikes are now coming closer. Not only in Venezuela or Brazil, but also in the USA and Poland, democracy has deteri\u00ado\u00adrated signif\u00adi\u00adcantly over the past decade. In some of these countries, there is hope that a change of government will reverse the trend; but where liberal democracy has already been replaced by an electoral autocracy, voting out the government is also becoming increas\u00adingly less likely.<\/p>\n

Changes in the functioning of democracy are crucial for the widespread alien\u00adation from democracy. The discussion so far has focused strongly on the economic and cultural causes of author\u00adi\u00adtarian populism. While growing inequality in rich countries certainly plays a role and a cultural backlash<\/em> may be observed to some extent, the political question is the actual key. Economic and also cultural expla\u00adna\u00adtions assume that people are dissat\u00adisfied with specific policies and therefore turn to author\u00adi\u00adtarian populist parties. Surveys show, however, that the dissat\u00adis\u00adfaction is mostly based on a systemic criticism of the political class and the estab\u00adlished mainstream parties. Economic satis\u00adfaction, on the other hand, is relatively high and gender equality policies enjoy broad support.<\/p>\n

People no longer feel noticed in a democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

The political expla\u00adnation says that it is dissat\u00adis\u00adfaction with the political system that is instru\u00admen\u00adtalised by the author\u00adi\u00adtarian populists for their purposes. On the one hand, many people do not feel adequately repre\u00adsented by their parlia\u00adments. MPs are perceived as a profes\u00adsion\u00adalised political class that operates in a bubble, detached from the interests of voters. On the other hand, over the past three decades, decision-making powers have been shifted to a consid\u00aderable extent from majority insti\u00adtu\u00adtions (MIs), such as parties and parlia\u00adments, to non-majority insti\u00adtu\u00adtions (NMIs), such as central banks, consti\u00adtu\u00adtional courts and inter\u00adna\u00adtional insti\u00adtu\u00adtions. Decisions are made increas\u00adingly by insti\u00adtu\u00adtions that are not subject to the majority principle, nor to the account\u00adability oblig\u00ada\u00adtions of repre\u00adsen\u00adtative bodies. The purpose of many NMIs is to enforce the triple liber\u00adalism of individual rights, inter\u00adna\u00adtional rules and open markets.<\/p>\n

Against the backdrop of these two mecha\u00adnisms, many people obviously have the impression that they have been left out of politics \u2013 and this perception has a real basis. Not all groups have the same chance of having their concerns heard and imple\u00admented polit\u00adi\u00adcally. This has allowed the idea to spread that there is a homoge\u00adneous political class that does its thing aloof from the population, serving the interests of a pampered and poten\u00adtially corrupt cosmopolitan class. Accord\u00adingly, most author\u00adi\u00adtarian-populist campaigns do not seem to criticise concrete economic or cultural policies, but the system that produces them, i.e. the \u201cparties of the system\u201d, the \u201cleft-red-green infested system\u201d and the entire political class, and above all, the declared enemy, Angela Merkel.<\/p>\n

The current retreat of democracy seems to be more than a passing phenomenon. The optimistic narrative according to which democracy spreads in waves with only short periods of partial regression between them hardly coincides with the actual devel\u00adopment. Rather, in retro\u00adspect, the period from 1945 to the end of the 20th<\/sup> century in particular proved to be a phase of worldwide democ\u00adra\u00adti\u00adsation. However, that half century was charac\u00adterised by positive framework condi\u00adtions that do not exist in the same manner today. The democ\u00adratic progression was not so much the result of an inevitable logic of progress, but rather owed to a specific historical constel\u00adlation. The change in these specific circum\u00adstances now makes democ\u00adratic regression possible. Societies do not slide towards liberal democracy on a prede\u00adfined trajectory, but rather evolve through political conflicts and struggles for the expansion of social and democ\u00adratic rights \u2013 and these conflicts can not only slow down the journey, but also lead to a change in the station of destination.<\/p>\n

A new brand of liber\u00adalism must first and foremost reconcile<\/strong><\/p>\n

A new brand of liber\u00adalism must reconcile cosmopoli\u00adtanism and democracy insti\u00adtu\u00adtionally in order to get back on the right track. Real changes in our democracy are required to counter the success of the author\u00adi\u00adtarian populists. Looking exclu\u00adsively at the charac\u00adter\u00adistics and strategies of the opponents only leads to the repro\u00adduction of friend-foe thinking. It deprives us of the insight into the central questions we have to ask ourselves in order to deprive author\u00adi\u00adtarian populism of its basis: How can we solve the problem of repre\u00adsen\u00adtation? How can we reform non-majori\u00adtarian insti\u00adtu\u00adtions so that they become more responsive and continue to deliver good outcomes in a complex, globalised and pluralised world? Simplistic solutions that aim to re-nation\u00adalise and homogenise the insti\u00adtu\u00adtional founda\u00adtions of democracy, as demanded by author\u00adi\u00adtarian populists, fall short in a globalised world. So, what to do? The answer of a new brand of liber\u00adalism must be: Venture more democracy and promote tolerance of complexity in our society.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> This short essay is based on a wide-ranging study published under the title \u201cDie demokratische Regression. Die politischen Ursachen des autorit\u00e4ren Populismus\u201d (The Democ\u00adratic Regression. The Political Causes of Author\u00adi\u00adtarian Populism\u201d, Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2021).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Textende\"[\/vc_column_text][vc_separator][vc_column_text]Hat Ihnen unser Beitrag gefallen? Dann spenden Sie doch einfach und bequem \u00fcber unser Spendentool. Sie unter\u00adst\u00fctzen damit die publizis\u00adtische Arbeit von LibMod.<\/p>\n

Spenden mit Bankeinzug<\/h2>\n

[\/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]