Durability through discord – debating parliamentary procedure in Europe around the turn of the twentieth century

Abstract

ABSTRACT During recent decades, the role and legitimacy of national parliaments have become increasingly topical and disputed. Parliaments seem to be on the constant defensive against criticism and challenges coming from multiple directions. New populist parties have entered the debating scene, framing parliaments as elite playgrounds and using them as stages for polarized politics. Not only mirrors of social unrest, debates in national assemblies may also be considered catalysts of social upheaval. Both stable and young democracies have been backsliding, and elected autocrats have concentrated power to small elites, harnessing public institutions for their power politics. At the same time, parliamentary democracy appears slow, short-sighted, inefficient and incapable of resolving the great dilemmas of our time. Democratic innovators are calling for more direct, deliberative and participatory forms to support, or even replace traditional parliamentary decision-making and representative democracy. 1 1 For example, D. van Reybrouck, Against Elections: The Case for Democracy, translated from Dutch by L. Waters (London, 2016); H. Landemore, Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century (Princeton NJ, 2020). Accused of being ‘all talk, no action’, ‘political theater’ and arenas for ‘empty words’, ‘idle talk’ and ‘useless debate’, parliaments and their practices that long seemed self-evident, are now debated, abused, put aside or even neglected.