Paradox Of Democracy Research Articles

Media, Communication, and Democratic Decline: Thoughts on The Paradox of Democracy

Abstract The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion, by Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing, argues that the study of democratic decline is mistakenly focused on reversal. Drawing on media ecology theory and an interpretive reading of media and politics in the Western world, the authors argue that the conditions that allowed liberal democracy to become temporarily dominant have now been disrupted and eroded by the rise of new forms of media and communication. This review article assesses that argument in terms of (1) the central role of media and communication in studying of trajectory of democracy; (2) the empirical contributions of political communication scholarship; and (3) the authors’ call for revitalizing a core liberal institution: the press.

Rejection of the status quo: Conspiracy theories and preference for alternative political systems.

Conspiracy theories introduce a democratic paradox, as belief in conspiracy theories predicts support for both democratic and non-democratic political systems. In this article, we explore whether democratic and anti-democratic attitudes, resulting from conspiracy beliefs, can be mutually exclusive. In Study 1 (United Kingdom, N = 293), we show that belief in conspiracy theories is associated with decreased support for representative democracy, and increased support for direct democracy, anarchism, and autocracy within the same individuals. In Study 2 (United States, N = 302, pre-registered), we experimentally show that the perceived presence of conspiracies is linked to an increased preference for direct democracy, anarchism, and autocracy and decreased support for representative democracy. Mediational analyses suggest that widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo and, less consistently, feelings of political cynicism mediate the relationships between conspiracy beliefs and (anti-)democratic attitudes. In Study 3 (United States, N = 400, pre-registered), we experimentally manipulate (dis)satisfaction with the status quo. Results indicate that rejecting the status quo increases support for direct democracy, anarchism, and autocracy and decreases support for representative democracy. Overall, our findings suggest that people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to favour both democratic and anti-democratic political alternatives, largely attributed to citizens' desire to change the status quo.

Specifying and Contextualising Predictive Theories of Democratic Policy Representation

This article complements Wlezien’s review of ‘conceptualisation, measurement and interpretation in representational research’ by considering how these operate within five predictive theories validated against comparative evidence, as recommended for cumulative research by Taagepera: and related to their wider institutional and methodological context by Budge. Methodologically, the article illustrates how predictive theories can be set up to explain political processes and validated against statistical evidence. Substantively, the theories both highlight and resolve the ‘Paradox of democracy’ – how can ideologically based political parties effectively match public policy to popular preferences with only weak guidance from citizens?

Contemporary Autocratisation of Democracies in the Context of “a Paradox of Democracy”

After the fall of the “Iron Curtain,” Francis Fukuyama formulated a thesis on structural victory of liberal democracy and its fundamental values, such as freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of worldview, freedom of the press etc. This thesis was demonstrably erroneous, as at the beginning of the 21st century, the crisis of liberal democracy in relation to the growth of populist movements is mentioned more and more frequently. While seizing power through democratic means, populist parties abandon the ideals of liberal democracy and values and pivot towards an autocratic governance model while ostensibly adhering to the rules of formal democracy. It was Hannah Arendt, who warned against such a situation saying that tendencies to move towards autocracy within democracies are specific for multi-party systems, while two-party systems in democracies are relatively less prone to such transformation. With regard to the above, the problem which philosophy of politics calls a “paradox of democracy” reappears. Among other things, it is related to the question on the limit of tolerance the liberal democracy has for thoughts, attitudes, actions and words which are substantially opposed to democracy and may lead to autocracy. At the same time, we are observing the fact of reappearance of the militant democracy theory, formulated by Karl Loewenstein. The aim of this article is to look closely at the theory and its suggested modifications (described as neo-militant democracy), as well as to answer the questions on what tools are needed and if they are even possible to be used to defend not only procedures, but also values of democracy from its progressive destabilisation in the face of digital revolution.

Signifiers of Bildung, the Curriculum and the Democratisation of Public Education

This article argues that curriculum work can benefit from signifiers of Bildung to promote democracy in public education. The argument is built on the premise that cultural and intellectual traditions that value Bildung presume a link between the inner cultivation of the individual and the development of better societies (Horlacher 2017). I start by presenting Mouffe’s (2000) democratic paradox and how pluralism is the defining feature of liberal democracies. Based on how curriculum work is a standard of public education (Hopmann 1999), I state that the curriculum must formalise pluralism in education and convey the democratic paradox in educational terms. With reference to Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory, I then argue that such a laborious task can be achieved in the curriculum with the aid of signifiers of Bildung. Signifiers of Bildung are discursively empty and cannot acquire a definite meaning. Because of this, they make it possible to speak of the student and the society of liberal democracies while impeding a too narrow comprehension of what they are and ought to be. Therefore, to implement signifiers of Bildung in the curriculum can help establish both a standard of public education and limits to popular sovereignty. However, their use must undergo careful scrutiny, and teachers must remain free to interpret them.

Handling the organizing paradox: A multiple case study of German cooperatives

Cooperatives are seen as the bedrock of democratic control and an alternative to capitalist enterprises but also as sites of ‘degeneration’ of democratic values and hopes. In this article, the authors conceptualize that cooperatives are a prime example of a paradoxical organization, which must deal with the organizing paradox of democracy and hierarchy. Based on a multiple case study of 14 cooperatives in Germany, the authors unfold four different ways of handling this organizing paradox, ranging from upholding a grassroots democracy to seemingly uncontested forms of autocracy. Their typology demonstrates that participatory practices are not determined by the size of the cooperative or the sector in which it operates. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of participation and democracy as sensemaking devices, which fosters reflections on the organizing paradox and its handling and subsequently on the promises and pitfalls of cooperatives as ‘imperfect democracy’.

Alternative democracy? Crisis, discourse and versions of democracy in Zimbabwean politics in the post-2000 context

Democracy is a much contested concept in political movements and politics. The post-2000 context reveals a multiplicity of complex political, social and economic challenges linked to the Zimbabwean crisis which can be best unpacked and understood through critical discourse analysis (CDA). These challenges reflect multiple contestations to the conceptualisation of democracy. This chapter will debunk the political personalisation of democracy and how political parties insert their parties in the narrative of the concept’s modern manifestations, conceptions and practices of democracy. Democracy incorporates multiple layers of meaning and practices. This chapter focuses on how Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front (ZANU PF) and Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) narratives and stylistic designs are incorporated into their agenda-setting strategies, identity construction and discursive legitimation. Analysis of the theory and discourse of democracy illuminates the conventions, logic and dictates of language, knowledge and meaning. It exposes the inherent politics, nuances and paradoxes of democracy. Analyses of democratic movement(s) through CDA highlight democracy as a political strategy that at once contests power but also gestures to a political alternative and a sustainable development plan. Considering that CDA as a qualitative and narrative analysis method focused on generic features of whole texts rather than isolated features of the text, this chapter analyses the politics of democracy discourse and its relationship to Zimbabwean politics in the context of broader narratives of the Zimbabwean crisis. The paper problematises selected party manifestoes to illuminate and dissect the discourses and power contestations characterising Zimbabwean politics since the emergence of a strong opposition contender, the MDC in 2000. In contrast to normative representations in political discourses, knowledge is embedded in specific cultures, that is, institutionalised practices of decision-making and means of legitimation. In this regard, insights from cultural enquiries necessitated by CDA create the prerequisite for the analysis of political texts.

Contemporary democracy: between political myth and political advocacy

The article examines some issues related to the development and consolidation of the democratic process in contemporary society. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of topics on the origins and meanings of the concept of democracy, the democratic ideal and real democracy, the challenges and paradoxes of democracy, as well as the perspectives of contemporary democracy. It is concluded that the discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of some or other forms of democracy is not finished and probably will not be finished soon, and today more and more disputes are going on some issues of theoretical, political and practical interest - what meaning we should give to the concept of democracy, how democracy works in the practice of contemporary society, what would be the nature and prospects of democracy.

Is the European Union a militant democracy? Democratic backsliding and EU disintegration

AbstractThere has been much recent debate over whether the European Union is or should be a ‘militant democratic’ actor in order to respond to democratic backsliding in EU member states. This article argues that the EU is a militant democracy in a specific and limited sense, but that this may be normatively undesirable from a democratic perspective. I first develop a definition of militant democracy that focuses on the militant democratic paradox. I argue that the strongest justifications for militant democracy require that two conditions are met: an ‘existential threat condition’ and a ‘necessity condition’. Next, I analyse four ways in which the European Union has been said to be empowered to act in a militant democratic fashion to combat democratic backsliding in EU member states. I show how some, though not all, of these warrant the label ‘militant democracy’. Moving from the descriptive to the normative analysis, I then consider whether the necessity condition can ever be met since there is always the possibility of non-militant responses through forms of EU disintegration. If we accept this argument, EU actors should prioritize robust non-militant measures where possible while pro-democratic member states should disassociate from frankly autocratic member states where non-militant measures fail.

The Persistence of Latin America’s Violent Democracies: Reviewing the Research Agenda on Policing, Militarization, and Security Across the Region

This review examines Votes, Drugs, and Violence, Authoritarian Police in Democracy, Resisting Extortion, as well as Democracy and Security in Latin America to outline the latest scholarly developments on how the region has dealt with the challenges posed by violent, militarized state and non-state actors. Leveraging distinct cases and methods, these four recently published books discuss the political rationale behind the military and institutional responses that have shaped public security in Latin America over the last three decades. Beyond unpacking their contributions, common themes, tensions, and shortcomings, we argue that by focusing on the political dynamics behind state interventions, these volumes highlight the persistence of a democratic paradox: rather than curtailing militarism and violence, or facilitating their containment via reforms, electoral dynamics and partisan incentives—part and parcel of democratic politics—have enabled the endurance of state and non-state militarization and violence. Relatedly, as Eduardo Moncada’s new title underscores, ordinary Latin American citizens have had to adopt civilian militarization as a bottom-up resistance strategy to navigate the uncertainty this worrying paradox presents. By examining work by scholars including Guillermo Trejo, Sandra Ley, Brian Fonseca, and Yanilda María González this review helps to delineate future research as well as policy interventions.

The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion. By ZacGershberg and SeanIlling. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2022. $20.00.

Political PsychologyEarly View Book Review The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion. By Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 2022. $20.00. B. Tyler Leigh, Corresponding Author B. Tyler Leigh [email protected]n.edu orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-0778 Annenerg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and SciencesSearch for more papers by this author B. Tyler Leigh, Corresponding Author B. Tyler Leigh [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-1396-0778 Annenerg School for Communication at University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and SciencesSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 May 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12902Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion by Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing

Reviewed by: The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion by Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing Ray Brescia (bio) The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media, and Perilous Persuasion By Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2022. Pp. 320. In The Paradox of Democracy, authors Zac Gershberg and Sean Illing do yeoman's work in reviewing the history of Western democracies, from the Greek city-states of the time of Socrates to the United States of today, to make the claim that it is democracy's very openness that can lead to its ultimate demise. Demagogues can exploit the ability to communicate freely to garner support from the masses for very illiberal, antidemocratic ends. The authors point out that today's instantaneous, disintermediated media environment only makes the impact of media on culture even more profound. When the "paradox" of democracy—that it contains the seeds of its own destruction—meets the power of new media, the authors argue that a nation can find itself on the road to fascism. The solutions to this problem, the authors posit, are increased media literacy and a return to local journalism. When reading The Paradox of Democracy, it is not clear that the sources of the threats to democracy—and the defenses or solutions to those threats—are as simple as the authors suggest, however. What is more, the examples given by the authors do not always provide clear support for their arguments. One chapter-spanning discussion begins with Alexis de Tocqueville, goes through the Spanish-American War, doubles back to the Franco-Prussian War, fast-forwards to the Dreyfus Affair in France, follows up with the tension between Germany under the Kaiser and Russia under the Czar in the lead-up to World War I, and then discusses the rise of Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany. Do these examples support their analysis regarding the relationship between mass media and democracy when each of these nations had very different political systems, approaches to free speech, and wildly divergent outcomes? What, then, can we learn from these examples? How do they relate to the paradox of democracy? Similarly, the book rarely explores the fact that exogenous forces operating on and the relative strength of institutions within a society can both change a nation just as much, if not more, than mass media operating within it. Yes, the authors mention the American response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, make passing reference to the economic impacts of the Great Depression on politics generally, and discuss the failure of the January 6, 2021, insurrection in the United States, but little effort is made to identify the conditions and forces at work that result in the success or failure of illiberal demagogues in different institutional, economic, and political environments. Sometimes institutions hold, sometimes they do not. Sometimes antidemocratic forces leverage mass media to demolish democracy, sometimes they fail in their attempts to do so. We are given few tools to understand the difference between success and failure in such efforts. [End Page 601] The authors, choosing to see these phenomena through the prism of media analysis almost exclusively, might bring to mind the parable of the blind philosophers standing around an elephant, trying to identify what it is that stands before them. One, holding the trunk, concludes that it is a snake; another, touching its flank, thinks it is a wall; and so on. Here, our authors, media theorists themselves, analyze the impact of media tools on communication, culture, and politics and see what they have chosen to see given the lens through which they view these phenomena, which is well and good, standing on its own. But they also draw broader conclusions about the impact of those tools without recognizing that other factors are equally as important, if not more important, than the tools of communication in determining a society's future. The authors' efforts to help us understand the role that media can play in the potential fate of democracy and democracies are useful and remind us of the dangers present in this fraught political moment. But the limited nature and reach of...

The Critical Electorate: On Democracy and Disenchantment

Abstract This essay uses Chantal Mouffe's work in The Democratic Paradox (2000) to think through the paradoxical status of democracy in this special issue. At a moment when democracy is under authoritarian threat worldwide, contributors often treat it not as an imperiled good but as a misty future horizon. Moreover, it is seen as held back most by a commitment to “liberal” values, though little consensus prevails here about this term’s meaning. This stance then dovetails with a predilection for speculative rather than realist fictional forms. And yet the essays in fact display an ongoing unacknowledged allegiance to various actual liberal ideals. Together with the markedly strong disagreements evident across the issue as a whole, this fact speaks to Mouffe's affirmation of an “agonistic”—but, crucially, not “antagonistic”—politics, in which “liberalism” and “democracy” need to remain ideas in necessary and essential tension with one another. Their clash demonstrates the way that modernity's lack of transcendent grounding generates a situation of ongoing and irresolvable value conflict. This essay then suggests that a version of this conflict plays out in the novel in formal terms as well, as an unresolved dual allegiance both to realism and to what exceeds its bounds.[The essays'] very embrace and even hyperbolization of liberal idioms of individual choice, freedom, and so on . . . suggests that we may have a more complicated situation on our hands than the by-now programmatic affirmations of “democracy” and repudiations of “liberal” can effectively address.

Navigating the Paradox of Democracy and Military Control: An Analysis of an Imaginary Country's Political Landscape

Navigating the Paradox of Democracy and Military Control: An Analysis of an Imaginary Country's Political Landscape

Paradoxes of democratization: social-liberal reformism, education and citizenship in West Germany after 1968

ABSTRACT Historians largely agree that the social-liberal reforms in the Federal Republic of Germany constituted a major contribution to transforming the country into a more participatory democracy around 1970. Responding to the demands of protesting youth, so this narrative goes, the coalition between the Social Democratic Party and the Free Democratic Party engaged in a flurry of reforms all aimed at equalizing access to an active and engaged democratic citizenship. By taking a closer look at how these social-liberal reformers addressed young people through school reforms, this article instead emphasizes the paradoxical legacy of these reforms, which has thus far been neglected in the historiography. This article thus probes the connection among the federal, regional and local initiatives to use schools to engage young people in the democratic process, with a particular focus on the markedly different reforms in the West German state of North Rhine Westphalia (NRW) and in West Berlin. Through these reforms, policymakers and experts not only attempted to offer youth more opportunities for active participation, but also to control carefully how they made use of their citizenship. Moreover, these educational reforms exposed the fissures inherent in a class-based and multi-ethnic West German democracy. Although social-liberal reformers intended to equalize access to democratic citizenship, they nonetheless also reified cultural and political hierarchies between the middle and lower classes, as well as between ethnic Germans and immigrant children. Ultimately, these endeavours shaped West German democracy largely through their unintended consequences. While in NRW, these reforms contributed to the rise of a liberal-conservative opposition, in West Berlin, these policies gave rise to a Left-alternative movement that each defined democratic citizenship in their own ways.

The democratic paradox: are national elections always good for satisfaction with democracy in Europe?

Abstract This article challenges the widespread notion that national elections are unequivocally good for people’s satisfaction with democracy. Instead, it argues that elections have enduring and disparate effects on democratic satisfaction, depending on the economic situation in which they take place; that is the election economy. When held during economic upturns, national elections increase subsequent satisfaction with democracy during most of the following electoral term—regardless of election results and economic growth after the election. When held during economic downturns, elections reduce democratic satisfaction until the next election—again, regardless of such post-election developments. An analysis of 29 European democracies in the period 1973–2019 supports these propositions and suggests that the disparate effects of national elections endure during most of the electoral term. These findings are robust to an array of model specifications, including when accounting for several pre-election and post-election developments.

Plastic policies

This study explores how democracy—often understood as an abstract concept or a location- transcending, intangible phenomenon—is produced, shaped and continuously reshaped through local library practices in certain places and under local conditions at a specific point in time. To better understand potential conflicts and/or tensions that might arise between the three levels of Swedish library policy at a time when values enshrined in the Swedish democratic model are being challenged by political right-wing populism, we explored the potential influence on and enactment of policy documents in public libraries day-to-day practice. We did so by conducting an ethnographic study of five municipalities in Sweden’s Skåne County. Our study was theoretically informed by practice theory and the view of democracy as an ongoing process and a plurality. Our findings showed that policy documents are often internalized by library staff. The influence of the democratic mission established in the Swedish Library Act , in particular, was evident in the way library staff carried out their work. One tension created by the “democratic paradox” (i.e., the requirement that a democracy allow opponents of the democratic form of rule a voice) was evident in library policy enactments, inasmuch as librarians adopted different stances towards the neutrality norm. Thus, in practice, what appear to be rigid, inflexible policy documents are in fact plastic and mouldable. This plasticity allows room for librarians to legitimately promote democracy. Although public librarians spend much time engaging with various policy documents, they consider it time well spent and value the result. Public libraries appear as locations where different levels of cultural policy interconnect. In their role as public institutions, they also have a mission to fulfil in honoring the democratic paradox via a praxis that includes support for democracy as one of their goals.

Migrant Workers and Higher Education: Paradoxes of Democratization of Higher Education

Migrant Workers and Higher Education issues seem two different contradictory topics. Many research on migrant workers often associates them with pragmatical activities, the working class, and marginal groups. On the other hand, Higher Education (HE) is more often associated with idealistic spaces, middle classes, and academics environment. This paper presents the phenomenon of Indonesian migrant worker-students in South Korea. We found the increasing number of Indonesian migrant workers who pursue higher education through overseas Indonesian Open University (Universitas Terbuka) in Korea and ICT-based Korean local universities. We examine how migrant workers take advantage of the transformation of higher education. We try to answer whether higher education experienced democratization will reduce social inequality, or on the contrary, it will be trapped in an educational capitalization that sharpens the gap.

Afterword: Some Illustrations

Afterword: Some Illustrations

From Punitiveness to Authoritarianism: Examining the Sources of Public Support for the Use of State Violence in Latin America

Prior work on the sources of public punitiveness and the expansion of the penal state emphasizes the importance of various anxieties associated with late modernity. Specifically, theorists posit that the expansion of neoliberal policies has been attended by animus against marginalized social groups, anxieties about economic and social conditions, and fear of crime—public sentiments which have legitimized the expansion of a penal apparatus that has undermined democracy. In the present study, we extend the traditional focus on punitiveness to include support for authoritarian forms of state power. Using of cross-national survey data (n = 13,071) from 16 Latin American countries collected during a period of democratization and the region’s “punitive turn,” we find that the social sensibilities from late modernity also drive support for autocratic forms of government. Further, our analyses reveal an indirect association between these attitudes and authoritarianism that operates through punitiveness. Our findings also suggest a “democracy paradox.” Examining country-level moderating factors, we find that these associations are more salient in countries with higher levels of democratization and social inclusion, which are thus particularly vulnerable to the democracy-eroding pressures of “governing through crime.” We discuss the implications of these findings for Latin America as well as democracies in the Global North.