en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

Zobacz wydanie
Rok 2019 
Tom 11 
Numer 1

On Political Impotence: How Liberal Democracy Becomes Militant, and Its Demos Becomes Impotent

Ursus Eijkelenberg
University of Manchester

2019 11 (1) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.281

Abstrakt

Analiza samozachowawczej natury demokracji liberalnych ogranicza się zazwyczaj do pojęcia „demokracji walczącej”, skupiając się głównie na konkretnych instrumentach
z których ustrój korzysta, by stawić czoła jego przeciwnikom oraz by wzmocnić swoją własną strukturę. Niniejsza praca podchodzi do kwestii samozachowawczości liberalnej demokracji od nieco innej strony. Niejako podważa ona granice koncepcji uznanej za dominującą, analizując zaobserwowane skłonności do konsolidacji w ogólniejszej, szerszej perspektywie, koncentrując się na stopniowej ewolucji polityki i prawa, której to efekty przyczyniają się do umocnienia ustroju politycznego. Analiza ta prowadzi do istotnego pytania: jakie konsekwencje mogą wynikać z konsolidacyjnej praktyki ustrojowej? Podkreślając znaczenie „niemocy politycznej” oraz wynikającej z niej ogólnej destabilizacji w wymiarze społecznym i politycznym, niniejsza praca stawia tezę, że samozachowawczy
instynkt demokracji liberalnej może przynieść efekt przeciwny do zamierzonego oraz że do obecnego kryzysu demokracji liberalnej nie doszło pomimo jej samozachowawczej natury, a raczej niejako w następstwie tej natury.

Powiązania

  1. Adams J., Thoughts on Government, 1776. [Google Scholar]
  2. Arendt H., On Revolution, Penguin Books 1990. [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman S., The Pipe Dream of Undemocratic Liberalism, “Journal of Democracy” 2017, 28(3). [Google Scholar]
  4. Blackwell C.W., Athenian Democracy: a brief overview, [in:] A. Mahoney, R. Scaife (eds.) Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy, Part of: The Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities (Center for Hellenic Studies On-line Discussion Series, [www.stoa.org]), edition of February 28, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blokker P., New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, New York 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bovens M., Wille A., Diploma democracy: On the tensions between meritocracy and democracy, Verkenning for the NWO programme Contested Democracies, Utrecht–Leiden, April 2009. [Google Scholar]
  7. Colon-Rios J., The Legitimacy of the Juridical: Constituent Power, Democracy, and the Limits of Constitutional Reform, “Osgood Hall Law Journal” 2010, 48. [Google Scholar]
  8. Colon-Rios J., The End of the Constitutionalism-Democracy Debate, “Victoria University of Welling Research Papers” 2012, 5(1). [Google Scholar]
  9. Cliteur P., Rijpkema B., The Foundations of Militant Democracy, [in:] A. Ellian, G. Molier (eds.), The State of Exception and Militant Democracy in a Time of Terror, Dordrecht 2012. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dworkin R., Political Judges and The Rule of Law, [in:] A Matter of Principle, Harvard 1985. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dworkin R., A Bill of Rights for Britain, London 1990. [Google Scholar]
  12. Eijkelenberg U., Van Gerechtvaardigde Angst naar Morele Paniek: De Ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse Weerbare Democratie en haar Uiterste Verzetsmiddel; het Partijverbod, “Staatsrechtkring” 2016, 7. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eijkelenberg U., Be Careful What You Wish For – A Short Comment on “Mandatory Voting as a Tool to Combat the New Populism”, “Int’l J. Const. L. Blog” May 19, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eijkelenberg U., Black-Belt Constitutionalism: Considering “Street-Fighting” as a Constitutional Essential, “Int’l J. Const. L. Blog”, Oct. 20, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisgruber C.L., Constitutional Self-government, Harvard 2001. [Google Scholar]
  16. Foucault M., The Archaeology of Knowledge & the Discourse on Language, New York 1972. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gerth H., Wright Mills C., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge 2009. [Google Scholar]
  18. Greenberg U., The Weimar Century: German Émigrés and the Ideological Foundations of the Cold War, Princeton, NJ 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Held D., Models of Democracy, Redwood City, CA 2006 (3rd Edition). [Google Scholar]
  20. Hirschl R., The Political Origins of the New Constitutionalism, “Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies” 2004, 11(1). [Google Scholar]
  21. Hirschl R., Towards Juristocracy: The origins and consequences of New Constitutionalism, Harvard 2007. [Google Scholar]
  22. Holmes S., Constitutions and Constitutionalism, Chapter, [in:] M. Rosenfeld, A. Sajo (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford 2012. [Google Scholar]
  23. Huntington S.P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, OK 1993. [Google Scholar]
  24. Issacharoff S., Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts, Cambridge 2015. [Google Scholar]
  25. Landau D., Abusive Constitutionalism, “UC Davis Law Review” 2013, 47(189). [Google Scholar]
  26. Levy D., Sznaider N., Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human Rights, “The British Journal of Sociology” 2006, 57(4). [Google Scholar]
  27. Loewenstein K., Militant democracy and fundamental rights I, “The American Political Science Review” 1937, 31(3). [Google Scholar]
  28. Loewenstein K., Militant democracy and fundamental rights II, “The American Political Science Review” 1937, 31(4). [Google Scholar]
  29. Loughlin M., What is Constitutionalisation?, [in:] P. Dobner, M. Loughlin (eds.), The Twilight of Constitutionalism, Oxford 2010. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mandel M., A Brief History of the New Constitutionalism, or “How We Changed Everything so That Everything Would Remain the Same”, “Israel Law Review” 1998, 32(2). [Google Scholar]
  31. Manin B., The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge 1997. [Google Scholar]
  32. Montesquieu C., De, The Spirit of Laws, Kitchener, Ont. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  33. Mulgan R.G., Lot as a Democratic Device of Selection, “The Review of Politics” 1984, 46(4). [Google Scholar]
  34. Müller J.W., Militant democracy, [in:] M. Rosenfeld, A. Sajó (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford 2012. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nietzsche F., De Genealogie van de Moraal, Amsterdam 2014 (6th Edition). [Google Scholar]
  36. Pettit P., On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy, Cambridge 2012. [Google Scholar]
  37. Reybrouck D., van, Tegen Verkiezingen, Amsterdam–Antwerpen 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sajó A., Militant Democracy and Emotional Politics, “Constellations” 2012, 19(4). [Google Scholar]
  39. Schinkel W., De Nieuwe Democratie: Naar Andere Vormen van Politiek, Amsterdam–Antwerpen 2012. [Google Scholar]
  40. Stone Sweet A., Constitutionalism, Rights and Judicial Power, “Yale Law School: Faculty Scholarship Series” 2008, 77. [Google Scholar]
  41. Stone Sweet A., Constitutional Courts and Parliamentary Democracy, “West European Politics” 2011, 25(1). [Google Scholar]
  42. Thornhill C., A Sociology of Transnational Constitutions: Social Foundations of the Post-National Legal Structure, Cambridge 2016. [Google Scholar]
  43. Unger R.M., What Should Legal Analysis Become?, Brooklyn, NY 1969. [Google Scholar]
  44. Unger R.M., Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory, New York 1979. [Google Scholar]
  45. Unger R.M., False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy, Brooklyn, NY 2001. [Google Scholar]
  46. Unger R.M., The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound, Harvard 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vallinder T., The Judicialization of Politics — A World-wide Phenomenon: Introduction, “Intern. Pol. Sc. Review” 1994, 15(2). [Google Scholar]
  48. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp [Google Scholar]
  49. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ [Google Scholar]
  50. Adams J., Thoughts on Government, 1776. [Google Scholar]
  51. Arendt H., On Revolution, Penguin Books 1990. [Google Scholar]
  52. Berman S., The Pipe Dream of Undemocratic Liberalism, “Journal of Democracy” 2017, 28(3). [Google Scholar]
  53. Blackwell C.W., Athenian Democracy: a brief overview, [in:] A. Mahoney, R. Scaife (eds.) Dēmos: Classical Athenian Democracy, Part of: The Stoa: a consortium for electronic publication in the humanities (Center for Hellenic Studies On-line Discussion Series, [www.stoa.org]), edition of February 28, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  54. Blokker P., New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania, New York 2015. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bovens M., Wille A., Diploma democracy: On the tensions between meritocracy and democracy, Verkenning for the NWO programme Contested Democracies, Utrecht–Leiden, April 2009. [Google Scholar]
  56. Colon-Rios J., The Legitimacy of the Juridical: Constituent Power, Democracy, and the Limits of Constitutional Reform, “Osgood Hall Law Journal” 2010, 48. [Google Scholar]
  57. Colon-Rios J., The End of the Constitutionalism-Democracy Debate, “Victoria University of Welling Research Papers” 2012, 5(1). [Google Scholar]
  58. Cliteur P., Rijpkema B., The Foundations of Militant Democracy, [in:] A. Ellian, G. Molier (eds.), The State of Exception and Militant Democracy in a Time of Terror, Dordrecht 2012. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dworkin R., Political Judges and The Rule of Law, [in:] A Matter of Principle, Harvard 1985. [Google Scholar]
  60. Dworkin R., A Bill of Rights for Britain, London 1990. [Google Scholar]
  61. Eijkelenberg U., Van Gerechtvaardigde Angst naar Morele Paniek: De Ontwikkeling van de Nederlandse Weerbare Democratie en haar Uiterste Verzetsmiddel; het Partijverbod, “Staatsrechtkring” 2016, 7. [Google Scholar]
  62. Eijkelenberg U., Be Careful What You Wish For – A Short Comment on “Mandatory Voting as a Tool to Combat the New Populism”, “Int’l J. Const. L. Blog” May 19, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  63. Eijkelenberg U., Black-Belt Constitutionalism: Considering “Street-Fighting” as a Constitutional Essential, “Int’l J. Const. L. Blog”, Oct. 20, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  64. Eisgruber C.L., Constitutional Self-government, Harvard 2001. [Google Scholar]
  65. Foucault M., The Archaeology of Knowledge & the Discourse on Language, New York 1972. [Google Scholar]
  66. Gerth H., Wright Mills C., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge 2009. [Google Scholar]
  67. Greenberg U., The Weimar Century: German Émigrés and the Ideological Foundations of the Cold War, Princeton, NJ 2014. [Google Scholar]
  68. Held D., Models of Democracy, Redwood City, CA 2006 (3rd Edition). [Google Scholar]
  69. Hirschl R., The Political Origins of the New Constitutionalism, “Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies” 2004, 11(1). [Google Scholar]
  70. Hirschl R., Towards Juristocracy: The origins and consequences of New Constitutionalism, Harvard 2007. [Google Scholar]
  71. Holmes S., Constitutions and Constitutionalism, Chapter, [in:] M. Rosenfeld, A. Sajo (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford 2012. [Google Scholar]
  72. Huntington S.P., The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman, OK 1993. [Google Scholar]
  73. Issacharoff S., Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts, Cambridge 2015. [Google Scholar]
  74. Landau D., Abusive Constitutionalism, “UC Davis Law Review” 2013, 47(189). [Google Scholar]
  75. Levy D., Sznaider N., Sovereignty Transformed: A Sociology of Human Rights, “The British Journal of Sociology” 2006, 57(4). [Google Scholar]
  76. Loewenstein K., Militant democracy and fundamental rights I, “The American Political Science Review” 1937, 31(3). [Google Scholar]
  77. Loewenstein K., Militant democracy and fundamental rights II, “The American Political Science Review” 1937, 31(4). [Google Scholar]
  78. Loughlin M., What is Constitutionalisation?, [in:] P. Dobner, M. Loughlin (eds.), The Twilight of Constitutionalism, Oxford 2010. [Google Scholar]
  79. Mandel M., A Brief History of the New Constitutionalism, or “How We Changed Everything so That Everything Would Remain the Same”, “Israel Law Review” 1998, 32(2). [Google Scholar]
  80. Manin B., The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge 1997. [Google Scholar]
  81. Montesquieu C., De, The Spirit of Laws, Kitchener, Ont. 2001. [Google Scholar]
  82. Mulgan R.G., Lot as a Democratic Device of Selection, “The Review of Politics” 1984, 46(4). [Google Scholar]
  83. Müller J.W., Militant democracy, [in:] M. Rosenfeld, A. Sajó (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford 2012. [Google Scholar]
  84. Nietzsche F., De Genealogie van de Moraal, Amsterdam 2014 (6th Edition). [Google Scholar]
  85. Pettit P., On the People’s Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy, Cambridge 2012. [Google Scholar]
  86. Reybrouck D., van, Tegen Verkiezingen, Amsterdam–Antwerpen 2015. [Google Scholar]
  87. Sajó A., Militant Democracy and Emotional Politics, “Constellations” 2012, 19(4). [Google Scholar]
  88. Schinkel W., De Nieuwe Democratie: Naar Andere Vormen van Politiek, Amsterdam–Antwerpen 2012. [Google Scholar]
  89. Stone Sweet A., Constitutionalism, Rights and Judicial Power, “Yale Law School: Faculty Scholarship Series” 2008, 77. [Google Scholar]
  90. Stone Sweet A., Constitutional Courts and Parliamentary Democracy, “West European Politics” 2011, 25(1). [Google Scholar]
  91. Thornhill C., A Sociology of Transnational Constitutions: Social Foundations of the Post-National Legal Structure, Cambridge 2016. [Google Scholar]
  92. Unger R.M., What Should Legal Analysis Become?, Brooklyn, NY 1969. [Google Scholar]
  93. Unger R.M., Law in Modern Society: Toward a Criticism of Social Theory, New York 1979. [Google Scholar]
  94. Unger R.M., False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy, Brooklyn, NY 2001. [Google Scholar]
  95. Unger R.M., The Self Awakened: Pragmatism Unbound, Harvard 2007. [Google Scholar]
  96. Vallinder T., The Judicialization of Politics — A World-wide Phenomenon: Introduction, “Intern. Pol. Sc. Review” 1994, 15(2). [Google Scholar]
  97. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp [Google Scholar]
  98. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ [Google Scholar]

Kompletne metadane

Cytowanie zasobu

APA style

Eijkelenberg, U. . (2019). On Political Impotence: How Liberal Democracy Becomes Militant, and Its Demos Becomes Impotent. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 11(1), 164-190. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.281 (Original work published 2019)

MLA style

Eijkelenberg, U. . „On Political Impotence: How Liberal Democracy Becomes Militant, And Its Demos Becomes Impotent”. 2019. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, t. 11, nr 1, 2019, ss. 164-190.

Chicago style

Eijkelenberg, Ursus . „On Political Impotence: How Liberal Democracy Becomes Militant, And Its Demos Becomes Impotent”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 11, nr 1 (2019): 164-190. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.281.