Armin Schäfer Knihy

In a world of increasing austerity measures, democratic politics comes under pressure. With the need to consolidate budgets and to accommodate financial markets, the responsiveness of governments to voters declines. However, democracy depends on choice. Citizens must be able to influence the course of government through elections and if a change in government cannot translate into different policies, democracy is incapacitated. Many mature democracies are approaching this situation as they confront fiscal crisis. For almost three decades, OECD countries have - in fits and starts - run deficits and accumulated debt. As a result, an ever smaller part of government revenue is available today for discretionary spending and social investment and whichever party comes into office will find its hands tied by past decisions. The current financial and fiscal crisis has exacerbated the long-term shrinking government discretion; projects for political change have lost credibility. Many citizens are aware of this situation: they turn away from party politics and stay at home on Election Day. With contributions from leading scholars in the forefront of sociology, politics and economics, this timely book will be of great interest to students and scholars throughout the social sciences as well as general readers.

There is a tendency in public debate to downplay the significance of populism by attributing its rise to the inadequacies of those who vote for populist leaders and parties. But this way of thinking prevents us from seeing that the rise of populism may be linked to problems and shortcomings in the way our democracies work. In this important book, Armin Schäfer and Michael Zürn argue that the rise of authoritarian populism is rooted in two developments that are specifically political in character: first, the unequal responsiveness of parliaments towards less privileged citizens; and second, the growing political role of non-majoritarian institutions, like central banks and international institutions, that remove decisions from public debate and entrust them to experts. Contemporary democracy is increasingly perceived as lacking openness and representativeness. More and more citizens come to feel that politics is made by a closed political class oblivious to the concerns of ordinary people, and those who share this view are more likely to vote for authoritarian populists. Although contemporary populists keep rubbing salt into the wound of liberal democracy, their responses fail to solve the problems of democratic politics. On the contrary, wherever authoritarian-populist parties have come to power, they have damaged democracy rather than expanding it or reducing existing inequalities.

In der Debatte um den Aufstieg national-autoritärer Parteien dominieren zwei Ansätze: ein ökonomischer, der wachsende Ungleichheit infolge der Globalisierung in den Mittelpunkt stellt, und ein kultureller, der gesellschaftliche Liberalisierungsprozesse in den Blick nimmt. Beide Erklärungen, kritisieren Armin Schäfer und Michael Zürn, seien seltsam politikfrei. Daher fragen sie nach den genuin politischen Ursachen dieser Entwicklung: Wie haben sich die Parteien, wie hat sich ihr Verhältnis zu den Bürgern verändert? Was geschieht, wenn Politik sich als ausführendes Organ von Sachzwängen präsentiert? Wer die autoritären Bewegungen stoppen möchte, so die Autoren, muss am politischen Prozess selbst ansetzen und Willy Brandts Formel »Mehr Demokratie wagen« neu denken.