The current symptoms of crisis, which have been subsumed and discussed by various authors for several years under the term “postdemocracy” (e.g. Mouffe 2007, 2011; Crouch 2008; cf. Ritzi 2014) and which among other things denounce the hegemony of the economic interests of large corporations and lobbyists, the facade-like nature of existing democratic institutions, the political apathy of citizens and the general corruption of the political public, all denote topics that are already encountered in the reading of Tocqueville’s works. Already De la démocratie en Amérique exposes the principle of popular sovereignty and the sporadically conducted democratic elections as mere alibi events, which in themselves do not indicate any real power of the people, as long as they are not accompanied by a vibrant political culture, the social commitment of citizens and their substantial participation in democratic decision-making processes (DA II, 1248 ff.). Consequently, Tocqueville was identified by various parties as the keyword giver of the ‘postdemocratic’ avant la lettre (Wolin 2001; Baglioni 2007). In the final chapter of his groundbreaking study, Tocqueville Between Two Worlds. The Making of a Political and Theoretical Life Wolin (2001, 561 ff.) insists in particular that among the many facets of Tocqueville is also that of the harbinger of the ‘postpolitical’ and ‘postdemocratic’. With the concept of ‘postdemocracy’, Wolin obviously associates what Tocqueville once interpreted and portrayed as gentle democratic despotism (see Chap. 57 ): an apolitical consumer society, in which the common interest and the collective ability to act as political citizens largely disappears, where the sense for self-organization and the political affairs of society withers and where social capital is increasingly replaced or displaced by state bureaucracy. At first glance, Steven Bilakovics (2012) strikes in the same vein when he explicitly takes up Wolin’s interpretation to reformulate Tocqueville’s criticism of an often unnoticed dominance of economy and administration over the political action of the citizenry as ‘postpolitical’ or “Democracy without Politics”. In the reading of Bilakovics (2012, 219), Tocqueville’s analysis of an apolitical reality of democracy has anticipated not less than Aldous Huxley’s dystopia Brave New World (1932) and the satire based on it, Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman (1985). Bilakovics sees all three authors pulling together in terms of sensitivity to the corrosive power that a privatized media landscape corrupted by show business and infotainment exerts on the seriousness of political discourses.

Postdemocracy

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Oliver Hidalgo

摘要

The current symptoms of crisis, which have been subsumed and discussed by various authors for several years under the term “postdemocracy” (e.g. Mouffe 2007, 2011; Crouch 2008; cf. Ritzi 2014) and which among other things denounce the hegemony of the economic interests of large corporations and lobbyists, the facade-like nature of existing democratic institutions, the political apathy of citizens and the general corruption of the political public, all denote topics that are already encountered in the reading of Tocqueville’s works. Already De la démocratie en Amérique exposes the principle of popular sovereignty and the sporadically conducted democratic elections as mere alibi events, which in themselves do not indicate any real power of the people, as long as they are not accompanied by a vibrant political culture, the social commitment of citizens and their substantial participation in democratic decision-making processes (DA II, 1248 ff.). Consequently, Tocqueville was identified by various parties as the keyword giver of the ‘postdemocratic’ avant la lettre (Wolin 2001; Baglioni 2007). In the final chapter of his groundbreaking study, Tocqueville Between Two Worlds. The Making of a Political and Theoretical Life Wolin (2001, 561 ff.) insists in particular that among the many facets of Tocqueville is also that of the harbinger of the ‘postpolitical’ and ‘postdemocratic’. With the concept of ‘postdemocracy’, Wolin obviously associates what Tocqueville once interpreted and portrayed as gentle democratic despotism (see Chap. 57 ): an apolitical consumer society, in which the common interest and the collective ability to act as political citizens largely disappears, where the sense for self-organization and the political affairs of society withers and where social capital is increasingly replaced or displaced by state bureaucracy. At first glance, Steven Bilakovics (2012) strikes in the same vein when he explicitly takes up Wolin’s interpretation to reformulate Tocqueville’s criticism of an often unnoticed dominance of economy and administration over the political action of the citizenry as ‘postpolitical’ or “Democracy without Politics”. In the reading of Bilakovics (2012, 219), Tocqueville’s analysis of an apolitical reality of democracy has anticipated not less than Aldous Huxley’s dystopia Brave New World (1932) and the satire based on it, Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman (1985). Bilakovics sees all three authors pulling together in terms of sensitivity to the corrosive power that a privatized media landscape corrupted by show business and infotainment exerts on the seriousness of political discourses.