z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Epilogue: In defense of disruptive democracy—A critique of anti-populism
Author(s) -
Robert Howse
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal of constitutional law
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.493
H-Index - 33
eISSN - 1474-2659
pISSN - 1474-2640
DOI - 10.1093/icon/moz051
Subject(s) - populism , elite , democracy , psychological nativism , politics , authoritarianism , xenophobia , liberalism , political science , pluralism (philosophy) , political economy , liberal democracy , law , sociology , philosophy , epistemology
“Populism” is usually and pejoratively defined by the anti-populist elites to imply nativism, anti-liberalism, and anti-pluralism. This has little to do with many of today’s powerful critiques of and challenges to elite liberal democratic politics. Defenders of elite or “centrist” liberal democratic politics present a false choice between restoration or renewal of elite politics and a populist slide into authoritarianism and xenophobia. There is an important agenda of democratic reform disrupting elite liberal democratic politics, and anti-populism is not an authentic response to it. Radical democrats and democratic reformers, such as US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are not apostles of mob rule, contrary to the frequent caricature proposed by centrist liberal democrats in their “anti-populist” pose. They see an appropriate role for institutions such as independent courts as well as for experts in a stronger democracy.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom