Defending what is yet to come : Towards a critical theory of democratic defense
(2024) In Lund Political Studies 219.- Abstract
- Certainty about the robustness of democracy has given way to a widely diagnosed crisis of democracy. There are increasing calls to defend democratic institutions against those who seek their formally democratic abolishment. But safeguarding democracy, it is argued, paradoxically requires restraining democratic transformation. This dissertation argues that this ‘democratic paradox’ is misconceived. Radical transformation and institutional preservation are not mutually exclusive. Fears of democratic self-abolishment should give way to a normative theory of institutional preservation that remains compatible with radical transformation. This claim is sustained in three steps. Firstly, the history of militant democracy is reconstructed from the... (More)
- Certainty about the robustness of democracy has given way to a widely diagnosed crisis of democracy. There are increasing calls to defend democratic institutions against those who seek their formally democratic abolishment. But safeguarding democracy, it is argued, paradoxically requires restraining democratic transformation. This dissertation argues that this ‘democratic paradox’ is misconceived. Radical transformation and institutional preservation are not mutually exclusive. Fears of democratic self-abolishment should give way to a normative theory of institutional preservation that remains compatible with radical transformation. This claim is sustained in three steps. Firstly, the history of militant democracy is reconstructed from the interbellum onward. The dissertation redescribes militant democracy (Schmitt, Loewenstein, Popper) as institutionally conservative and normatively aporetic. Its contemporary exponents contradictorily commit to democratic transformation while structurally imposing on it institutional limits. Secondly, it is argued that procedural and radical democratic thought (Kelsen, Urbinati, Mouffe, Rancière), despite divergent preferences for institutional transformation or preservation, do not overcome the democratic paradox. Reproducing the antagonism between institutional preservation and radical change, they inherit militant democracy’s aporia. Thirdly, early Critical Theory is developed as an alternative. Its trajectory from immanent to negative critique carries unheeded conceptual resources that contest the presumed antagonism between radical transformation and institutional preservation. The dissertation develops two connected conceptual claims accordingly: (1) the residual normativity of existing institutions lies in their capacity for self-abolishment (which enables radical change); (2) the outcomes of radical transformation are normatively undecidable (it may produce liberation or catastrophe). These propositions give way to a negative institutionalism that reconstructs and defends only the institutionalized potential for
self-abolishment. It thereby overcomes the opposition between institution and radical change. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Säkerheten om demokratins robusthet har gett vika för en allmänt diagnostiserad demokratikris. Allt fler röster höjs för att försvara de demokratiska institutionerna mot dem som vill avskaffa dem på formellt demokratisk väg. Men för att värna demokratin, hävdas det, krävs paradoxalt nog att man håller tillbaka den demokratiska omvandlingen. I denna avhandling hävdas att denna ”demokratiska paradox” är missuppfattad. Radikal omvandling och institutionellt bevarande är inte ömsesidigt uteslutande. Rädslan för demokratisk självupplösning bör ge vika för en normativ teori om institutionellt bevarande som förblir förenlig med radikal omvandling. Detta påstående underbyggs i tre steg. För det första rekonstrueras den militanta demokratins... (More)
- Säkerheten om demokratins robusthet har gett vika för en allmänt diagnostiserad demokratikris. Allt fler röster höjs för att försvara de demokratiska institutionerna mot dem som vill avskaffa dem på formellt demokratisk väg. Men för att värna demokratin, hävdas det, krävs paradoxalt nog att man håller tillbaka den demokratiska omvandlingen. I denna avhandling hävdas att denna ”demokratiska paradox” är missuppfattad. Radikal omvandling och institutionellt bevarande är inte ömsesidigt uteslutande. Rädslan för demokratisk självupplösning bör ge vika för en normativ teori om institutionellt bevarande som förblir förenlig med radikal omvandling. Detta påstående underbyggs i tre steg. För det första rekonstrueras den militanta demokratins historia från mellankrigstiden och framåt. I avhandlingen beskrivs den militanta demokratin (Schmitt, Loewenstein, Popper) på nytt som institutionellt konservativ och normativt aporetisk. Dess samtida företrädare engagerar sig på ett motsägelsefullt sätt för demokratisk omvandling samtidigt som de strukturellt påtvingar den institutionella begränsningar. För det andra hävdas att procedurellt och radikalt demokratiskt tänkande (Kelsen, Urbinati, Mouffe, Rancière), trots skilda preferenser för institutionell omvandling eller bevarande, inte övervinner den demokratiska paradoxen. Genom att reproducera antagonismen mellan institutionellt bevarande och radikal förändring ärver de den militanta demokratins apori. För det tredje utvecklas den tidiga kritiska teorin som ett alternativ. Dess väg från immanent till negativ kritik bär på obeaktade konceptuella resurser som ifrågasätter den antagna antagonismen mellan radikal omvandling och institutionellt bevarande. I avhandlingen utvecklas två sammanhängande begreppsmässiga påståenden: (1) den kvarvarande normativiteten hos befintliga institutioner ligger i deras förmåga till självförstörelse (vilket möjliggör radikal förändring); (2) resultatet av radikal omvandling är normativt obestämbart (det kan leda till befrielse eller katastrof). Dessa påståenden ger plats för en negativ institutionalism som endast rekonstruerar och försvarar den institutionaliserade potentialen för självförstörelse. På så sätt överbryggas motsättningen mellan institution och radikal förändring.
(Translation via DeepL.com) (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/f136fe28-e3ce-45e6-a846-a1e6d18e1f19
- author
- Nitzschner, Patrick LU
- supervisor
- opponent
-
- Professor Cooke, Maeve, University College Dublin
- organization
- alternative title
- Att försvara det som ännu inte har kommit : Mot en kritisk teori om demokratiskt försvar
- publishing date
- 2024
- type
- Thesis
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- democratic defense, democratic theory, critical theory, militant democracy, procedural democracy, radical democracy, institutionalism, negativism
- in
- Lund Political Studies
- volume
- 219
- pages
- 361 pages
- publisher
- Media-Tryck, Lund University, Sweden
- defense location
- Edens hörsal, Allhelgona kyrkogata 14, Lund
- defense date
- 2024-12-06 13:00:00
- ISSN
- 0460-0037
- ISBN
- 978-91-8104-227-6
- 978-91-8104-228-3
- project
- Defending What is Yet to Come: Towards a Critical Theory of Democratic Defense
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- f136fe28-e3ce-45e6-a846-a1e6d18e1f19
- date added to LUP
- 2024-11-06 19:23:29
- date last changed
- 2025-04-04 14:57:35
@phdthesis{f136fe28-e3ce-45e6-a846-a1e6d18e1f19,
abstract = {{Certainty about the robustness of democracy has given way to a widely diagnosed crisis of democracy. There are increasing calls to defend democratic institutions against those who seek their formally democratic abolishment. But safeguarding democracy, it is argued, paradoxically requires restraining democratic transformation. This dissertation argues that this ‘democratic paradox’ is misconceived. Radical transformation and institutional preservation are not mutually exclusive. Fears of democratic self-abolishment should give way to a normative theory of institutional preservation that remains compatible with radical transformation. This claim is sustained in three steps. Firstly, the history of militant democracy is reconstructed from the interbellum onward. The dissertation redescribes militant democracy (Schmitt, Loewenstein, Popper) as institutionally conservative and normatively aporetic. Its contemporary exponents contradictorily commit to democratic transformation while structurally imposing on it institutional limits. Secondly, it is argued that procedural and radical democratic thought (Kelsen, Urbinati, Mouffe, Rancière), despite divergent preferences for institutional transformation or preservation, do not overcome the democratic paradox. Reproducing the antagonism between institutional preservation and radical change, they inherit militant democracy’s aporia. Thirdly, early Critical Theory is developed as an alternative. Its trajectory from immanent to negative critique carries unheeded conceptual resources that contest the presumed antagonism between radical transformation and institutional preservation. The dissertation develops two connected conceptual claims accordingly: (1) the residual normativity of existing institutions lies in their capacity for self-abolishment (which enables radical change); (2) the outcomes of radical transformation are normatively undecidable (it may produce liberation or catastrophe). These propositions give way to a negative institutionalism that reconstructs and defends only the institutionalized potential for<br/>self-abolishment. It thereby overcomes the opposition between institution and radical change.}},
author = {{Nitzschner, Patrick}},
isbn = {{978-91-8104-227-6}},
issn = {{0460-0037}},
keywords = {{democratic defense; democratic theory; critical theory; militant democracy; procedural democracy; radical democracy; institutionalism; negativism}},
language = {{eng}},
publisher = {{Media-Tryck, Lund University, Sweden}},
school = {{Lund University}},
series = {{Lund Political Studies}},
title = {{Defending what is yet to come : Towards a critical theory of democratic defense}},
volume = {{219}},
year = {{2024}},
}