Political Concepts Conference: Panel 2 (Andreas Kalyvas, Andrew Arato, and Nadia Urbinati)

etymologically origins in the concept of law lex legis the roman concept of legitimacy at first referred to only a specific domain of private law inheritance and Testaments today it has become one of the most important concepts of political thought referring to the foundation and validation not only of legal orders but of whole regimes as currently used the constant has sociological political and ethical dimensions the connection of all of which remains an unfinished task even more serious is the problem that although we live in an age where democratic legitimacy seems to be dominant oligarchic authoritarian regimes as well as movements remain effective in exploiting and even rallying against his principles originally in Roman law legitimacy had to do only with the inheritance of property in cases where wills in cases where wills are silent or unclear or contrary to law concerning the person of the inheritor Herodotus legi tema referred to the property itself while harris legitimacy and legatee Maharis indicated inherit ur according to the existing law not necessarily a family member in a very few texts always referring to kingship the concept was directly transferred into the political domain as in Livy who has one claimant to the throne of the early monarchy Tarquinius Superbus of Tartu and a proud fiercely declare and I’m quoting from the translation that he was occupying his father’s seat that a king’s son was a much more legitimate heir harris legitimacy to much more legitimate heir to the throne and a slave while his text but this text seems to link legitimacy in heredity Tarquins actual argument in Livy in fact contested the conditions of election of Servius Tullius and charged him with political usurpation at the beginning of a long and successful reign usurpation of monarchical power was one of the meanings one of the meanings of – both Greeks and the Romans but it was only one of these next two ruling against the laws and in the personal interest of the tyrant in the classical and medieval Latin text whenever legitimacy is used in a political sense the contrast is almost invariably with tyranny and it seems never the other two Aristotelian political deformations oligarchy and democracy in different authors the meaning shifts among the three dimensions coming to power in a legal manner ruling legally and in a common interest dynastic heredity was only one legitimate option since there was always the possibility of elective kingship and even a dynastic heir could become a tyrant and hence illegitimate in the Aristotelian Canon of the Scholastic’s the conception was applied on different sides of great political struggles with Kings emperors and even popes denounced as illegitimate and having to assert and justify their legitimacy in terms of the universally shared political theology of the European Middle Ages all three dimensions of legitimacy indicated expressions of the Divine Will while violating any any of its dimensions was not only tyrannical but also an even worse sacrilegious in the midst of religious civil wars during the formation of the modern concept of sovereignty the element of dynastic succession was further down played in Boden’s definition of royal or legitimate monarchy there are various right ways of coming to power including election the model was very permissive and even seizing the throne through Congress could be made legitimate by the just manner of rule I’m citing but then I’m quoting from Bowden monarchies cannot be distinguished one from the other by the method of succession but only by the way they are conducted while at the anti episodes decides the monarch among the monarch Oh max did not seem to have a different concept of legitimacy they to stress the manner and quality of rule even if our like but then they put emphasis on conformity with desiderata nevertheless with the consolidation of territorial king ships each Imperator in renault soooo emperor in his own realm the dynastic potential in a concept derived from the law of Testaments eventually came to the fore

in the doctrine of divine right god’s will is the source of all political legitimacy and is manifested both in dynastic descent and the commands of the monarchical sovereign to be sure this use continually contested by the aristocratic opposition and later by the Universalist doctrines of various Enlightenment thinkers Russo’s ringing declaration and fundamental question I’m quoting him man is born free and everywhere he’s in changed what can make it legitimate these questions this the declaration and the question were the results of a long eighteenth century development nevertheless Rousseau may have been the very first to raise the question of legitimacy addressed to all political formations and regimes his answer should be well known all the classical forms of government can be legitimate if resting on the foundations of popular sovereignty understood as a democratic legislative power yet in spite of the efforts of American French and Latin American revolutionaries this new principle of normative legitimacy did not become universal at least not then another equally important innovation stood in a way superficially the concept of legitimacy introduced by Tali row at the Congress of Vienna was only a restoration of the old roman heredity of the old roman heredity based concept with usurpation as is contrary yet new meanings were involved first dynastic legitimacy could no longer be based on religion in an age when accorded the talero religious sentiment has been dramatically weakened second tradition and longevity could play legitimating role but the same principle was as true for a republic like the Swiss Federation as the main European dynasties it was a contingent fact that in Europe in 1814 most traditional claims are made on behalf of dynasts third restoration could work as far as tally ROM was concerned only with the support of what he called public opinion thus legitimacy was based on if not yet fully identified with belief in legitimacy this belief according to tally raw fourthly is not a one-time thing and thus needs to be reproduced by important concessions to liberal institutions mainly written constitutions and representative bodies finally in an environment in which the traditional forms of rule have been upended by revolution war and usurpation the restoration of legitimacy became an international or rather into European task thus legitimacy was now also supposed to be a function of recognition by other legitimate powers does the concept of legitimacy of collyromas sociological and political against us against the normative ethical concept introduced by Rousseau the most important single author on the problem of legitimacy Max Weber adopted and further developed the sociological conception he took considered belief in legitimacy more relevant to the sociologists of forms of airshaft or domination the normative justification yet of tolerance model he adopted only what he called traditional legitimacy given his belief in power politics and international affairs legitimacy to inter state recognition played no role in his conception but traditional legitimation is only one option as it is well known to Weber his sociology religion told him that next to tradition there is also innovation that priesthood and ministry in moments of crisis and confront are confronted by prophecy prophecy does became thus became the prototype of a verse famous charismatic legitimacy not restricted any more than tradition to purely religious phenomena finally deeply influenced by legal positivism and fully that fully identified the legality and legitimacy and sought to exclude all ethical normative elements from law Weber added legal rationale legitimacy but only as third form whose development rested on rational hierarchical administration and on procedural formalization and predictability in the formation of law vapors highly influential framework has been criticized on a number of interrelated points from the very beginning first and most obviously the three types of legitimate domination could obviously not be accepted as exhaustive vapours attempt to reduce democracy to a type of charisma never fully worked in spite of the existence of clever city reforms combining elections and leadership while he has made interesting observations regarding nationalism there was no way to integrate the demand of the congruence of nation and state and the homogeneity of rulers and ruled into his doctrine it was moreover justly asked by many but the legality on its own could ever legitimate a doubt implicit in Kell

since famous concept of the grew norm that has only raised the question of legitimacy without providing any answer toot here too the absence of democratic legitimacy seriously threatened the framework the kind of conflicts between legality and legitimacy articulated by Carl Schmitt could not find a place in vapours conception finally the comprehensive sociological framework of Weber had little connection to fundamental critical questions as ever since Rousseau about the legitimacy of legitimacy established on purely factual foundations of empirical beliefs these doubts could lead to proposals to abandon the concept of legitimacy yes we know from Thomas Kuhn structures and revolutions however a theory can and should be abandoned only when a stronger conceptual replacement is available I will not now discuss but a theories based on raw power cost-benefit analysis or their combination could do the job of explaining the stability of regimes and the force of the challenges they all face at least at a conference focusing on political concepts we should all assume that concepts arguments as symbolic resources more generally all matter but there are alternative concepts that take the role of cultural meanings and politics seriously as a theory of the role of sin all the commitments in politics the concept of authority is however significantly narrower to legitimacy more tied to specific persons who can authorize and can be regarded as authors and with its affinity to traditional forms of status and prestige cannot account for the symbolic integrations of hosts of modern systems or the power and influence of unauthorized movements and initiatives at most authority is a special concept within a wider theory of legitimacy to my mind therefore the only constant to my mind therefore only the concept of hegemony as developed by Gramsci is a possible competitor of vapers legitimacy they both shared the fundamental assumption that naked domination doesn’t work with us supporting ideas that achieve consent Gramsci’s theory moreover has the advantage of greater fluidity and potentially greater inclusiveness with his concept of passive consent Grum she’s not as focused on the administrative staff as weber in one version of his argument and it has a concept of counter hegemony whose counterpart weber did not develop in spite of his detailed knowledge of the relevant phenomenon rump she’s more conscious of hegemonic conflicts than his weber nevertheless scrumptious hegemony has some important weaknesses too unlike weber his alternative concepts of hegemony are not organized around central symbolic cores thus we cannot easily tell when one model of hegemony replaces another Grum she also did not develop the organizational assumptions linked to different models of hegemony nor did he fully understand the relation of specific options of hegemony building the larger cultural larger cultural context aside from religion and in that department he’s certainly no match for Weber if anything because of his implicit historical optimism or even determinism grump she’s further than even Weber from linking normative and empirical concerns thus while a synthetic combination of Weber and Gramm she may be highly desirable the replacement of legitimacy by hegemony would be hardly justified interestingly perhaps because of the common neglect of normal legitimacy neither weber or graham she understood democracy as the most general and almost inescapable legitimating idea of our age as that costs MIT cover certainly no Democrat the dynastic legitimacy that aliens sought to revive on modern grounds when exposed to his own tests of public opinion collapsed already in the 19th century and then definitely with the end of the old European empires in world war one our kings and queens are comic-book characters that some people keep around and support for purposes of public entertainment the schmidt already proposed to conservatives and legitimist of all sorts to put their trust in dictatorship that could be established on pledge cetera democratic grounds while his intuition concerning dictatorship on democratic foundation turned out to be initially or at least partially time-bound the emphasis on clever cetera democracy that he shared with weber turned out to be far more prescient our representative democracy is less aristocratic today than based on mass or media democracy the homogeneity to that Schmidt understood as essential to democratic aspirations is an important clue to the internal relationship of democracy and nationalism since modern mass democracy is likely to be representative in any plausible model the potentially aristocratic or or oligarchic meaning of representation can be diminished by the assumption of the cultural similarity of

representatives and represented that type of homogeneity is accomplished by the mass media nationalism to is ultimately based on the very same idea that was irrelevant in a pre Democratic age even religious fundamentalism in societies where religion and popular fire to remain overwhelming features of life in the rebellion against secular and often nationalist deeds are parasitic upon the Democratic idea of homogeneity admittedly nationalist regimes and hopefully once based on religious fundamentalism are exposed to conflict based on their implicit Democratic assumptions this has always been true of democracy based on rights and representation that has been often and repeatedly unmask as elite democracy homogeneity contrary to Schmidt is not the only democratic value or even the main one it is ultimately an idea of a result participation that cannot entirely eliminate what it replaces when the ultimate meaninglessness of being ruled by your own kind or your own nation or your own religious affiliation becomes clear other democratic demands can surface but these are can be discovered only by normative and in part counterfactual theory thus the idea that democracy is the fundamental legitimating idea of the age can be taken also in a normative sense that will help exploring the legitimation deficits of nationalist Kleber cetera religious and of course also liberal democracy it is in this sense that harbormaster’s idea of operating both with normative and empirical concepts of democracy can still be supported this idea has both an epistemological and a critical sense the first is based on the hermeneutic assumption that the shared background the idea of democratic legitimacy allows us to understand different types of beliefs and claims none of which in the absence of modern alternatives can fully escape the normative compulsion of that background at the same time the normative concept of democracy helps us not only better and reconstruct the meaning and of various empirical forms but also to find the points of weakness open to challenge on a part of democratically motivated actors while the idea of a legitimation crisis cannot be justified by primarily normative theory the original less sensationalistic title of legatee merchants problema allows us to better understand the symbolic conflicts that we can actually discover not only in late capitalists but also all modern societies for a democratic theory of legitimation to be able to accomplish its own critical tasks it must also be self-critical why does the idea of democratic legitimacy so often open up the door to various populism majoritarian and clevis eteri democracy the answer i think lies with a concept that many take as the synonym of democratic legitimacy namely popular sovereignty this concept can have minimal and maximal negative and positive meanings in the minimal sense it connotes the legal equality of all citizens and perhaps also the linkage of every political status in the state to an election there is little to object to in this version except to indicate the poverty of minimalism but maximally the concept of popular sovereignty means that the people as a whole are supposed to make the fundamental decisions in political life that they actually ought to rule given the given the impossibility of identifying the people as a whole from the very beginning of its supposed sovereignty and even more explaining how such an actor can act and decide the concept allows for two major interpretations one of these is admission of its fictional in other words counterfactual character the other is the frank espousal of the myth along with the search for embodiment in an empiric in empirical agents or able and can successfully claim the right to speak in the name of the new dose abscond itis again the fiction can be relatively harmless if coupled with a negative interpretation namely the denial that any person group or institution can speak in the name of what is always unnecessarily hidden this is the now-famous idea of democracy as an empty space it can be distinguished from a minimalist polyarchy by the insistence on principles that in some way can bring the fiction closer to reality you already mentioned legal equality and deriving officers from elections are such principles along with fundamental rights the separation of powers and the maintenance of an open public sphere an active judicial review sensitive to popular inputs is yet another such principle yet the alternative idea of embodiment is very harmful and can easily lead to the introduction of political institutions incompatible even with the minimal concept of sovereignty

of popular sovereignty unfortunately in the horse race between interpretations the negative idea of popular sovereignty shored up by a variety of principles and the positive notion of embodiment in popular leaders movements institutions supported by majorities or highly mobilized minorities in that horse race the latter idea often has a better chance this is especially song revolutions when some elite or movement can claim the mantle of liberation on behalf of the popular sovereign short of revolutions populist movements are often successful in making similar claims the very vagueness of their ideologies the political theological nature of the construction of reality their insistence on radical friend enemy confrontation and availability of leader through genuine appeal can all can all give populace the advantage in the competition with liberal democracy and its well-known deficiencies the domain of constitution-making is a particularly favorable terrain for populist politics there are even authors who admit that in normal politics the people can be said to be present only to intermediaries none of whom alone are entitled to speak in the name of the whole yet they wind up arguing that to legitimate the framework within which the people are ruled by elected officials the Constitution power requires the real presence of the sovereign variance of this you have been proposed by Bruce Ackerman jockle Andreas and even my friend andreas colobus more importantly constitution makers in several countries including some constitutional courts have also taken the position that the popular sovereign and bodied in referendum or plebiscite can directly can be directly the carrier of the original constituent power it is true that an alternative idea of a plurality of principles of democratic legitimacy in Constitution making is available today it has been developed first in Spain continued in Central Europe and was very much improved upon in South Africa the method shares with all the theories of the constituent power distress on Constitution making process as against the method of imputation proposed by liberals who assumed that only the result a constitutionalist Constitution matters for democratically Missy but it replaces the new method replaces the idea of a unitary subject of the constituent power by the supposedly united people acting to a single organ like a constituent assembly by a set of legitimating principles plurality inclusion publicity legality and consensus to me at least it is these principles that add up to a modern concept of democratic legitimacy variants of this new method of the production of democratic legitimacy have succeeded in some unlikely settings like Colombia and Tunisia to overcome the populist seduction at least so far I call these contexts unlikely because of the revolutionary overthrow of the old regime in Tunisia and the dominance of ideas of the populist theories of the constituent power in Colombia as elsewhere in Latin America in the same period however in broadly similar contexts in Venezuela and Egypt the populist have seemingly won the horse race the same outcome has been achieved in Hungary and is likely to happen in Turkey under leaders claiming the right of a bare majority enabled by this proportional electoral rules to radically replace constitutions again we do not know if these results are definitive or irreversible but we may safely assume that the horse race between the two ideas of democracy will continue in yet other places perhaps without an end in a network of democratic legitimacy what in conclusion I wish to get across is the point that although our age remains an age of democratic legitimacy that hardly means that democracy has won its fight either with its own darker possibilities or even that it could not be challenged or even replaced all over the world by new alternatives these alternatives feed not only on the failure of democracy or the repeatedly authorized and outcomes of democratic claims but especially on the gap between democratic legitimacy and institutional practices or the inability of Democrats to create institutions that wouldn’t that would that would bring the fiction of popular sovereignty significantly closer to reality my presentation is motivated by the desire of testing how our theories of democracy help us to make sense of crisis of what is a crisis so what she doesn’t think about their actual democracies when then when they argue they claim they say that they are in

crisis so I would like to investigate the interpretation and strength of the concept of crisis in relation to this pragmatic in understanding of applied that is applied to democracy why are you so because recently particularly in the so-called that consolidated democracy side of the planet that is Europe but not on Europe essays and talks on crisis of democracy have boomed thousands actually of them have been published recently and the growth of poverty perhaps inequality after several decades of expansion and consolidation of economic and social well-being along with the plague of an employment and the reversible erosion of the world forsake translates into a decline of citizens confidence in democratic institutions within this context two streams of analysis have been developed recently one that connects the decline of trust in democracy with the decline of efficacy of the nation-state at the expense of regional and global agencies and another the situate sit in a causal relationship with the transformations of capitalism both analysis are essential and in a longer paper I discuss about them they brought among guarded Klaus offered to conclude that why the Social Democratic project has been obsolete nothing new has emerged that is able to replace it thus we can say that we live in an interregnum or in Gramm Shahzad catastrophic equilibrium this is what citizen sometimes named as a decline of the pratik legitimacy this is the complex context in which I situate my interest in the concept of crisis as a political concept marine I use the objective political exclusively in relation to democracy you had a radius ago and so another person scholar developing the concept so I don’t go through all these detailed analysis but stick within this topic so here is my basic assumption then the assumption of the authority of the state upon which democracy developed in the modern times is exhaustion along with the decline of industrial capitalism as Fordism has info these are important factors of crisis however they are not the same things as the crisis of democracy even if liberal democracy and social democracy were historically defined after World War two on two assumptions that are very problematic in themselves this is on the compatibility on the one hand between capitalism and democracy below a lot of literature on that and on the other hand the compatibility between nation-states sovereignty and democracy so the crisis of democracy in my view regardless of this cause-and-effect relationship with social and economic decline is a phenomena of his own rights that pertains to a political system a political order some specific procedures institutions and rules which are distinct from the economic organization of society although it is an historical fact that these two levels don’t exist and cannot be understood apart from each other so the question is that when we try to circumscribe the discourse of crisis to democracy some might object that this doesn’t promise to be very interesting as a matter of fact from at least the 18th century onward there has been a persistent refrain of discourses of crisis in both specialized and not specialized writings so democracy’s journaling after all journey started along with a claim of a crisis of his crisis although it was only perhaps in the turmoil of the 1920s that the most dramatic discourse of crisis started become very relevant so crisis was then in the 20s fatal to the constitutional democracy this is not what we experienced today even though discourses on crisis are booming so contemporary diagnosis of crisis pertained today to the sphere of opinion not the constitutional order this is what makes any talk on crisis very tricky now in the domain of polity of politics detection and proclamation of crisis of democratic politician means loss trigger once democracy and trusted

is legitimacy to a constitutional pact that sanctioned organized and limited the power of his institution so Rainer kozilek chosed us to end his masterpiece historical analytical reconstruction of the meanings of the concept of crisis with the following words and he wrote in 1982 crisis remains a catch word used rigorously in only a few scholarly or scientific contests and rightly so because in the domain of politics detection and Proclamation of crisis lost River once democracy and trusted is legitimacy to the constitutional pact that as I said before organised and limited with institutions so unless the constitutional order is subverted or violated detecting crisis becomes very problematic does the question I propose is the following what do we mean when we speak today about the crisis of democracy or what kind of democracy do we refer to when we are with the democracy is in a crisis in the oppor being able to to offer a plan a plausible although tentative answer to these questions I will first of all offer some clear vacation on the meaning of the concept of crisis in their application to democracy and then I will list some main discourses about crisis in recent political theory literature and finally I will propose some conclusions so writing for the last issue of the journal of democracy dedicated to to stopping the crisis of democracy Philip schmitter wrote that we should not talk about crises but we should I’m sorry not talk about decline but about crisis thus presuming that the crisis is a very clear guide am very easy term to be used yet the term crisis is far from clear and uncontested so as we know the Oxford Dictionary defines it in contemporary general perilous by going back to the late Middle English when crisis started being used in medical language to denote the third endpoint of a disease this medical and Latin root was meant to indicate a change in the status of a sick person from better to worse or vice versa in the nineteenth century Jakob Burkhart adopted this meaning to question one way interpretations namely catastrophic developments and to argue that a quote crisis may mean a permanent possibility in history according to him das there are phases of changes in the condition of a person or of a country which are not which are only rarely critical to the point of becoming catastrophic that is the death of the individual or the death of a regime the same Oxford Dictionary mentions at second set of meanings of the cry of the word of the Greek word creases or crisis as decision deriving from renamed aside of cutting and not interrupting regularity or normality every time we have to decide we are in the condition of a crisis since we had to interrupt the current doing with an act of the will that impresses a change this was they used the sense used by facility listen to world or by Kashmir the relation to the decision as the testing power of the solvent in this sense crisis means breaking divorce an act of the will fight and quarrel all of which suggests a disjunction where our condition is either one thing or another from the Greek cancels another third set of meanings which is much more directly linked to democracy and which guides my presentation that is judgment trial and critical attitude Aristotle used them when he talked about the decisions made according to the procedures in the domain of justice the country sees and about the citizens as having the authority to make decisions as okay critical the diary of discussion and collective deliberation defines this Diaries – defines the stages of political Liberty with the implication that crisis is most necessary for the community representing what is at once just and subtly this dire keys crucial for me finally the idea of prices as judgment kozilek tells us transmigrated latin and then to the Greek and Latin translation of the old and new Testament that restated the identification of

crisis with judgment but in a completely new rendering as the last judgment or the apocalyptic expectations the crisis as the end of the world with of the of the world will finally give us bring us to justice so in sum the Latin the Greek meanings of the concept of crisis suggest the following policy me for whose implication to politics and democracy are very interesting after time first a radical break either-or situation dictatorial revolution whatever second a process of political and judgment and deliver judgments that takes of the system of decision making in the constitutional government and is ingraining political liberty and third Asteria logical judgment guided toward an end that he is already written or in a new a talk or a new order or catastrophic subtle and/or apocalyptic scenario it is also possible to derive from here two inferences to where your friend during this taxonomy relation to democracy in one sense crisis is endogenous to the system since it denotes politics in his own right as the art of by means of which we discuss and make decisions on public affair and in public and in another science crisis the Nosa radical break situation of exceptionality and/or emergency that can take a catastrophic characteristic something that constitutional democracy is not supposed to face so we need to keep in mind all this rich constellation of meanings of crisis and politics when we approach the viscose about the science of the crisis of democracy in our parallels yet again to what kind of democracy we refer to when we diagnose crisis presumably the Ling the kind of democracy citizens referred to is one in which they live a constitutional representative democracy the institutions of this form of democracy started to being designed in the 18th century to allow the citizen to resolve peacefully that disagreements and countries but without finding any final solution never so freedom civil and political and majority rule break of the unanimity are thus the principles and the procedure that characterize democracy so that if one of the two declines that would be a real sign of radical crisis that is not manageable with ordinary democratic procedures these led scholars to argue the democratic regimes stand opposite to both fervent evolution and our total autocracy as final solutions to problems or yet within the Democratic family not of theories agree on considering majority rule as fundamental to some unanimity is the norm in majority rule the safety net when Harmon is broken so democracy is a process and democracy is a substantive idea of unity are two very different ways of rendering democracy in different ways of rendering the crisis an example of a substantive conception that has a great impact in today discourse on crisis would be some and Huntington theory of clash of civilization an ideological approach that assumes democracy is rooted in a unitary set of value cultural religious national that give meaning a strength to the political community and his government crisis when emerges is a catastrophic as it rests on an interpretation of democracy that has no procedure at its core but sent but cultural identity of some kind in relation to which procedures are essentially technical method at most to paraphrase kozilek we may say that is render ago the crisis correspond to a transfer to politics of the monotheistic meaning of crisis as final judgment which projects history toward the eschatology of either salvation of the nation thus it is not this view but the procedural approach that can give us some useful guides to detect and interpret contemporary talks on the crisis of democracy however procedural conception is not a universal family either I will delay I would list three large groups within a a minimalist or institutional view a second a deliberative view and the first one that I mention the beginning relation to Aristotle idiotic view conception let’s see the minimalist one Schumpeter and company this may be defined as a state

to school theory here is an example the trilateral commission report on the governor democracy’s in 1975 with a title the crisis of democracy the crisis of democracy was actually a crisis of governability provoked by the growth of social movements of concentration in almost all democratic societies so Social Democratic policies in Europe and the Great Society in the u.s. were the outcome or the increase of state functions in the attempt to answer the claims from society so this was an excess of democracy than words and that was a crisis it could be stopped only by stopping social policies or repressing social movements or deflating them so the status quo conception engendered the following paradox it narrow democracy to electoral procedures yet could not make peace with effect that those procedures would open the door to citizen participation and claims so representation after all is a form of advocacy the paradox reveals a lack of understanding of representative government which is a dire key of both the right to vote and the right to formulate opinion but in this case instead access of democracy is part of the game is not a pathology contrary to what the minimalist would think so in the minimalist view the crisis of governability could be stopped only by claiming by continuing participation from below and by interrupting the welfare state from above neoliberal dismantling of social policy today and the repressive state are the longer a message of the trilateral the perfectionist Project concealed under the detection of crisis of governability in 40 years that vision of democracy would become victorious today’s decline of political participation and all social policies makes many consolidated democracy in the land of neoliberal perfectionism called minimalism the deliberate theory is the anti is the alter of the anti minimalist conception and it is a branch of critical theory and for this reason naturally keen to make the concept of crisis a learning tool yet Elfi represents us we then ideation of the democratic society that metabolizes crisis insofar as it affects a transition to a progressively more integrated society indeed if democracy is defined as according Hamas as a rule of good reason good reasons and if this requires an institutionalized basic structure of justification in which reasons can be assessed among three and equal beings then one may infer that democracies permanently in a state of actualization of his ideal of a perfect integration of citizens as good reasoner’s who are capable of and willing to transcend their partial views and correct advises so whereas out loaded participation from below and especially social programs by the state where the main concerns of the trilateral of the conservative to habermas the concern is precisely the withdraw of the citizens from reasoned deliberative participation and of the state from his commitment to take care of the condition for that participation so factions on the one hand particularly interest on the other in a world political partisanship are the main expressions of a crisis because a symptom of a not well being integrated society in which impartial deliberation becomes intopia at best and elections remain the only formal expression of autonomy so a crisis that is no longer a learning tool is a crisis of social rationalization this is a Burma’s partisan discourses along with organized interests prove that social and political groups take up the game of politics in order to make the review win the state so party democracy corresponds to a battlefield like politics in which the counting of votes only gives legitimacy to the institution as another term minimalist minimalism habermas Theory presents us with a hierarchy of two models a superior one which corresponds to the liberal to democracy and the second best one which narrows legitimacy to the electoral method and the majority rule so although the liberally theory claims against this dualism between ideal and real the discourse of the crisis it implies invites us to think that the electoral and party democracy belongs to a non ideal democracy although it is a functional mechanism to sustain democratic institutions the normative or

ideal state of democracy is one of well integrated society in which justification of claims is a duty toward others to be performed according to impartiality of judgment sincerity freedom from influence Indust autonomy in conclusion the culture discuss civilization classical civilization the status quo discourse and the deliberative discourse add this in common they interpret the crisis as a failure of empirical democracies to impersonate or to match with or to adhere to an ideal model of unity or of perfect equilibrium or or rationality none of them are content with accepting a conception of democracy as a permanent governor of crisis the first because it connects democracy with some strands of something values the second because it puts their commedia point within institutions so that any movement from outside is a crisis and the third one because it has a an innate I’m sorry very well it has an innate mistress in complex majority rule impact policies which are at the most the second not the best which instead according to me at the structural condition of representative emperimental democracy and here we are and this is the very last part as we saw at the beginning aristotle suggested a way out in ad ARCIC approach the interconnection between in discussion and decision not deliberation for a rationalization discussion as a condition of expression of our differences and imperfections if you like these interpretation of politics allows us to make sense of today’s talk of crisis as not simply pure crisis or pure democracy but of a specific angle democracy a parliamentary democracy based on parties today we are in a crisis in this case representative democracy is a dire key of 1236 that keeps in communication the procedural springing from elections and the free domain of doctor discuss of discussion political associations and so on so forth no intention of rationalizing the domain of opinion or achieving an integrated general will but the aknowledge meant the citizens judgment ended enunciation of ineffective decisions and social these unions are the only possible are only possible within a political legal system that has political autonomy of the citizens does voting and boys at its core the mattress is permanently domain of critical politics it is a solid democracy when an until citizen can mobilize and have some chances to press the system for or against politics they judge an agreement or in contradiction with the democratic premises when these change declines we are entitled to talk about the crisis of citizenship power within a representative of parliamentary democracy as the Greek Minister I’m sorry I cannot pronounce well the name Jurgis Carter ago gallows right been said recently if we cannot change economic policy through election then elections are irrelevant elections are irrelevant and it is usually to vote is right today’s discourse on the crisis of democracy does refers precisely to parliamentary democracy built on Elections and political parties and the very greek demonstrations on may 5th 2010 in front of the parliament they shot burning down burning down the Parliament I mean of course the Greek cities I said good 2 Vols the fittest ISM against their elected politicians and doubt about other power of voting the parliamentary system is ingrained in a political sphere made by parties the part is an association of citizens I quote which brings and like-minded individuals together in order to secure them actual influence in shaping political affairs this concern any effort to discredit the parties or to make them the power of the few notables represents a disclaim of democracy at the end of democracy representative system as we know today so where I am where we are going from here we are going toward the conclusion that tells us that today in fact the real crisis has to do with this kind of representative democracy because as andrew anticipated me before because of the transformation of elections into play beside that is from choosing

between parties of fighting over identification of party now is simply a kind of plebiscite of the leader which is another story is another kind of democracy so the parliamentary system is ingrained in fastest and if you destroy them you destroy this para mentally system here we are again I had the long section on Manning I think I’m too late how much I ever 50 second good so I finished today there is a kind of happiness with the audience democracy this metamorphosis from party democracy into Audion democracy why so if the more in fact if parties are after all an oligarchy we know that then why not to accept audience because it’s more Horizonte is headless is a large and structured power but this is indeed at the end of representative democracy which is according to me a big disgrace a great because until now we don’t know yet how to deal with the organization of democracy as a form of government outside of of institutions like elections and parties and so on so forth a majority rule so close when citizens used to vote for parties with platform the exercise their judgment on future politics when they make or vote in a plebiscite they instead judge on the character of the leader they trust in the leader they put themselves in the end of the leader so democracy in this case passes from parliamentary to Blissett early to conclude today’s crisis points to a rearrangement of the relationship between democracies to authorities active participation and participation in the form of opinion and ultimately it is a decline of a particular type of democracy parliamentary and party democracy I was thinking you to say and I suspect that participation in dressing that trance of plurality and everything multiples in mechanistic participation are also necessary once it is established so the question would be becomes if you want to employ a minimalist framework I mean Andrew mentioned legal quality election rights over spend but actually not of course is always written better and also with me the more the informal avenues of movies etc as constituted them as not just that not as signaling a crisis but it’s constitutive of participation in democracy and this week we’ve sort of known for sometimes the question though that I have because so much is on the table is the father I’m not so sure although I really want to I don’t I’m not sure how we can conjure away or if we can completely and you or on the trip or I guess you might say another formulation would be and I go enough release might be presented armed for example the fundamental rules of the game so in Greece you could pump of all these armaments because the fundamental liberalism again rested on consensus other phones your name so that’s the first question how much we can counter that away because of course MIT’s crisis of parliamentary democracy reference such a radical segmentation and other lack of women on the ultimate rules about any rules not be given once but any rules of the constitutional and a political game that there was no chance except for what would be ultimately ended in crime so for the sit here that’s the first question then the second question has to do with we need we we would need some criteria for distinguishing between those kinds of informal presences I mean movements etc in public sphere that they are not to compromise non-violence but I don’t know whether it would be goals when something like to think of that so some criteria for distinguishing between those kinds

of actions demonstrations etc that really would undermine and the goal would be in some sense to undermine and put in place a kind of homogeneity that would obviously rule out certain segments of the population and ultimately without democratic processes so having distinguish between those kinds of presences of actors the demos and the kinds that are actually would would constitute or lead to or to seek for the democratization of our you know rather oligarchy of democracies and more justice rather than in doses these are the two questions that that the papers lead us to and yes I think first of all that the topic of the crisis should be disappearing and something else is coming out we don’t know yet what but in the form of technocratic governance or in the form of levy caesarean this is an important topic question substance in unity since I am in a permanent condition of crisis to Tilian sense if there is a unity this is a head not what we start with for some agreements on on on how to disagree this is all but if you put something more then you end up through by discriminating which chat widget so for this reason I tend to stay away away with the day you know kind of clash of civilization it makes me truly the other one is the creek delete the criteria I don’t know this I am against personally I think they don’t espouse and I don’t agree with militant democracy not at all meaning unless say we don’t use violence we have to risk freedom and political freedom means that there are also actors we don’t like among us and this is what we have to deal with we cannot repress otherwise we we we never stop repressing those like so we end up with one the only one at the end remains medium you perhaps so but this it isn’t no deep inside of Schmidt of course given the potentially aristocratic nature of representation in fact the structurally aristocratic nature of representation you know historically the representation emerged from aristocratic society given that problem it’s difficult to achieve the the identification of of the ruled with the rulers without homogeneity I mean correct me if you don’t think but yeah that’s why I’m asking he’s mitra delivers but in any case I think this is the the idea and this idea can’t just be dismissed because of the deep flaws of representative democracy now what gene is raising then is which kind of homogeneity right if it is a homogeneity of an ethnic group you get at no democracy or ethnocracy right I mean that leads to that or if if it is homogeneity of religion you can get to some kind of theocracy so so I think what I think I already said it so maybe I’m just repeating that maybe we should seek the homogeneity and in procedural structures in other words Republican structures all the way down as one might say and we didn’t exclude that he never really said what the homogeneity should be based on and of course if he could convert democracy into pure participatory democracy which is somehow latent in the in the underlying idea then of course

you wouldn’t need homogeneity because you’d have something better but I think that is highly unlikely and so in some sense the question of homogeneity cannot be cannot be just gotten rid of yeah yeah is for and I think it’s relevant to both papers and I think that some issues that Jean raised my question kind of follows from that this question of the crisis of parliamentary democracy and also kinda Schmidty and collapse of democracy into a kind of fled the satori identification with the Caesar as leader and so the question Andrew is about the way that you portray what you call a maximalist theory of popular sovereignty that has a relatively benign and safe manifestation and the kind of look for empty space of power and then you say there’s a more dangerous form which you associate with embodiment right in other words so debates around how we I mean this is the great SH meaning question that the question comes around how the popular will is formed right now it seems like both you and Nadia have in being understandably worried about these questions of embodiment and the assumptions of homogeneity that they assume have one idea of embodiment in mind which is primarily a kind of C xerus identification with the leader right and and that’s occasionally I mean that’s the part of the point Jacobin logic of the democracy and instruments work but it seems to me that there’s another way to get at that question so this is my my I question to you like isn’t there another way of approaching that problem of embodiment where it is not simply resigning yourself to the empty space of power in the LeFort Ian kind of way but where it opens up a real discussion about how that popular will gets formed institutionally represented in by in other words the limitations with existing parliamentary systems of presentation should precisely be what is a for a question not falling back and I don’t know if I’ve been falling back on the party system and existing forms of representational democracy are enough in other words and keeping open that question of embodiment highlights that as the political question that is the political question for the status of the possibility mccr attic possibilities of contemporary politics so it seems like that’s maybe a less dangerous and a more democratically productive way of getting at these questions let me start this time a great question but let me just correct one impression I don’t think that embodiment to an assembly or to a referendum or to a movement are ultimately less dangerous for democracy tent and in a leader I think all of them can have very similar consequences yet of course leadership too can have good consequences I mean this is empirically various but I think embodiment okay but this doesn’t change the meaning of your question so what you’re asking I don’t know I think probably everybody’s familiar with with Edmund Morgan’s inventing the people and of course this argument was already produced by Francis Fury with respect the French Revolution others roseola long before others follow him the idea is that embodiment is is benign to the extent that each embodiment can be challenged if there’s still a kind of public space where the embodiment of one can be challenged Morgan it was first along Parliament then convos army then the leader in the end Parliament again it’s always different embodiments which struggle in the same space over who has the right I’m it’s a description of the revolution scenario I think this is actually a good description of course one should not forget what the costs are as one proceeds through this to this this contest I would say that I would easily go along with the idea that that that each form of embodiment should be contested when it appears and it is part of democracy try to recover but I think the idea that that that any of the stages is benign was Cromwell’s army of benign claimant was a long parliament a highly oligarchic institution had benign claimant Cromwell himself each stage itself is actually an authoritarian stage in some sense of the word now I know Ernesto la claw in his book on unpopular ISM seems to suggest this alternative model of embodiment but I’ve written a long article against it and I I think that that though it’s a democratic model of sorts it is not the one that that we should we should

ultimately go with this is the way to deal with the question of embodiment of this embodiment even if they you have different parties or different identifications as involving each of them are temporary in action all the time because the doctor is an orphan condition for change isn’t it neither one or the other and this makes us free citizens we should really recover that instead of going through for this unanimity or this ideological mystification that is very quick his sense of relativity of all position that we are we may not like a the people don’t like sofas they I think like more them than others because it is the idea of changing that democracy is very importantly connected to so this is my stuffy my point is also missing both seem to be one by the way I I’m struggling with myself in the sense that my the by the discussion we had already it seems that the concept that we are discussing is not legitimacy or this concept is the concept of your concepts yes the strange thing about this concept is that it needs both your constituent to a conceptual impact and for the following reason and I’m only talking constantly about real politics if you permit me for a second the the advent of democracy or the emergence of democracy into the history into the machine creates a it seems to me a very strange situation to the machine because democracy is the only mode of politics that six legitimacy in itself logical or radical self referential mode for this reason it is always and you said it both of you one way or another always email legitimation Christ which one I’d say also reverse you can see the verses in the reverse sense that live cinema see sort of all is the critical point of remarks or again democracy throws the concept of legitimacy in the crisis all of these are different raisings of the same situation now as a result of this part as a result of this conceptual impasse of both Bryson and democracy we see me it seems to to to the paradoxical consequence of that is to seek legitimacy in external forms and forces which would be popular sovereignty or parliamentarism constitutional order I actually see those as external as a result create any further in legitimation crisis because it’s going against itself is going against its own super quick reference cards right so in real politics against against an avoidable to transmit to not sing about that in real politics they’re little nation crisis is always about those external forms now Parliament exactly but the problem with with a democratic mode of understanding politics is the fact that we must come to terms with the fact that were always negative in Christ we cannot worry about with us simply have to assume that we’re always losing mention Christ and accordingly without seeking to resolve and by other form I because it is very hard to use even the word democracy to I also think that is a radically – project project radical imminence there is no way of and sometimes you grab in order to limit this imminence or to stand somewhere you grab it and say some traditions outside of the border of democracy or something else but this is the question that we have to ask ourself is well what does it mean for a democracy is an existing democracy to feel itself if citizens to feel itself to be content enough to be able to say ok DC Morse is working sometimes you know there is a moment in which

this and this and this corresponds to the ability of citizens to feel that they have the power in their voice and in their decisions to make some influence in their life if the lack of utility is the problem that the futility is the problem we the sense of of uselessness as you’re a Greek friend the minister used to say what’s the point of voting this is the sense of uselessness of the instrument of democracy this is for me the crisis of democracy beyond the form of democracy experimental could also have the same crisis in indirect and I think that you can speak about the crisis of democracy in my mark right now as much as environment and of course is a huge do you well I know I know that on some level that could imagine that democracy is always in crisis I don’t even think these really ethnocracy is in crisis I wish it were but it’s not you know what I said ethnocracy right but anyhow even that could be debated and discussed so it’s just because you and I agree doesn’t mean it’s the final version the subject but in any case it’s not in crisis whatever the hell it is I wish it were but it’s not and Norway is not also so I think that I would not start off with this idea that it’s always in crisis it’s always contestable has a legitimate itself I also would not say that that the various mechanisms of democracy are external to it it’s a very philosophical idea because of it’s a highly philosophical idea that in a sense you know the Philosopher’s we have a idea of democracy and then any one of these forms somehow is so different and it really is that it must be external I try to even nationalist governments are somehow democratic I even consider Ernesto reluctantly I must say that populist democracies to a kind of democracy I mean I’m sad about that but it is you know and so and and and of course what is right in what you ask is that if you do believe in democracy you are facing a task and that task I try to explain as trying to have a normative model which ultimately means that the that the ruled really participate in the business of rule in some really serious and intrinsic way that this idea should be translated institutional terms that make this idea less fictional more real but that’s not a crisis that’s a that’s that’s the definition of a project it’s a project we should all have but in any case I don’t see the existing forms in crisis even because some people have this project this project actually could lead to the reconstruction of democracies I mean crisis to me means I think how I must was quite right about this in in the book which I think was called legitimation problems and not legitimation crisis it was quite right is that a system is in crisis if we actually get too close to the threshold principles which would actually which would actually involve a transition from that system to another and I started with vimar I think that time our democracy was obvious in crisis because in a three year period between 1930 1933 it was stressed from the authoritarian system I mean that’s that to me was a crisis but it’s not the only example of a moment in which there is some distrust of democracy he has really a crisis of democracy maybe a crisis of something but he since he thinks there’s no alternative he thinks crisis talked as I understood it is being abused and I kind of agree with that and I hear the abuse in the following way I thought nadia initial brackety namely that we could talk about

a crisis of democracy wholly independent of economic issues as simply systemically you said there are two dimensions and you want to focus on but I I understand the issue as Creston crisis I understand the question of usually futility I say trust at what point do we have a trust in those institutions and what are the grounds for distrust and I think it for grounds for distrust is powerlessness and and the source of the powerlessness has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with capital I mean I take it there is I will use my strange my single favorite page HOA art where he says the genius of liberal democracy right is the idea of a monopoly over legitimate violence he said there’s only one problem as long as their system again inequality that monopoly over violence is a form of oppression and will be a form of society attacking habit itself I take it that we have all these permutations in democracy not because we trusted no trust democracy it’s because we cannot live with the system of productions we have and our politics are inadequate to it so we go from one to another rather randomly but I don’t see any analytic purpose in thinking that this is really about varieties of the wave of thinking about democracy these are movements of desperation about powerlessness of the relationship between politics and economics so there isn’t a crisis of the democratic legitimation there’s a social crisis which is something very good holy great profit overproduction under-consumption it was quite an interesting exercise since he’s a great writer and and some of his followers like I was a Luxembourg Hill furling we’re all great writers and writing interesting stuff and of course we were doing this in the midst of an unprecedented boom of the capitalist economies which showed no signs of succumbing to any of these three or four phenomena I just mentioned so Kossoff and that period may be reading still Marx thought of a really ingenious solution which I think it’s close to what you’re saying actually nothing wrong with that because these are really important authors and the books remain good even if they’re no longer read because of commodity fetishism in intellectual makes people read new and better things even when older things are still there that are quite useful but ok you know what you’re saying is that that that the political phenomena which people might perceive as connected to – – tensions problems even potential crisis are also linked to the fundamental economic and and well ok trends which which then are met which are managed as as they did well that’s at least this is their theory which were managed by political institutions which themselves then take over and I think this was really an ingenious theory and what follows after that which everybody calls I don’t like the term because it’s so you need to mention the reductive neoliberalism in all the Western countries has been a neoliberal reconstruction of capitalism I don’t know you know I mentioned Wymore before of course there are other places that could be mentioned I didn’t see any of the late capitalist countries get close to a collapse of political legitimacy or even rationality in this time so I think yeah I think it is it is true that that their fundamental tensions problems and of course the oral linked to injustice in in capitalist society but I think we’re not gonna find out either by by just reading the old books in this case I don’t mean often however much but I

mean uncle Charlie himself I mean not gonna find out what these crises are going to be all about and when they come and I think we have opportunities which are not necessarily linked linked to crisis for example if one actually thinks of a Democratic reconstruction is crisis the best occasion for it I would say it’s not I would think I would be much more optimistic about the possibilities of Democratic Change in in moments different than for example what Greece’s undergone now I think Greece is not in good condition right now to democratically reconstruct its it’s institutions I think it’s more likely other countries where where one can actually differentiate between between economic and political phenomena have a better chance to to to produce alternatives now maybe they won’t be motivated that’s the paradox is that economic economic crisis provides the motivation economic crisis may provide the motivation but but it’s a bad opportunity and and we have great opportunities Norway could make itself into a utopia on earth today because it is so damn rich but they don’t do it they don’t do anything else then social democracy has done for 30 years or 40 or even more in Norway so maybe that’s a paradox and it’s okay it’s okay but actually sometimes it’s actually in our way some things don’t translate that easily in terms of what the empirical is we’re looking at and sometimes I think for those of us who were sort of ethnographically and historically the normative gets confused for us because when I hear the two of you talking what I hear is a model of thinking democracy that is based on the citizen that’s the word that I mean I mean it’s not right that’s and when I think is in a photographer and an historian I think of the ways in which democracy can’t deal with the non citizen with the undocumented with the reality of that citizenship is just such a limited good and I know you’re and you say oh I’ve already incorporated that and I’m sure you have I’m sure it’s partly a matter of what’s already assumed in your conversation between you but that I can’t assume from where I come from and it seems as if what you’re all talking about is a form of democracy that emanates from what rights the citizen is going to have rather than what is the sort of face of our world which is so much about what the non citizen has or doesn’t have and I I’m sure that it’s already sort of incorporated into these frames but it’s you know the Edmund Morgan that I know is a different one than you know Andrew the Edmund Morgan I know is the one who studied the Republic to show that there was no Republic without the exclusions from the very start on which it was based that’s the Eman Morgan that from the very beginning it was the non citizen that find the Republic so I just would love to hear you both talk about and say oh you know of course or don’t or ignore it or whatever I I would say there is in the mode of democracy contradiction or a tension between a universalistic a partisan the idea of inclusion or treating everybody equally of being universalistic but there is also a way of making decisions that requires a specific place its specific number of citizens or a group of people which is not the globe and not even time and so these attention is inside the mine it’s within the body of the world for democracy which is a complex world it’s not simply making this easy to majority believe in one vote is also that when we speak about safe based markers or a geographical

definition the daily mutation and then why should we should that you arrived again there is policeman soon as democracy becomes embodied in space or relation stage a question of all there’s the question of the article 13 regret the question of exclusion becomes becomes a kind of explosive final problem that puts into question the very universal principle of them which is your secret so this is a serious question what would you do about it nice to tell you what I will do you wouldn’t like it because you would think it’s to reform it’s to ameliorate if it improves on some people create new problems again would be excluded so I know already rested to my answer and there’s no we’re either but but but but you see if as long as the two of you and others who think and that’s most of my students of course who things like this if you just insist on on on not giving that answer you’re always in the position of accusing me and not of a new exclusion and never really saying what your Universal inclusion would be like because if you move to federal states the problem would come up again if you have regional organizations like Europe the problem is right there on european doorstep even international organic community of the globe which i imagine none of you Foucault never would have none of you even then you would have the problem of those who really try to bring that community down and who act in such a way which is totally incompatible with all as you know so what would you do with the ISIS if you have this community of the globe would you include them too and how would you do it I mean I know this this is something that that that three-quarters of people here will think is absurdly conservative answer to you but but you really at one point just please give me an answer is what you would do yeah you of course would but I asked them got you position inverse exponent of you that’s not your case she made a completely I don’t even understand what you just said I understand what what what I said is that Anne’s point was not a universalist point was not a universe Silas clay it was beyond that it was not it was not pattern it was not part of the peripheral universe and distinction but I’m I’m not going to be hunt is the way we have many questions I just want to clarify this now because all this happens this always happens rhetorical answers are given of all kinds which continue one question we’ll talk more about this but the meat we are going to take two questions because we have several so towards the time Demetri and Rebecca and then we have tomorrow and democratic legitimacy is in crisis I think it should be here how it would go against not just everything of crisis as a catastrophe I don’t think that crisis necessarily needs to be catastrophic catastrophic is the end of all things here I’m much more with Hegel and Marx who suggested without crisis you would have complete stagnation yeah nothing would move anyway anywhere anymore so I think crisis is necessary in the sense of course it you could say that there are historical crisis crisis that leads from but then I take it that for you and democratic legitimacy is the end of the story you know let’s see so we are there we will be there inevitably there will be no way out maybe it’s a good thing right but also you yourself suggested in your talk that the democracy democratic legitimacy is the only one which is self-reflective yeah and self reflection is a critical self-reflection as I take it to be the moment of crisis view this is a constant

way of judging also the final shot shot comics maybe sometimes inventing them in order to sort of rejuvenate itself and so I think that in a sense democracy is a this machine is critical and I think well that’s he’s already for my question is fine question is not about the exclusion of people who are not part of the demos the question is about the division within the demos between those who are taking part in ruling and those who cannot take part in ruling so my question is is this division that is in quick-quick inside the big concept of democracy I mean part of the demos is not is not counted at all is this essential for democracy if this if this is the case then how how then it it’s clearly it must be clear that democracy must be in constant crisis because okay and and and if it is not the case and and if you think that democracy can overcome this split within it then where there is such a democracy except for Norway maybe well it’s not you know one can make fun I’m sure our service not yet my turn I mean one can make fun of Norway but but Norway is not Israel that is for sure it’s not ethnic rata kin that way and as a matter of fact in answer to some of your questions Norway has in fact quite interesting policies in relationship integration even of strangers so a foreigners but certainly one cannot say this a division as there is between Arab and Jewish citizens you know you have the greatest system with its millets and with its system of political regime I would not say that this is the typical situation for democracy there neither militant Muslim which divided the population and one way nor is there an exclusion of the body of the citizens from even the possibility of ever being in a coalition which is going to happen now because very likely the IRA part is the United parties will get 1314 seats in the Knesset and and I’m sure that even if Hertz of wins they will not be included in any coalition government that means of course that there are two types of citizens in Israel right I fully concede that but but this is the general situation of democracy and if it’s to case well I I don’t even understand why you would say because then the question is so what would you do little changes if Israel could be turned into Norway would make no would imply no change at all why would you want why would you even engage in politics I think the thing to do would be to become an artist or a relation to democracy they do crisis it’s a permanent you know transformation change is the only possible way of factors so I stood the one as for mine Oracle all loops inside attained I think the democracy was always able to find always try to find procedural or institutional way of solving the parameter exactly should in Decorah and did so with lottery with direct presence of the people he said assembly with the universal services can be besides an issue it is exactly pristine Ian’s Investec are not part of the coalition problem in Israel I’m speaking about the people who are outside in principle and cannot be made part of the demos and there are still those who are

governed a world and oppressed by the same regime so this is my question was not about Israel it was about the concept of democracy is democracy split in this way in principle is not talk to us democracy there I mean made by the people coming from the earth does not come from that same example but this is true but this the way of music democracy is inclusion in the decision-making process open the floor to the criticism of that kind of subjection and today we are exactly every time there is a question of inclusion that is a question of suggestion and democracies and the question rightly so because it is a life of a self denying sense when you know immigrants are not included or immigrants are first off every time you do so from the evil one you denounce the situation in the name of war they don’t precisely in the united states but yet slavery Niki’s thank you what if I want you wanted to free the slaves and you wanted to do other things dude you’re a Radical Republican yet on the Jim Crow what did you want to do and then I’ve got a civil rights movement what did you want to do so of course what do you want to do don’t you want to make the air you co citizens equal citizens don’t you want to actually either have two states or one state if it’s one state then equal citizenship for Arabs and Jews within the one state if you don’t want those things what the hell do you want – because we’re late was not within the split was not within the demos the split because the demos did not include anyone who was not an Athenian citizen so to say that the theme of the the distinction or the tension exists if even within the village is it’s just inaccurate historically and also to remind us all the fact that idea democracy is a term that actually is being used disparagingly that in in entrant in entrant text the word demos is there is the affirmative term it is not the term democracy so we might just keep that in mind but I wanted to actually go back and and think along the lines of Annie’s question and also be the flat for the other flood waters here one here and I want to go to the question of crisis as Croesus in this critique and think about the example that you gave Nadia of the citizens on Syntagma Square having been fed up completely and crying towards the Parliament to burn and and this is my this is my question I mean whether whether whether we think of crisis from Kozelek or from habermas or whether we think of crisis from total or no I think that there is a problem that on a certain level gene brought up which is the problem of the grounds on which we actually define or or arrive at a definition of consensus of serf of common understanding or of sameness I would say so the the citizens who stood in front of the Parliament and yelled burn down the whole over the Battle of the Parliament this of parliament we’re primarily the members of the fascist neo-nazi groups in Athens this is something that and also in private has has mentioned other times you know how do you how do you actually separate how can you tell how can you see that which is critique from that which actually produces what Kozelek would say a non-productive

crisis right so what is it that separates that allows us and this is where Annie and I are standing on the same on the same leg right I mean we you know apology have faced that we know how how we can go about to think about how to help us understand who is the new Nazi who is the one who wants to burn down the Parliament and not replace it with anything who is the non democratic citizen but but what is the the approach that I want I want to ask you to think interdisciplinarily here what is the approach that you can you can give us from political theory or sociology to think about this particular problem right and how can we actually tell who is the friend or the enemy of democracy and in cases of such of such effort positionality okay slightly different tone and I was very taken by Jay’s question about this inadequacy of democracy as government to confront an economic inequality and it made me think of some of the recent rhetoric of what it means to bring democracy to a country that hasn’t had it you know they were trying it in Iraq and not you know through American militarism and so on and it occurred to me when there was a lot of that rhetoric that democracy had become a very emptied concept that there was nothing left it was just a meaningless American flag waving piece of that was being taken to a country without realizing that democracy is built from the and up you know let’s throw posters of democracy over Iraq and so my question is in your view is how much is democracy actually meant to include now are they is it an issue of just citizenship of just governance does it include military organization economic organization if Jays question is right in your questions is right it it seems to be asking for a limit to be put on the concept of democracy to recognize in that is the quintessential vision and us Adam option is unable to do so it’s limited self and actually it reverse against itself is own so it’s important the two sexes the two situation economic and politics we separate in order to analyze them but they are not separated I agree on that with that Rousseau needs to say you know there are there is a condition minimum of equality then needs to be give this should be an ideal trait in relation to which we are able to to decide the factual reality of our existing democracy which is true what according to it is on my field but many political science some political scientists they think that democracy majority rule be your make actually was not so able to introduce elements of particularly in Latin American countries or a non-european canvas of redistribution they were not able to deliver justice they are just society or social justice so but this is an issue that it’s important would like with me the kind of different I don’t know I read the newspapers they were not simply novice and not only that other people also this is doesn’t scan that mister this is not a scandal for me that we shout against the pattern it is part of the game in some sense not even is a scandal there are new fascist around this is part of the game and this is a way for us to be more and more assertive and more and more able to enter this competition with them this is their risky game but this is the Democratic game so we cannot eliminate so those we think that there can be dangerous in the future because in this game will minute everybody so this is not the work the democracy immediately for this reason

they appealed to procedures makes me come to this outcome of inclusion in the runs for Parliament and Feeney turns out to be doing one of the great defenders of liberal freedoms in Parliament against various colonies so in the country like that maybe you’re not as worried as the second was recent are areas might be worries but this is not the essential point actually targeting a different topic which historically is linked to our democracy historically it was mostly nation states of the United States a little different that that modern democracy as we know it with all its faults and all its gaps between fiction and reality have developed and I think from from and on the questions really began to target and I think this is true for last few questions target this issue whether this frame is the right frame to solve any political questions including the problem of democracy and and I think it’s not I agree disrespect with the question is I don’t agree with the the pupils of powerless like Ben Habib and and others who think that cosmopolitan arrangements are already here that’s really ridiculous yes there are some cosmic elements international law there are some institutions which are dedicated to to to those matters but but to say that this is our reality is absurd given what we see all over the place but I think we do have to think beyond this nation-state frame now whether we do it completely outside of democracy or not I think is another question because I think most of us here would think that whatever regional International structures to develop date to then before should fall under a democratic project I mean what they should be authoritarian or they should be exclusionary or they should be based on an ethnic group I mean of course all of us immediately will adopt the democratic conception in order to try to see how these institutions whether it is a World Bank or IMF or anything else could be transformed and of course they all need transformation plus building new ones too I think we’d have to raise the question whether what political form they should have they’re not just going to be cosmopolitan as such they’re gonna be cosmopolitan if they will ever exist in some political form and I think in that sense we’re still in the age of democracy I don’t think anybody in this room could imagine any other form for any of these things than democratic I mean if you can please say so they say what that is and I am sure not a single person in this room will come up with an alternative form of Organization for Europe let us say accept a more democratic one that the current one obviously has huge Democratic deficit so reconstruct Europe so what would you do make it authoritarian let a new Napoleon run it what it would have thought we’d have to be democratic no we will serve the entire program an hour later so people come back here at 2:45 after all we’re missing a speaker in the afternoon so we’ll actually gonna make it would end exactly the time