Постдемокрация след кризите

by Colin Crouch, Колин Крауч

В издадената през 2003 г. „Постдемокрация“ Крауч твърди, че зад фасадата на силни институции в много от развитите общества демокрацията бива изпразвана от съдържание, при което главните ѝ мероприятия се превръщат в кухи ритуали, тъй като властта все повече преминава в ръцете на елитарни кръгове от богатите делови среди и към една все по-изолирана класа.

В много отношения провокиращият аргумент на Крауч бе потвърден от събитията в последно време, които обаче разкриха някои слабости на първоначалната му теза и показаха, че положението днес е дори по-лошо. Глобалната финансова дерегулация, която бе най-голямата ценност за лобистите на богатия елит, ни донесе финансова криза и стимулира допълнително ксенофобски движения, които вече не признават първостепенното значение на обезпечаващи демокрацията институции като тази на правовата държава. Възходът на социалните медии е позволил на шепа много богати хора и институции да насочват целево огромен брой съобщения към различни групи от граждани, създавайки фалшивото впечатление за дебат, инсценирането на който всъщност се манипулира от малко на брой скрити източници.

Крауч прави оценка на последиците от тези и други тенденции за първоначалната си теза и твърди, че макар и в значителна степен тя да остава състоятелна, той е подценил ценността на институциите, които са от жизнена важност за поддържането на демократичния ред. Същевременно той се противопоставя на популистките предизвикателства, които привидно повтарят изложените в „Постдемокрация“ твърдения, но чиято песимистична носталгия е носител на антидемократична смес от омраза, отчуждаване и насилие.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics

208 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2020

Reviews

[Kleines · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have difficulties deciding whether or not I would recommend this book to people. While Crouch does say smart things about the looming danger of an increasingly post-democratic society, nothing seems to be particularly novel. Also, though I like his idea of reflecting the arguments he made 15 years ago, his analysis does not help me personally to navigate myself in today’s complete political environment. Like “Post-Democracy” from 2005, “Postdemocracy Revisited” reads like a meta-analysis of the major trends of the past decade. This however, comes a bit late and thus appears shallow. But nonetheless, Crouch’s is a stark defender of liberal democracy, a regulated financial industry, anti-racism and stable democratic institutions - this book can be a decent starting point for some.

His main arguments remain more or less the same as in 2005:

1. Private capital has tightened its grip on democratic politics and influences political decisions in favour of big companies and and the top 10% (or top 1%)
2. Politics has not kept up with economics in the sense that while economic globalisation proceeds with immense speed, with multinational companies spreading through the whole globe, politics has remained mainly national. But NATIONAL politics cannot deal with an INTERNATIONAL economy. What good does national taxation do if companies can simply switch headquarters to somewhere else?

These are quite important observations. But I must say that I expected more from a 2020 book, allegedly reflecting 15 years old political arguments. Most of his statements are common-place for most politically interested people: A deregulated financial sector which creates Too-Big-Too-Fail-Institutions is a threat to democracy; The Troika was not particularly democratic (nor economically sound); Far-Right movements are nostalgic and look back to a past that never existed in the first place and so on.

Again, these are valid observations, no doubt! But they lack an analytic depth. Crouch simply states things like if the European Parliament had been in charge of creating a recovery plan for Europe, maybe they would have created a better plan. Thus, more democratic participation in important decisions is good for everyone. Though I agree 100%, I am missing some elaboration from a smart man like Crouch. Similarly, when Crouch talks about right-wing extremism, he remains as broad and unconcrete AND just simply wrong sometimes He says there was only a small xenophobe movement in Greece - did he completely miss that the Greek government locks up refugees? That refugees are being illegally pushed back at the Greek border? That the state (led by the conservative party) is as brutal as illiberal? Moreover, Crouch quite rightly states that many nationalists parties claim to care for the average citizen while making politics for the top %. He states Hungary as an example for Eastern Europe and completely ignores that the authoritarian PIS Party in Poland passes extremely poor-friendly social laws. Generally, I have the feeling Crouch desperately tries not to back up his claims with a reasonable number of sources.

What I am trying to say is that Crouch goes over so many issues (Financial Crisis, Refugee Crisis, Corona, Inequality etc) that he fails to provide analytical depth in any of them. Maybe it is a decent starting point to catch up with the major political developments of the past decade. But if you expect an insightful analysis with NEW observations, this book is not for you.

[Massimo Monteverdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crouch ha deciso di riprendere la sua campagna per avvertire sui pericoli della post-democrazia. Ora, infatti, ai danni della recente doppia crisi finanziaria (dai mutui subprime al possibile crack dell’euro) si è aggiunta la cavalcata apparentemente inarrestabile dei populismi, soprattutto di quelli di estrema destra, che al tema generale, di prevalente matrice economica, aggiungono un’appendice tutta politica, o meglio, ideologica. Nel peggior senso possibile: quello della testarda rivendicazione di un’identità minacciata da un nemico a scelta, da sopprimere con ogni mezzo, meglio se non democratico. La partita si gioca dunque su due fronti che superficialmente non sono sovrapponibili (le élite finanziarie non amano l’alt-right e ne sono ampiamente ricambiati). Entrambe queste versioni della post-democrazia, però, hanno in comune un’arma dialettica fondamentale: paventano un crollo della democrazia mentre cercano di annullarne l’efficacia gli uni con imposizioni economiche di matrice bancaria, gli altri con l’espressione violenta di rara intolleranza. Il titolo del volume farebbe sperare in uno sforzo per trovare mezzi adatti a lottare contro quest’idra moderna e restituire un po’ di sano controllo a chi ne sarebbe titolato per natura. Invece, prevale un velleitario ottimismo che auspica il sorgere di nuovi movimenti dal basso, critici e informati. Peccato che questi tentativi siano geograficamente sporadici e temporalmente circoscritti per fare massa e incidere sul corpo enorme delle forze post-democratiche.

[Jonatan Almfjord · Rating 2 out of 5]

A decent book that I will not recommend by itself, since it is clearly meant to be an updated version of the author's book with a similar title from 2000. There are interesting arguments - I personally enjoyed the author's take on feminism, environmentalism, and xenophobia - but again, unless you have already read the previous book, I struggle to see how this would keep you interested. To me, it just doesn't hold its own well enough.

[Lukas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Last chapter is quite weak, rather desperately optimistic. Everything before a must read for everyone.

[Sean Denizen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very scary and very essential.