Acknowledgments
Thisbookhasbeenalongtimeinthemaking,andIwishtothankseveralpeople fortheirinsightfulandsharpcommentsovertheyears;students,colleagues,and friends.My firstdebtofgratitudegoestothestudentswhohaveattendedmy coursesatUppsalaUniversity.Thereisnogreatereducationinpoliticsthanthe onethatgoesthroughconversationswithyoungstudents newminds reading andreflectingontheworldaroundthem.Havingaccesstosucheducationisthe delightandprivilegeofbeingauniversityteacher.
Ihavehadtheopportunitytopresentvariouschaptersfromthebookat workshops,conferences,andseminarsovertheyears,includingatUniversidad AdolfoIbanez,Santiago,Chile;BilbaoEuropeanEncounters,Bilbao,Spain; DepartmentofPoliticsattheUniversityofExeter,UK;SödertörnsHögskola, Sweden;OxfordPoliticalThoughtSeminar,Oxford,UK;MalmöHögskola, Sweden;SchoolofTransnationalGovernance,EuropeanUniversityInstitute, Florence,Italy;DepartmentofPolitics,UniversityofCopenhagen,Denmark; JustitiaAmplificata,BadHomburg,Germany;DepartmentofHistoryofScience andIdeas,UppsalaUniversity,Sweden; SydneyDemocracyNetwork,University ofSydney,Sydney,Australia;GoetheUniversityFrankfurt,FrankfurtamMain, Germany;DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofLeiden,Netherlands; DepartmentofPolitics,StockholmUniversity,Sweden;ColumbiaWorkshopin PoliticalTheory,ColumbiaUniversity,NYC,USA;StellenboschInstitutefor AdvancedStudy,STIAS,Stellenbosch,SouthAfrica.
Iwanttothankthechairs,thediscussants,andtheparticipantswhothrough theircriticismandquestionspushedmetothinkmoreclearlyaboutwhatIwanted todo,inparticularPaulApostolidis,RainerBauböck,GonzaloBustamante, ThomasFossen,JasonFrank,JamesIngram,DanielInnerarity,JohnKeane, HansLindahl,BenjaminMof fitt,JuliaNordblad,PaulinaOchoaEspejo,David Ragazzoni,ChristianRostboll,CristobalRoviraKaltwasser,AndrewSchaap,Lars Tonder,NadiaUrbinati,andMiguelVatter.
IoweaspecialthankstoHansAgné,LudvigBeckman,PaulaBlomqvist,Dario Castiglione,SverkerGustavsson,SaraKalm,Lars-GöranKarlsson,Anthoula Malkopoulou,DavidOwen,UlfMörkenstam,AlexandraSegerberg,andMikael Spångfortakingthetimetoreadandcommentononeorseveralchaptersofthe manuscript.Theseconversations,includingthemanystimulatingchatsthathave takenplaceovercoffeesanddinnerswereprecious,andhelpedbringingthebook tofruition.
IamfortunatetohavemanygenerouscolleaguesattheDepartmentof GovernmentatUppsalaUniversity,andtheircollegialityandcareforacritical andconstructiveseminarcultureacrossthesubfieldsofpoliticalsciencehave madeagreatimpressiononme.ThepoliticaltheoryseminaratUppsalahasbeen myintellectualhomeformanyyearsnow.Iwishtoexpressmygratitudetothe participantsinthisseminar,anditsincomingguests,whohavegivenvaluable inputsatdifferentstagesoftheproject:BenjaminAskPopp-Madsen,ArdaGucler, GinaGustavsson,SofiaHelander,JörgenHermansson,JonasHultinRosenberg, ZohrehKhoban,HelenLindberg,MatsLundström,GuilhermeMarquesPedro, PatriciaMindus,BenjaminMoffitt,SiriSylvan,JohanTralau,andJohanWejryd. ThanksarealsoduetomyeditorsOliviaWellsandDominicByatt,andespecially thethreeanonymousreviewersatOxfordUniversityPress.Theiradviceand suggestionscameatpreciselytherighttime,andimmenselyimprovedthequality ofthemanuscript.Anearlyoutlineofthe firstchapterofthisbookappearedinthe volume GrenzgängederGemeinschaft,editedbyElisabethGräb-Schmidtand FerdinandoMenga(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,2016).IamgratefultoMohr Siebeckforallowingmetoreprintthepassageshere.InadditionIwantto thanktheorganizationsthatprovidedthefundingforthisproject,theSwedish ResearchCouncil,STIASandalsoSigtunaStiftelsen,anintellectualsanctuary wherethevery firstpagesofthisbookwerewritten.
Finally,mydeepestthanksgotomyfamily.TomyparentsMajandStaffanfor theirenduringsupportandforcreatingalargeandwelcominghomeabletohost ournoisydinnersanddebates,tomysisterCeciliaforherstory-telling,toMagnus forhiscuisine,andtoSaga,Isak,andSofiefordancingwithme.Hans,themost democraticpersonIknow,unexpectedlycameintomylifejustbeforeIstartedthis project,andwithhimcameAinoandRuben,twosmallchildrenwhonowhave grownupintotwobrightteenagers.AllmyloveandthankstoHansformaking mylifemeaningfulandmusicalandtoAinoandRubenforenrichingitinso manyways.MyyoungerbrotherAndreaspassedawayduringthelastyearof writing.Andreaswasasensitiveportraitistofbirdsandhumans.Hewasthe kindestofpeople.Thisbookisdedicatedtohim.
Introduction
Howdoesonerevitalizedemocracyintimesofcrisis?Whenaskingthisquestionit isessentialtodistinguishbetweentwoissues:theexperienceofdemocraticcrisis, ontheonehand,andtheexperienceofdemocraticcorruption,ontheother.¹
Democracyisincrisis.Risinginequality,climatechange,andgrowingmigration acrossbordersarejustsomeoftheproblemsthatputcontemporarydemocracies undergreatpressure.Theycreateasenseofemergency:Willdemocracycope?But crisisisarecurrentthemeinthehistoryofdemocracy.Democracy,onecouldsay,is alwaysincrisis.Itcontinuouslyfails.SinceitsbirthintheAmericanandtheFrench revolutions,moderndemocracyhastriggeredevernewpoliticalstruggles,andasa result,ithasencompassedevermoreclaims(e.g.civil,political,social)andclaimants(e.g.workers,women,blackpeople).Thedisappointmentwithdemocratic practicesandideals,thewaytheyseemunfittocopewithnewpoliticalrealitieshas inthiswaymademoderndemocracyintoanunfinishedjourney,constantlyatwork withrevitalizingandreformingitselfinresponsetonewcrises.²
Crisis,therefore,isnotnecessarilyaproblemfordemocracy.Whatisaproblem isthecorruptionofdemocracy,foritentailstheweakeningofthecapacityof democracyto meet newcrises.Inthelastdecades,manypoliticaltheoristshave lostfaithinthepoliticaldynamicofchangeassociatedwithmoderndemocracy. Theyhavestartedtodoubtitspotentialtoconvertdemocraticdiscontentintoa callforpoliticalreform.AccordingtoRobertDahl,thegapbetweentherhetoric andrealityofpoliticalequalityishuge,andthefactthatthegapmaybeincreasing makesdemocracy “indangerofreachingthepointofirrelevancy.”³Inasimilar vein,PierreRosanvallonnotesthatequality “hasbecomearemotedeity,whichis routinelyworshippedbutwhichhasceasedtoinspireanylivingfaith,” and WendyBrownalertsustothewayneoliberalgoverning “subduesdemocratic desiresandimperilsdemocraticdreams.”⁴
Thisbookarguesthatwhilewehavegoodreasonstoworryaboutthecorruptionofdemocraticpracticesandideals,theseworriesareoftenattributableto distortedbeliefsaboutwhatdemocracy is.Andasstudentsofpoliticsweneedto worryaboutthattoo.Facedwithwaningconfidenceinelections,humanrights, andthepublicsphereitisnaturaltoreverttothefoundationsofdemocracy.The suppositionisthatintimesofcrisis,weneedtobegindemocracyanew,anditfalls onthesovereignpeopletodoso.Itisanauthorityoflastresort,a “sleeping sovereign” whocanbeawakenedtocounterthecorruptionofdemocracy.⁵ Asthis bookdemonstrates,however,appealingtothesovereignpeopleonlyspeedsupthe
corruptionthatitseekstoredress.Insteadofrecallingustoourdemocraticsenses, itdrivesusintoadangerouscul-de-sac whatIwillrefertoasRousseau’speople trap thatbreedspessimismabouttheabilityofdemocracytocopewithnew politicalchallenges.
Toavoidthistrapitisnecessarytoreconceivethewaysinwhichweunderstand andconceptualizemoderndemocracy.Itistheambitionofthisbooktocontribute tothatend.AccordingtoMontesquieu,differentpoliticallifeformsareanimated andsustainedbydifferent “spirits”;arepublicbyvirtue,amonarchybyhonor,anda despoticformbyfear.Intheattempttosetdemocratictheoryontherighttrack,this bookexaminesthespiritofmoderndemocracy.Itmakestwogeneralclaims, pertaining asthetitleindicates tothespiritofmoderndemocracy,ontheone hand,anditscorruption,disintegration,andrenewal,ontheother.Theclaimisthat moderndemocracyisapoliticallifeformanimatedandsustainedbyaspiritof emancipation,andemancipatedlivesarenotmerelycreatedthroughelections, humanrights,andapublicsphere.Theyarecreatedthroughsocialpoliciesin areasmoreclosetohome,suchascitizenship,education,andwork.Tounderstand themechanismsatworkinthecorruption,disintegration,andrenewalofdemocracyoneoughtthereforetopaycriticalattentiontoactivitiesintheseareas:Dothey undermineorfostercommitmenttodemocraticpracticesandideals?
Tosuggestthatdemocracycandowithoutasovereignpeoplemayseem unorthodox,evenundemocratic.Letgoofthesovereignpeople,itcouldbe objected,andwhatyouareleftwithisruleuncheckedbythosewhoareforced toabidebyit.Thatcouldnotpossiblybedemocratic.Thesovereignpeoplemaybe a fiction,butitisa useful fiction.Itgivesthepeopletherighttocreateitsown laws.⁶ Inthecourseofthisbook,Ihopetoconvincethereaderthatbyreplacing sovereigntywithspiritwedonotbetraydemocracy,orgivethelietowhatreason orcommonsensedemandsofus.Onthecontrary,weenhanceourunderstanding ofwhatisdistinctivelydemocraticaboutthepoliticallifeformthatwasborninthe revolutionsinthelateeighteenthcentury,andhowtheradicalspiritthatanimates itmaybereinvigoratedundercontemporaryconditions.
Torecoverthisunderstandingofdemocracy,weneedanewvocabularysuitable tothetask.Inthisintroductorychapter,Ithereforebeginbyclarifyingthekey conceptthatwillbeusedinthebook,namely “thespirit. ” Withthisbasic conceptualvocabularyinplace,Idescribetheoverallargumentaboutthespirit ofdemocracy,andspelloutitssignificanceforthecorruption,disintegration,and renewalofdemocracy.Theintroductionendswithanoteonthestatusofthe argument,andabriefdescriptionoftheindividualchaptersthatfollow.
TheSpirit
The firstandmostgeneralclaimofthebookisthatdemocracyisaspiritof emancipation.Theterm “spirit” shouldnotbeconfusedwithspiritualityorwith
theologicaltranscendence.Nordoesitdenotetheforcesymbolizedbytheclassof soldiersinPlato’srepublicorthedialecticofreasonthataccordingtoHegel marchesforwardthroughhistory.Instead,itshouldbeunderstoodinthespecific sensegiventoitbyMontesquieuinhisclassicalwork TheSpiritoftheLaws ⁷
Montesquieudidnothimselfexperiencethebirthofmoderndemocracyinthe revolutionsinthelateeighteenthcentury.Ifhehadlivedtoseeit,itisalso doubtfulwhetherhewouldhavelikedit.Montesquieuwasanearlyproponent oftheEnlightenment,butalsoanaristocratbyheart.Preciselybecauseofhis sensitivitytodifferencesinsociallifeforms,however,heformulatedaquestion thathasgrantedhimtheepithetofbeingfounderofbothsociologyandpolitical science.⁸ Thequestionheraisesisnottheonethatpreoccupiedearlierthinkers, namelywhatmakesupthebestormostidealformofgovernment.⁹ Nordoeshe wonder,withRousseau,whatwouldmakeitlegitimateforfreeandequalhuman beingstosubjectthemselvestoacommonlaw.¹⁰ Thequestionheraisesisa differentone:Whatsustainsdifferentformsofgovernment,evenwhentheyare patentlyillegitimateandunjust?¹¹
ThisquestionsparkedMontesquieutoexaminethespiritsoflaws,orwhatwe inthisbookwillcallthedifferencebetweenpoliticalformsorlifeforms.According toMontesquieu,therearethreepoliticalforms,andeachhasitsownnatureand principlewhichtogethermakeupitsdistinctspirit:therepublican,themonarchical,andthedespoticone.¹²The “nature” ofapoliticalformreferstoits constitutionalmakeup.Itanswersthequestion “Whogoverns,andhowisthat governingexercised?”¹³Inarepublic,itisthebodyofthepeoplewhogoverns.The peoplesoconceivedhavethesovereignpowertogoverneverythingwithintheir reach,andtheychooseministerstoconductthetasksforthem.Thenatureofa monarchy,bycontrast,consistsinthefactthatonepersonalonegoverns.The personwhogovernsdoessobymeansof fixedandestablishedlaws,andwiththe intermediatepowersofthenobility.Thenatureofadespoticpoliticallifeform, finally,isoneinwhichasinglepersongovernswithoutlaws,rules,orintermediaries.Thispersondirectseverythingbyhisorherowncaprice,anddoessoby nominatingaviziertoexecutehisorherwill.
Still,thesepoliticalformswouldnotexistwithoutsomeonegivinglifetothem byadheringtoandenactingtheirrespectivepower.The “principle” therefore referstotheconditionofpossibilityofaparticularform,orto “thatwhichmakesit act.”¹⁴ Itanswersthequestion “Whatpubliccommitmentisneededtosetand keepitinmotion?” Thecommitmentthatsetsarepublicinmotionisvirtue,or “loveofthelawsandthehomeland.”¹⁵ Therepublicrequiresadispositionofthe peopletolovetheirlawsandtheircountry,andtosacri ficetheirownprivatewill tothecommonorpublicgood.Inamonarchy,itishonoranddistinctionthatgive lifetopolitics.Accordingly,ifarepublicrequiresthatwestandupforcountryand lawoutofregardtothecommunityitself,amonarchicalformisbycontrast animatedandsustainedbyacommitmenttodistinction.Itisnourishedbythe ideaofeachhavingtodifferentiateoneselffromtherest,ofreachingsuperiority
andpromotingone’sowninterestswithoutregardtothecommunityasawhole.¹⁶ Finally,itisfearthatkeepsadespoticpoliticalformalive,forbyfearingthedespot thesubjectsdonotriseupagainsthisorherwhimsandimpulses.Onthecontrary, theyarethemselvesslavestothesamepassionsasthedespotintheformof instinct,compliance,andpunishment.¹⁷
Understoodinthisway,thespiritofapoliticalformconsistsinthecombinationofits nature (whogoverns,andhow)and principle (thepubliccommitment neededtosetitinmotion).AsMontesquieustresses,theprinciplehas “ asupreme influence ” onpolitics.¹⁸ Itisthespringofapoliticalform.Fearinadespoticform isnotonlythesubjects’ fearofthedespot,butthedespot’sfearofhisorher subjects.¹⁹ Likewise,inmonarchicalandrepublicanformshonorandvirtueguide bothgovernorsandgoverned.Giventheimportanceoftheprincipleinthe maintenanceofapoliticallifeform,thisbookwillfromtimetotimeusethe principleasshorthandforitsentirespirit,sothatvirtuesignifiesthespiritofa republic,honorthespiritofamonarchy,fearthespiritofdespotism,and eventually,emancipationthespiritofdemocracy(seeTableI.1).Itquicklycaptureswhatisdistinctabouteachform.
Today,fewscholarsassociateMontesquieuwiththisideaofthespirit.Inlegal andpoliticaltheory,Montesquieuisbestknownforhisconstitutionalthinking, andmorespecifically,forhisthesisontheseparationbetweenlegislative,judiciary,andexecutivepowers.Asmanyscholarspointout,however,politicsfor Montesquieucannotbelimitedtotheconstitutionaldomain.Itreferstoapolitical form “engagedinitsownlife,initsownconditionsofexistenceandsurvival.”²⁰ To understandhowpoliticsworksitisthereforenotenoughtofocusonlegalor constitutionalmatters.Onehastogobeneaththeformallevelofpolitics,and listentoitsinnerheartbeat.Isthepoliticalforminquestionkicking,orhasitlost itscapabilityofbreathingnewlifeintopolitics?
WhenMontesquieureflectsonthespiritoflawshetiesintoalongtraditionof thinkingonthedifferencebetweenpoliticalforms,onethatbeginswithPlatoand AristotleandlaterwastobepickedupbyMachiavelli.ForPlatoandAristotle, politicalregimesaredifferentiatedonthebasisoftheirdistributionofpower basically,whetherpowerbelongstoone,few,ormany andeachformcan degenerateintoanotheraccordingtoa fixedandpredeterminedlogic.²¹The typologyintroducedbyMontesquieudiffersinimportantrespectsfromtheone developedbyPlatoandAristotle,notablywithregardtoitsrefusaltomakepolitics
TableI.1 Thespiritofdifferentpoliticallifeforms
MonarchicalDespoticRepublicanDemocratic SpiritPrincipleHonorFearVirtueEmancipation NatureThemonarchThedespotThepeopleNobody
subjecttomoralityanditsattempttoreconstructmonarchy(orone-personrule) intermsofruleoflaw.²²Mostimportantly,Montesquieudiffersintheemphasis heputsontheprincipleasasourceofjudgmentandcritique,andthedynamicit createsintheunderstandingofpoliticsandlaw.²³ThisaspectofMontesquieu’ s workiswhatsetshimapartfromhispredecessors,anditisalsoofparticular relevanceforunderstandingmoderndemocracy.Whatemergesoutof Montesquieu ’ sreflectionsonthespiritoflawsisauniqueframeworkofthinking, aframeworkthatprovidesuswithafreshnewvocabularywithwhichtounderstandandconceptualizemoderndemocracy;asimmanent,plural,andsocial.²⁴
Firstofall,thevocabularyprovidedbyMontesquieuis immanent inthe sensethatthereisnotranscendentalprinciplethatcantelluswhatislegitimate orjustinaparticularform.Incontrasttonaturallaworsocialcontracttheory, Montesquieurenouncestheideaoftherebeinganoverarchingmorallawor foundationofpolitics.²⁵ Republics,monarchies,anddespoticpoliticalformsare allguidedbytheirownimmanentprinciples,andonecannothavetheone withouttheother: “Justassomemotorsonly ‘ go ’ onpetrol,differentformsof governmenthavedifferentdrivesthatsetthemintomotion.”²⁶ Whatisimportant tonoticeisthatvirtue,honor,andfeararebothprinciplesofactionandprinciples ofjudgment.Apartfromsettingapoliticalforminmotion,theyprovideimmanent “standardsofrightandwrong.”²⁷ Inarepublic,forexample,actionsand institutionsaretobeevaluatedonthebasisofhowwelltheyprotectpublicvirtue againstprivatedesire,andinamonarchytheyaretobeevaluatedonthebasisof howwelltheyguardthehierarchyofrankanddistinctionagainstbasenessand equality.Thecentralthrustisthatarepublicandamonarchy “ought” tobe directedbytheseprinciples,otherwisetheyare “imperfect,” thatistheywill ceasetoexistasdistinctpoliticallifeforms.²⁸
Secondly,thevocabularyputforwardbyMontesquieuis plural.Itispluralnot onlyinthetrivialsensethatMontesquieuworkswithapluralityofpolitical lifeforms,eachguidedbyitsownnatureandprinciple.Itispluralsincethese politicallifeformslimiteachother,andinthismannerrefusetoaddupintoa singleormoreencompassingwhole.ThetaskforMontesquieuisnothowtocreatea goodpower,but “howtolimitpower,whateveritscoloration.”²⁹ Theframeworkhe provideshaspowercheckingpower,whichmeansthatnopoliticalformisanimated byasingleprinciple.³⁰ Onthecontrary,eachpoliticalformisanimatedand sustainedbyamixtureofprinciplesthatalwayscoexistandcompetewitheach other.Inshort,thereisnorepublicwithouthonor,nomonarchywithoutfear,and nodespotismwithoutvirtue.Thecentraltenetisthateverypoliticalformcarriesthe buildingblocksofallotherformswithinitself.³¹
Thisisnottosaythatallprinciplesareequallyimportant.Thecriticalpoint madebyMontesquieuisthatthereisalwaysonedominantprinciplethatspursthe othersinitsdirection,andgivesapoliticallifeformitsuniquespirit.Itisthis principlethatallowsustosaythatthepoliticalforminquestionis “republican,”
“monarchical,” or “despotic. ”³²Forexample,whentheprincipleofvirtuecomplementsagivenbodyofpeople,andcitizenstakegreatcaretonurturetheir commonpubliclife,theexistenceoftherepublicisassured.Thebodyofthe peopleisabletoreinforceitspowertogovern.Ifthemonarchicalprincipleof honoranddistinctiontakesprecedenceoverpublicvirtueintheactionsand judgmentsofcitizens,thebodyofthepeopleisbycontrastmetwithresistance, andtherepublicisthreatenedwithcorruption.Itislimitedbyanotherpolitical lifeformthatinhibitsitsabilitytosustainandrenewitselfovertime.³³
Finally,thevocabularyofferedbyMontesquieuis social.Thesocialdimension isvitaltothepresentstudy.Wheneverademocracyfacesaseverecrisis,itis commontoredirectattentionfromthepoliticaltothesocialrealm.Insteadof askingwhatmakeslawsandinstitutionsjustorlegitimate,wetendtolookto societyforananswer:Whatkindofsocialbondisneededtoupholddemocracy amonghumanbeingslivingtogetherasstrangers?Montesquieuhasnotonlybeen creditedwithdiscoveringthesocialasarealmseparatefromthepolitical.³⁴ By introducingtheprincipleasthespringofapoliticallifeform,heoffersatheoretical frameworkthatintegratesthesocialwiththepolitical.Virtue,honor,andfeardo notmerelyfostercommitmenttothepowerofthepeople,theking,andthe despot;theyextendintomoreordinaryareasoflife,includingeducation,luxury, taxation,defense,religion,commerce,andtheconditionofwomen.Itisinthese areasthatapoliticallifeformbecomesa “life” inthemorematerialandconcrete senseoftheterm.Accordingly,thecentralteachingofMontesquieuisthatlaws, institutions,andpoliciesdonotmerelysetlimitsonhumanaction.Theycarry certainprinciples,andtheirpresenceorabsencehasthecapacitytoreinforceorto underminethecommitmentneededforapoliticalformtosustainovertime.
Thisisabookaboutdemocracy,apoliticalformthatmanydeemboth legitimateandjustandthereforewishtoreinforce.Butwhatisitsspirit?Who governsinademocracy,andbywhatprinciple?³⁵
TheSpiritofDemocracy
ItisoftenarguedthatMontesquieu ’sstudyofthedifferencebetweenpolitical lifeformsanticipatedtheconflictsthatweretofollowbetweenrepublicansand liberalsonthespiritofmoderndemocracy.³⁶ Moderndemocracyinheritedthe spiritofvirtueanddistinctionconducivetorepublicsandmonarchies,spirits whichmanythinkerstodayconsideressentialtothemaintenanceofdemocracy, albeitinnewandmoremodernizedforms.Insteadofdemandingunconditional loveofcountryandlawpoliticaltheoristsspeakof “liberalnationalism” and “constitutionalpatriotism,” andinsteadofbasingdistinctiononinheritanceor naturallineagetheyemphasizedistinctionbasedonindividualmerits.³⁷ Historicallyspeaking,thereismuchtobesaidfortheseinterpretationsofmodern
democracy.TherevolutionariesinAmericaandFrancewereindeedinfluencedby republicanandmonarchicalpoliticalthought.Theytookoverandmodifiedtheir ideas,concepts,andinstitutionstofashionanewsocietywhichsomecalleda democracy,othersarepublic.³⁸
Todayrepublicanismandliberalismarealsoconsideredkeyparadigmsin discussionsonmoderndemocracy.Operatingalongdifferentaxes,theyarewell familiartostudentsinpoliticaltheory.Whereasoneaxisisidentifiedbyduties, patriotism,andtheprimacyofcollectiveandpubliclife,theotherisidentified withrights,individualism,andtheprimacyofprivateoverpubliclife.³⁹ Exactly howthetwoparadigmsrelateisasourceofcontinuousdebate.Tosome scholars,theyare “incommensurate,” andassuchdifficulttocombineintoa singletheory.⁴⁰ Toothers,theyare “co-original” andmutuallydependent.⁴¹For yetanothergroupofscholarstherepublicanandliberalparadigmswerenever separated.Whatwetodayrecognizeasliberaldemocracy “wasbornfromthe spiritofrepublicanism.”⁴²
Theworkingassumptionofthisbookisthatmoderndemocracycannotbe properlyunderstoodthroughtheprismofrepublicanismandliberalism. Historicallyspeaking,moderndemocracyhasnodoubtinheritedmanyconstitutionalfeaturesfromrepublicsandmonarchies,includingpopularsovereignty,rule oflaw,parliament,andtheroleoftheexecutive,andthedifferencebetweenvirtue anddistinctioncontinuestoshapemanydebatesonthespiritofmoderndemocracy.Moreover,theconflictbetweenrepublicansandliberalsonthenatureof moderndemocracy whogoverns,andhow isanimportantlineofstrati fication inpoliticaltheory.Still,whilethesefeaturesanddebatesallcoexistwithdemocracy,theydonotinthemselvesdefinewhatdemocracy is.Theydonotcaptureits spirit.Moderndemocracyisasuigenerispoliticalformanimatedandsustained byaspiritofemancipation,andasweshallsee,thisinterpretationhassignificant implicationsforthewaysinwhichweconceiveandconceptualizedemocracy. Amongothers,itmeansthatdemocracyhasitsownconceptionoffreedomthat goesbeyondrepublicanandliberalreadingsthereof(Chapter3),andthisconceptionoffreedominturninvitesustoreconsiderthedemocraticsignificanceof someofourmostfamiliarpoliticalinstitutions(Chapter4)andpolicies(Chapters 5and6).
Tounpackthespiritofdemocracyandarriveataproperdefinitionofthe concept,weshallbeginwithitsnature.Whogovernsinademocracy?Inpolitical theory,theanswertothisquestionnormallygoeswithoutsaying.Inademocracy, itisthepeoplewhogovern. “We,thepeople” aresovereignwithregardtoourown politicalaffairs.Thisisthepersistentthemeofdemocracyeversinceitsbirthinthe revolutionsinthelateeighteenthcentury,anditcontinuestoinfluencecontemporarydebatesonmoderndemocracy.⁴³AstheFoundingFathersputitinthe AmericanDeclarationofIndependence,powervestsultimatelyinthepeople,and “wheneveranyformofgovernmentbecomesdestructivetotheseends,itisthe
rightofthepeopletoalterortoabolishit,andinstituteanewgovernment.”⁴⁴ Ina similarvein,EmmanuelSieyèsdeclaresduringtheFrenchRevolutionthatthe nationisthesourceofalllegitimatelaw: “Itexistspriortoeverything;itisthe originofeverything.Itswillisalwayslegal.Itisthelawitself.”⁴⁵
Still,ifmuchattentionsincetheAmericanandFrenchrevolutionshasbeen devotedtoconflictsbetweenrepublicansandliberalsonwhatitmeansfora sovereignpeopletogovernitself suchaswhetherthepeopleshouldbeunderstoodasaconstituentorconstitutedpower,andwhetheritspowershouldbe exerciseddirectlyorindirectly lessattentionhasbeengiventothesignificanceof thepeopleitself.Whilecentraltothemodernrevolutionaryimaginary,ithas somehowescapedtheattentionofthecanon.AsRobertDahlremarks, “[h]owto decidewholegitimatelymakeup ‘thepeople’ andhenceareentitledtogovern themselvesisaproblemalmosttotallyneglectedbyallthegreatphilosopherswho writeaboutdemocracy.”⁴⁶ Inthelastdecades,however,thesituationhaschanged dramatically,andthequestionofwholegitimatelymakeupthepeoplehasturned intoasalientissueamongscholarswritingondemocracy.Ratherthanservingasa “shadowtheory” ofdemocracy,ithasmovedintothecenteroftheoreticaland empiricalconcerns.⁴⁷
Populismisacaseinpoint.Populistsofteninvokethepowerofthepeople againstthecorruptelites.Atthesametime,thereislittleagreementonhowto characterizethepeople,suchaswhetheritreferstothepopulationasawhole,the majority,thecommonpeople,orthenation.Orconsidermigration.Atissuein debatesonmigrationisnotmerelywhooughttobeincludedinthepeople,but whohastherightto decide thatquestion:Shoulditbeanationalprerogativeor decidedmultilaterallythroughEuropeanorgloballaw?Ortakesecession,whichis becomingacontentioustopic,asseeninreferendumsonBrexitandonScottish andCatalonianindependence.Thewillofthesovereignpeopleoftenboilsdown tomajorityrule.Thetroubleisthatincaseofsecessionthemajorityofthe secedingunitoftenstandsagainstthemajorityofthelargerunit.Grantedthat bothunitsprofesstohavedemocracyontheirside,itisnotclearhowto democraticallyarbitratebetweenthem.
So,whogovernsinademocracy?Itisintheirattemptto findademocratic answertothisquestionthatmanypoliticaltheoristsrunintoRousseau’speople trap.Revertingtothefoundationsofmoderndemocracy,andarguingthatthe sovereignpeopleshouldhavethepowertodecidewholegitimatelymakeupthe peopleindebatesonpopulism,migration,andsecessiontheyrunintoafundamentalparadox.Theparadoxisthatwhilethesovereignpeopleistheonlyand ultimatesourceofalldemocraticlaw,itcannotlenditselfthedemocraticlegitimacyitneedsto qualify assuch.Itcannotaccountforitsowncomposition withoutfallingpreytoaviciouscircleorinfiniteregress.Anyattempttosettle conflictsonwho “we,thepeople” arecanthusalwaysbequestionedanew:the peoplemustbeconstitutedbythepeople,whoareundemocraticatthemomentof
foundation,andthereforemustbeconstitutedbyanewpeople,andsoon.The conclusionmanypoliticaltheoristsdrawisthatdemocracysuffersfromamajor weakness.Confrontedwithcompetingclaimsonitsownsourceofauthorization, democracyisataloss.Ithas,asWendyBrownputsit, “nointrinsicmechanism forrenewingitself.”⁴⁸
Butthisconclusionisunwarranted.Likerepublican,monarchical,anddespotic politicalforms,democracyhasanimmanentmechanismforrenewingitsown sourceofauthorization:theprincipleofemancipation.Toreconstructtheprincipleofemancipationthatsetsandkeepsademocracyinmotion,thisbook inquiresintothesignificanceofthedemocraticrevolution.The “democratic revolution” herereferstothesymbolicshiftofpowerassociatedwiththe AmericanandFrenchrevolutions,nottoitsactualcourseofevents.Thispoint isworthemphasizing.Itmeansthatwhiletheintentionofthebookistomakeuse ofMontesquieu ’sconceptofthespiritasafoilforanalyzingmoderndemocracy, theapproachitselfwillnotbeMontesquieuaninkind.Insteadofundertakinga historicalorsociologicalstudyoftheAmericanandFrenchrevolutions,or engaginginthevividdebateonhowtounderstandMontesquieuhimself,this bookwillcarveoutthespiritofdemocracybyundertakingatheoreticalreconstructionofthesymbolicsignificanceofthedemocraticrevolution.
Inlinewithscholarswhoarguethatthedemocraticrevolutionisarelative ratherthanabsolutenewbeginning itdoesnotbeginina tabularasa,butin mediasres Iwillshowthatwhilethedemocraticrevolutionnullifiesthedivine rightofkings,itdoesnotremainunaffectedbyitsremoval.⁴⁹ Byseizingthedivine rightoftheking,peoplehavetorelatetothegapopenedupinitswake.Inthe conflictonwhoshouldhavetherighttogovern,theycannotappealtoahigher law.Goneistheexternallimitationonhumanpowerintheformofdivineright. Whatisleftis “theplace” onceoccupiedbyGod.Thequestioniswhatitmeansto reoccupyit.Isitpossibleforhumanbeingstoreoccupythisplaceandbecome theirowngiversandguarantorsofright?Itisagainstthebackgroundofthis questionthatoneoughttounderstandthedemocraticmeaningofemancipation. Itdramaticallyrecon figuresthepurposeanddirectionofsociety.
Toarguethatdemocracyisapoliticalformmarkedbyemancipationisnot uniquetothisbook.Moderndemocracyhassinceitsinceptionbeendescribedas anunfinishedjourney,orawayof “settingthepeoplefree.”⁵⁰ Ithassparked differentgroupsinsociety slaves,workers,women,blackpeople,andmigrants toemancipatethemselvesfromthepowersthatbe,andbydemandinggreater inclusionandextensionofrightstheyhavechangedthemeaningofdemocracy thereafter.Asmanyscholarsargue,thisopennessofmoderndemocracyisa considerablestrength.Itmeansthattheconditionsoflivingtogetherarenot determinedbeforehand.Onthecontrary,theyareopentocontestation,critique, andchange. ⁵¹In TheDemocraticHorizon,AlessandroFerraradrawsoutthe implicationsofthisargumentformoderndemocracy.InspiredbyMontesquieu,
hearguesthattheunfinishednatureofmoderndemocracydoesnotautomatically reproduceitselfovertime.Itrequiresan “ethosofopenness.”⁵²Iquoteapassage fromthebookatlengthsinceitwellcaptureswhatis difficult withacceptingthe uncertaintyunleashedbythedemocraticrevolution.AccordingtoFerrara,people areanimatedbyanethosofopennesswhen
theyarewillingtoconsideralternatives,cognitiveorpractical,differentfromthe onestheyareusedto,whentheypossesstheemotionalsecuritytotryoutasyet partiallyexploredpaths,whentheyarewillingtoventureintotheunknown, whentheyareopentoaccepttheunexpectedasapotentialcarrierofgoodness yettobedecoded,whentheyareemotionallyreadytoacceptchange,whenthey donotfeeloppressedbytheresponsibilitytochoose,butratherseethatresponsibilityasfreedom...whentheyseeplurality – cultural,political,religiousand economic – asanopportunityfortheenrichmentofthecoreofanidentityand notasathreattoitsstability,whentheycherishreversibilityofdecisions, structures,patternsasoneoftheirvirtues,whentheypreferopencontexts,as onesthatembedapotentialforbetterresponsivenesstochanginglifeneeds,over entrenchedpatterns.⁵³
Asthispassagereveals,thedemocraticrevolutionisnotonlyliberating.Itisalso highlydemanding,andthisaspecthasreceivedlessattentioninpoliticaltheory. Theproblemisthatwhilethedemocraticrevolutionreleasespeoplefromthe weightofadivinelyinstitutedright,theynowhavetoassumethetaskthatcomes withitsoverthrow,namelythatofbeingtheultimategiverandguarantorofright. Thispositionhashithertobeenreservedforanimmortalandinfallibleauthority, andreoccupyingitsplacemeansthathumanbeingsnotonlyareexposedtowhat Arendtcallsthe “abyssoffreedom ”:theabyssthatopensupbetweenpastand futurewhenhistorynolongercanbetrustedasalegitimatesourceofauthority. ⁵⁴ “Asthepasthasceasedtothrowitslightuponthefuture,” Tocquevillefamously notes “themindofmanwandersinobscurity.”⁵⁵ Theyareexposedtoan “abyssof responsibility” inthesensethatthefuturenowhingesentirelyontheirown actionsandjudgmentsinthepresent.Thereisnooneelseouttheretopraiseor blame.
Theattempttorespondtothisabyssalexperienceoffreedomand responsibility orthissummoningofhumanityuntoitself marksthemomentumofthedemocraticrevolution.Ifmonarchyrestsupontheexistenceofadivine giverandguarantoroflaw,theremovalofdivinerightunleashesafundamental uncertaintyaboutthepurposeanddirectionofsociety.Noonecanforetellits course.Itcanbedifficulttolivewithsuchuncertainty,andthetemptationto escapeithauntsmoderndemocracy.⁵⁶ Whatisdistinctiveforademocratic politicallifeformisthatitacknowledgesthisdifficulty.Insteadofsuppressing thecondition,ittamestheuncertaintybysharinganddividingitequally.This
moveiswhatsetsandkeepsademocracyinmotion.Ifarepubliccallsforvirtueto sustainovertime,amonarchyforhonor,anddespotismforfear,ademocracy callsforemancipation.Byequitablydividinguptheessentialuncertaintiesofthe future,itemancipatesusfromastateofself-incurredtutelage.Moreprecisely,it emancipatesusfromhavingthebasicpurposeanddirectionofsocietydecided for us.
Theprincipleofemancipation,sounderstood,suggeststhatwhiledemocracy removesallexternalauthoritiesinpoliticalaffairs betheyhistorical,natural,or divine itdoesnotshyawayfromtheuncertaintythatthisremovalgeneratesin theexerciseofpolitics.Insteadofbendingittosupportastrongleaderor authority,itaccommodatestheuncertaintythatititselfunleashes.Theresultis auniquecombinationofreassuranceandfreedom. Reassurance sincetheburden oflivinginademocracy thefactthatwemustbereadytoassumeresponsibility forpoliticalaffairs becomesendurable.Bysharingtheburdenofjudgmentand decision-makingunderconditionsofuncertainty,eachofushasthefreedomto failinourjudgmentsanddecisionswithoutsuchfailuremarkingtheendofour history. Freedom sincetheexperienceofuncertaintytherebyturnsfromaburden intoahorizonofexpectation.Wecanaffordtoexperimentwithnewwaysofbeing andacting,andinrevolutionaryfashion,begintheworldanew.
Whatemancipationmeansisamajorthemeinthisbook,andmorewillbesaid abouttheprincipleofemancipationandthemeaningofdemocraticfreedomas thecapacitytobeginanewinduecourse.Fornow,itsufficestonoticethatthe principleofemancipationhastwoimportantimplicationsforhowweconceptualizethenatureofdemocracy.Recallthatthenatureofapoliticalformrefersto who governs,and how thatgovernmentinturnisexercised.Regardingthe first, andasthewordemancipationitselfsuggests,democracymeansexitfromownership(mancipum).Ratherthanbeingthepropertyofaparticularpeople,democracyisaninherentlyclasslesspoliticallifeform.Theterm “classless” mayleadthe associationsofthereadertoMarx’sandEngels’sideaoftheclasslesssociety,a harmoniousandapoliticalconditionthatarisesaftertherevolution.Butdemocracyisnotaharmoniousend-state,norisitbasedonaprimordialstrifebetween friendandenemy,asCarlSchmittclaims.Democracyisanopen-endedstruggle forchange.Thereasonisthatoncedivinityisdethronedasultimategiverand guarantorofwhatisright,thedivisionofsocietyintoahierarchyofdifferent classesorgroupsisdestabilized.Nooneinsocietyhasthe finalsay.
InthewordsofBrianSinger,wecouldthereforesaythatdemocracy “isnotso muchastrugglebetweenclasses within societyasastruggle over society,overthe definitionsofwhatsocietyisandshouldbe.”⁵⁷ OrinthewordsofClaudeLefort,it isapoliticalformguidedbytheinsightthat
powerdoesnotbelongtoanyone,thatthosewhoexerciseitdonotincarnateit, thattheyareonlythetemporarytrusteesofpublicauthority,thatthelawofGod
ornatureisnotvestedinthem,thattheydonotholdthe finalknowledgeofthe worldandsocialorders,andthattheyarenotcapableofdecidingwhateveryone hastherighttodo,think,sayandunderstand.⁵⁸
Buthow,itmightbeobjected,doesonecreateastableandenduringdemocracy undersuchmalleablepoliticalconditions?Howisitpossiblefor “nobody” to govern?Thisbringsustothesecondelementthatisuniqueformoderndemocracy:asaclasslesspoliticallifeformitcannotbeexerciseddirectlyorimmediately. Incontrasttorepublican,monarchical,anddespoticpoliticalforms,whichare sourcedinthephysicalbodyofthepeople,theking,andthedespotrespectively, democracydoesnothaveanaturalsourceofauthoritytofallbackupon.Ithinges entirelyon intermediarybodies;laws,institutions,andpolicies. ⁵⁹ Insteadof makingreferencetoanaturalsourceofauthorityintheformofaparticular classofpeople,democracyfallsbackontheprincipleofemancipationasasource ofmediation,anditisthisprinciplethatisoperativeinsuchfamiliarpolitical institutionsasuniversalsuffrage,humanrights,andthepublicsphere.Whatthese institutionshaveincommonisthattheygiveinstitutional “body” totheprinciple ofemancipation.Byequitablydividinguptheuncertaintythatcomeswiththe removalofextra-politicalauthorities,theymakesurethatwhileeveryonehasan equalsayonthepurposeanddirectionofsociety,noonehasthe final say.
Universalsuffragedoessobymakingpoliticalconflictssubjecttoaprocessof recurrentredistributionsofpower.⁶⁰ Recurrentelectionsgiveeveryoneequaltime toreflectonthepurposeanddirectionofsociety,andbythesametoken,they preventspecificindividualsorgroupsfrommonopolizingtheplaceofpoweror wieldingittofurthertheirownparticularends.Thepublicspheredoessoby providingthetimeandspaceneededforhumanbeingstojudgeanddecidethe purposeanddirectionofsociety;timetotakeastepbackandassesswhether societyismovingintherightdirection,andspacestomeetacrossdifferencein word(e.g.deliberations)anddeed(e.g.demonstrations).Humanrightsdosoby makingsurethatnooneinsocietybethesupremejudgeonwho “we,thepeople” are.Instead,itguaranteesthatdemocracyis “foundeduponthelegitimacyofa debate astowhatislegitimateandwhatisillegitimate adebatewhichis necessarilywithoutanyguarantorandwithoutanyend.”⁶¹
Democracyisaclasslesspoliticalformanimatedandsustainedbyaprincipleof emancipation.Orinbrief:itisaspiritofemancipation.Thisistheoverallthesis thatwillbedefendedinthisbook(seeTableI.1).Inrecentyears,however,familiar politicalinstitutionslikeuniversalsuffrage,thepublicsphereandhumanrights haveapparentlylostsomeoftheiremancipatoryforce.Boththeoreticaland empiricalscholarscallourattentiontotheirdistortions.⁶²Theyarguethatthe institutionalapparatusthatwassupposedtoguaranteecivic,political,andsocial equality,andprovidehumanbeingswiththefreedomtomoveacrossclasseshas lostitscredibilityasadistinctivelydemocraticwayoforganizingpoliticallife.It
hasbeenhollowedoutandturnedintoa “formalshell” withoutanyrealpolitical substance.⁶³Ithaseitherbecomeaplatformforpoliticalandeconomicelitesto enrichthemselvesattheexpenseofordinarypeople,orsuccumbedtopopulist andauthoritarianforcesthatexploitthefreedomsbuiltintodemocracytoundermineitinthenameofamore “true,”“authentic, ” or “real” people.⁶⁴
Theriseofpopulismandelitismistodayatthecenterofacademicandpublic debates.Politicalelitesinmanycountriesareaccusedoffavoringtechnocracyat theexpenseofdemocracy.Tryingtokeeppeopleoutofpolitics,theyarelosing touchwiththeconcernsofordinarypeople.Ordinarypeopleareinturn reproachedforbeingtoouninformedtobeentrustedwithanyrealinfluencein politicalaffairs.Theyaredeemedignorantandunabletoresistthepopulistlure.⁶⁵ Whilethisdebateonpopulismandelitismcanbeseenasanimportantstepinthe forgingofanewdemocraticrevolution,itistooparochialtomakesenseofthe sea-changethatinflictscontemporarypoliticallife.Askingwhobestdefends democracyintimesofcrisis thepeopleinthestreets,thepoliticiansinparliament,thejudgesinthecourt,ortheexecutivesofthestate? itblindsustoa differentandmoreprofoundconflict,namelytheonebetweendemocracyand other politicalforms;republican,monarchic,anddespoticones.
Thispointisparticularlysalientwhenthereiswaningconfidenceinthe legitimacyandefficacyofdemocraticdecision-making.Whathappensisthat theuncertaintytamedbydemocraticinstitutionsthenresurfacesinsociety,and thisuncertaintycaneasilybeabusedbyactorsseekingtoundodemocracyfrom within.Itcanbeexploitedandmobilized against democracy.Suchmobilization cantakedifferentforms.Theuncertaintycan,forexample,beexploitedto prioritizeloveofhomelandoverloveofdemocracy.Ortheuncertaintycanbe exploitedtopitindividualsagainstindividualsinacompetitionfordistinction, supremacy,andstatus.Theuncertaintycanalsobetransformedintofear,which inthelongruncouldleadtoanewformofdespotism.⁶⁶ Topreventsuch degenerationofdemocracyitisnecessarytoshiftregister.Insteadoflimiting thedebateonthecrisisofdemocracytoadebateonpopulismandelitism,weneed togobacktotheformingprinciplesofdemocracyitself.
Still,thisisthepointwhereweriskgoingastray.Facedwithconflictsonthe valueofdemocracyitself,manyscholarsreverttothefoundationsofdemocracy. Theyevokethesovereignpeopleasakindoflastresort.Butthisresortisatrap, andadangerousoneatthat.Ratherthanrevitalizingdemocracy,itencouragesus tomovebeyonddemocracytoprotectit,andsoonlyinflatesthecrisisthatitseeks toremedy.Toavoidthistrap,Isuggestthatwetakeadifferenttackandinvokethe principleofemancipationasourpreferredsourceofjudgmentandcritique. Moreover,insteadofmerelyfocusingonuniversalsuffrage,humanrights,and thepublicsphere,Isuggestthatwedirectourattentiontothe fieldofpolicymaking.Closetohome,day-to-day,andmaterial,policy-makinghasoftenfallen undertheradarofpoliticaltheorists.Ithasbeendeemed “social” ratherthan
