Populism and Political Parties
Populism and Political Parties
复制标题
民粹主义与政党
DOI：
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.013.20
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kenneth M. Roberts
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kenneth M. Roberts
对民粹主义和政党的研究经常是沿着沿着不同的轨道进行的，这些轨道偶尔会连接起来，但从来没有真正地相互交织和丰富，因为它们可能，或者更重要的是，应该。这两个”主题”都被一系列独特的开创性研究、经典文献和范式竞争所定义，但即使在”民粹主义政党”成为世界上几个不同地区广泛（尽管松散）使用的分析范畴之后，这些领域的知识发展仍然相对不受影响。然而，民粹主义政治很难脱离政党政治来理解。在某种程度上，这是由于一个基本的现实--更好地说，一个核心的悖论--即民粹主义领导人和运动总是会创建某种类型的政党，作为正式民主舞台上的选举工具，即使他们的崛起和合法性依赖于公民对既定代表机构的拒绝（见Taggart，2002：113-14）。也许更根本的是，这种悖论表明，任何对民粹主义兴起的解释都必须不可避免地解决主流政党政治代表模式的不真实性或缺陷，民粹主义声称对此提供了纠正（见Peruzzotti，2013）。因此，尽管民粹主义对代议制民主的中介机构提出了挑战，并声称为大众选民提供了更”直接”的民主授权形式，但对民粹主义的研究必须牢牢地定位于更大的政治代表领域，而且必然与政党政治的研究交织在一起。正如前面提到的悖论所表明的那样，用熊彼特的话说，民粹主义往往是，对国家政党制度的”创造性破坏”力量（Roberts，2013：40）。一方面，民粹主义的政治空间是由于老牌政党未能有效地代表政治体中的突出利益或情绪而打开的。民粹主义在主流政党陷入危机的地方蓬勃发展，或者至少在主流政党排斥或忽视被剥夺了制度化表达渠道的主流意见的地方蓬勃发展。因此，民粹主义替代品的崛起有助于明确这种代表性的失败，削弱或取代传统的政党组织，并在极端情况下加速旧秩序的消亡。上
THE study of populism and political parties has often been conducted along separate tracks that occasionally connect but never truly intertwine and enrich each other as they might, or more importantly, should. Both" topics" have been defined by a distinctive set of seminal studies, canonical literatures, and paradigmatic rivalries, but these remain relatively impervious to intellectual developments in the other field, even after" populist parties" became a widely (albeit loosely) used analytical category in several different regions of the world. Populist politics, however, can hardly be understood in isolation from party politics. In part, that is due to the basic reality-better put, a central paradox-that populist leaders and movements invariably create some type of political party to serve as an electoral vehicle in formal democratic arenas, even where they owe their rise to and stake their legitimacy on a civic rejection of established representative institutions (see Taggart, 2002: 113-14). More fundamentally, perhaps, this paradox suggests that any explanation for the rise of populism must inevitably address the inauthenticity or deficiencies in mainstream party-based modes of political representation for which populism claims to offer a corrective (see Peruzzotti, 2013). The study of populism, therefore-despite its challenges to the intermediary institutions of representative democracy, and its attendant claims to offer more" direct" forms of democratic empowerment of mass constituencies-must be firmly situated in the larger domain of political representation, and it is necessarily intertwined with the study of party politics.As the aforementioned paradox suggests, populism is often, to paraphrase Schumpeter, a force of" creative destruction" for national party systems (Roberts, 2013: 40). On one hand, political space for populism is opened by the failure of established parties to effectively represent salient interests or sentiments in the body politic. Populism thrives where mainstream parties are in crisis, or at least where they exclude or ignore major currents of opinion that are denied institutionalized channels of expression. The rise of populist alternatives thus helps to crystallize such failures of representation, weaken or supplant traditional party organizations, and, in extreme cases, accelerate the demise of the old order. On the