The ambivalence of populism: threat and corrective for democracy
The ambivalence of populism: threat and corrective for democracy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13510347.2011.572619
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Kaltwasser, Cristobal Rovira
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kaltwasser, Cristobal Rovira
民粹主义的两种形象已经确立：要么被贴上病态政治现象的标签，要么被视为最真实的政治表现形式。在本文中，我认为将民粹主义归类为一种矛盾心理更为有效，根据具体情况，这种矛盾心理可能构成对民主的威胁，也可能构成对民主的纠正。在展开我的论点时，我为理解研究民粹主义与民主之间关系的各种通常相互冲突的方法提供了一个路线图。特别地，三种主要的方法被确定和讨论：自由的，激进的和最小的。我要强调的是，对于研究民粹主义与民主之间的矛盾关系，后者是最有希望的。事实上，最低限度的办法并不意味着民主的具体概念，而且有助于进行跨区域比较。这有助于我们认识到，民粹主义与罗伯特·达尔（Robert Dahl）所区分的民主的两个维度有着不同的相互作用：虽然民粹主义在包容性方面很可能代表着一种民主矫正，但它也可能成为一种涉及公共争论的民主威胁。
Two images of populism are well-established: it is either labelled as a pathological political phenomenon, or it is regarded as the most authentic form of political representation. In this article I argue that it is more fruitful to categorize populism as an ambivalence that, depending on the case, may constitute a threat to or a corrective for democracy. Unfolding my argument, I offer a roadmap for the understanding of the diverse and usually conflicting approaches to studying the relation between populism and democracy. In particular, three main approaches are identified and discussed: the liberal, the radical and the minimal. I stress that the latter is the most promising of them for the study of the ambivalent relationship between populism and democracy. In fact, the minimal approach does not imply a specific concept of democracy, and facilitates the undertaking of cross-regional comparisons. This helps to recognize that populism interacts differently with the two dimensions of democracy that Robert Dahl distinguished: while populism might well represent a democratic corrective in terms of inclusiveness, it also might become a democratic threat concerning public contestation.