This article outlines a critical systems theory approach to the study of populism by arguing that populism is an avenue of contestation which assumes a distinct role and function in the existing constitution of the political system. Most notably, it is characterised by the re-entry of a popular sovereignty dimension within regular political procedures. By taking up a critical systems theory perspective, it becomes possible to more precisely distinguish populism from other forms of politics, such as oppositional politics, social movement (...) politics or procedural constitutional politics. Further, populism’s oscillation between democratic and authoritarian dynamics can be elucidated as an inversion which operates from within its political form. Finally, it is argued that the critical systems theory approach provides a more nuanced understanding of populism’s inherent problems and, consequently, moves beyond a blunt defence or rejection of populism as such. (shrink)

This article investigates the relationship between popular sovereignty, populism, and deliberative democracy. My main thesis is that populisms resurrect the polemical dimension of popular sovereignty by turning “the people” against the “powerbloc” or the “elite”, and that it is crucial thatthis terrain not be ceded to authoritarian distortions of this basic contestatory grammar. Furthermore, I contend that populist forms of politics are compatible with a procedural and deliberative conception of democracy. Ifirst engage with the assumption that populism and a procedural (...) model of democracy are incompatible, demonstrating that this assumption relies on a conservative bias which tiesthe exercising of communicative power to a “duty of civility”. I then engage with radical-democratic reconstructions of the procedural notion of popular sovereignty which emphasize the unleashing and diversification of peoplehood in communication circuits and the mutual permeability of constitutional politics, parliamentary legislation, and the public sphere. Thirdly, I conclude that populisms are an essential part of communicative power in modern democracies and part of its dialectical structure. (shrink)

Drawing on Arnold Schönberg’s seminal opera “Moses and Aron”, the comment focuses on the role of holistic politics in Andrew Arato’s and Jean L. Cohen’s “Populism and Civil Society”. It argues that their anti-populist stance is too quick in dismissing a politics which is driven by representing and re-constituting the whole of the social order. Against this backdrop, a rejuvenation of the political left may not consist in a rejection of holism as such but in a popular politics which relies (...) on functional equivalences. (shrink)

This article argues that the passage to world society proliferates a structural transformation of constitutionalism. It is argued that its postdemocratic character is mainly rooted in a process where substantial policy objectives are constitutionalized on a higher-ranking level. While the first part of the article elaborates this diagnosis by combining systems-theoretical and post-marxist insights, the second part turns to a critique of contemporary theories about transnational constitutionalism. It reveals the shortcomings of cosmopolitan, societal and popular-sovereignty approaches in overcoming these postdemocratic (...) structures. Finally, it is argued that – in the light of such a new constitutionalism – the notion of constituent power must be replaced by the figure of a destituent power which attempts to free the constitution as a form from the selective policy objectives. (shrink)

The concentration of socio-economic power and social inequality are characteristic features of contemporary society. Not the least, they tend to undermine democratic legislation: Democratic constit...

The concentration of socio-economic power and social inequality are characteristic features of contemporary society. Not the least, they tend to undermine democratic legislation: Democratic constit...