Discrepancy between theory and practice: Democratic recession or a crisis of state legitimacy?

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
M A Mohamed Salih
{"title":"Discrepancy between theory and practice: Democratic recession or a crisis of state legitimacy?","authors":"M A Mohamed Salih","doi":"10.1080/10220461.2023.2265892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The discrepancy between democratic theory and practice is common to all democratic and quasi-democratic governments. Democratic recession manifests where there is an extreme discrepancy between normative democratic values and their practice – for instance where the state has flouted democratic normative rules (theory) and rendered major democratic institutions dysfunctional. This article posits that democratic recession can be seen in the 21st century as a reaction to at least four factors: 1) shifts in global geopolitics, 2) a crisis of representative democracy, 3) democratic silence, and 4) the rise of populism and post-truth framing. Indices of democracy do not, however, reveal the extent of the state’s role in undermining democratic institutions (ie, political parties, election monitoring bodies, parliaments, the media, civil society), due to a bias of liberal individualism. The outcome has been a crisis of state legitimacy, where citizens lose trust in the state rather than in democratic governance.","PeriodicalId":44641,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of International Affairs-SAJIA","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of International Affairs-SAJIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10220461.2023.2265892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The discrepancy between democratic theory and practice is common to all democratic and quasi-democratic governments. Democratic recession manifests where there is an extreme discrepancy between normative democratic values and their practice – for instance where the state has flouted democratic normative rules (theory) and rendered major democratic institutions dysfunctional. This article posits that democratic recession can be seen in the 21st century as a reaction to at least four factors: 1) shifts in global geopolitics, 2) a crisis of representative democracy, 3) democratic silence, and 4) the rise of populism and post-truth framing. Indices of democracy do not, however, reveal the extent of the state’s role in undermining democratic institutions (ie, political parties, election monitoring bodies, parliaments, the media, civil society), due to a bias of liberal individualism. The outcome has been a crisis of state legitimacy, where citizens lose trust in the state rather than in democratic governance.
理论与实践的差异:民主衰退还是国家合法性危机?
民主理论与实践的矛盾是所有民主和准民主政府的共同特点。民主衰退表现在规范的民主价值观与其实践之间存在极端差异的地方——例如,在国家藐视民主规范规则(理论)并使主要民主机构功能失调的地方。本文认为,21世纪的民主衰退可以被视为对至少四个因素的反应:1)全球地缘政治的转变,2)代议制民主的危机,3)民主的沉默,以及4)民粹主义和后真相框架的兴起。然而,由于自由个人主义的偏见,民主指数并没有揭示国家在破坏民主制度(即政党、选举监督机构、议会、媒体、公民社会)方面的作用程度。其结果是一场国家合法性危机,公民失去了对国家的信任,而不是对民主治理的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信