Anti-Democratic Thought and Practice

https://www.idi.org.il/books/17580
היהדות החרדית הולכת וכובשת לעצמה מקום ונוכחות בחברה הישראלית. מקהילה קטנה שנתפסה
ככת ורק מעטים התעניינו בה היא נהייתה אחת הקהילות המסוקרות והמסקרנות ביותר בארץ. ההצדקות לכך ברורות: קצב הגידול של הקבוצה מדהים; השונות שבין אורחות חייה ובין המקובל על הרוב הישראלי גדולה ביותר; ההשפעה שלה על המרחב הציבורי ועל הפוליטיקה הישראלית בולטת מאוד; ומערכת היחסים שבינה ובין הרוב הישראלי הלא חרדי מתאפיינת אפוא בקשיים ניכרים. ואולם בתוך מבול החומרים האקטואליים מחבר ספר זה מבקש להציג את העולם החרדי בחתכי רוחב ועומק. הוא מציג את ״מפת״ היהדות החרדית לסיעותיה השונות — חסידים, ליטאים וספרדים - ועוסק ביחסה של החברה החרדית לסוגיות רעיוניות מרכזיות הנוגעות לחיי כולנו: למדינה, לדמוקרטיה הישראלית ולגיוס לצבא. בכל אחד מן הפרקים הוא סוקר בקצרה את שורשיה ההיסטוריים של הקהילה הנדונה ומגיע עד ימינו, תוך כדי הבחנה בין הגוונים השונים שיש בתוך היהדות החרדית עצמה בעניינים שונים.

הספר כתוב מתוך גישה ביקורתית — אך מכבדת. המחבר מבקש לשלול את דימוי החרדים כגוש אחיד וסגור ולהראות שיש בו גוונים ואף מצביע על הגורמים השונים שמתוכם נוצרו גוונים אלה, בין הרוחניים ובין הארציים. המחבר מבסס את טענותיו על נתונים ועל מחקרים מעמיקים, ועם זאת ספרו מנוסח בשפה קולחת ושווה לכל נפש, שאינה מחייבת את קוראיו בידע מחקרי קודם. הוא מבקש לתת תמונה מקיפה, יסודית ומועילה.

לעמוד הספר באתר הוצאת עם עובד:
http://www.am-oved.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A_%D7%9C%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%AA

לגירסה דיגיטלית ללא תשלום באתר המכון הישראלי לדמוקרטיה:
https://www.idi.org.il/books/17580

In the historiography of early modern England ‘democracy’ is conspicuous for its absence. The observation that since back then it did not exist, pre-nineteenth-century criticisms of democracy are not worth exploring has led historians to neglect some major questions: why was this so? How was such widespread criticism of popular government articulated? In what ways did different authors and genres depict the people and their power? Which political concerns, social prejudices and clusters of values informed this anti-democratic paradigm? What was democracy actually thought to stand for? In order to address these points my essay analyses how anti-democratic ideas were elaborated in various sources from ca. the inception of the Jacobean reign (1603) up to the killing of Charles I (1649). In particular, my work offers a panoramic view onto the variegated landscape of anti-democratic thought to show the remarkable continuity informing its rhetoric. It also reveals how political and religious debates as well as events were defined by concerns surrounding democracy – not republicanism – and opposition to it. So much so that we can speak of democracy as an omnipresent challenge at a plurality of levels in early modern English public life. In fact, a multiplicity of discourses (not just political or ecclesiastical but broadly cultural too) was employed to make democracy shine in all its monstrosity. Democracy was a dirty word and remained so in the 1640s, which contrary to much scholarship did not see the dawn of a new democratically-inclined era. Inevitably selective, the chronologically-ordered sections of this chapter provide thus a hopefully innovative illustration of an important but overlooked topic as well as an examination of the long-term relevance of principles that are still much debated today.

Contemporary political philosophy in the West is the philosophy of democracy, is democratic theory. Philosophy under democracy has become complacent. Even the recent reaffirmation of communism by influential philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek failed to inspire a significant following. There has been no radical philosophical reaction to the near-collapse of the capitalist economic system, mainly because any criticism of capitalism would imply a criticism of democracy ("the best possible political shell for capitalism", as Lenin said). Techno-philosophical alternatives to democracy, such as anarcho-capitalist "seasteading", and calls for the suspension of democracy to cure climate change are originating outside academic departments of philosophy. Is there still philosophy if everyone agrees? Is philosophy still philosophy if discontent with the-one-and-only-truth can only be voiced from outside the academy? Or does political philosophy more and more resemble Plato's cave? This paper will venture outside the cave, outside the comfort zone of western academic philosophy as always-already-democratic. Only in this way can it seek to engage in a meaningful dialogue with non-western worldviews. Only by stepping into the light will we illuminate why still, in the twenty-first century, scholars may be justified in studying not democracy, but anti-democracy. Where are the niches of anti-democratic thought that may yet save us from the destruction wrought upon the world by the failing capitalist-democratic complex? What are the political trends against democracy we miss at our peril and what are their philosophical implications, worldwide? What are the new alternatives to democracy that emerge in our day? Free of self-imposed prejudice, this paper rejects the boycott of thought that does not comply with western inhibitions, and refuses to shy away from the encounter of philosophical positions emanating from non-democratic political practices. Philosophy is not blind, it does not condone any ideologies uncritically, and philosophy does not equal democracy.

Se toda a humanidade menos um fosse de uma determinada opinião, e apenas uma pessoa fosse de opinião contrária, a humanidade não teria mais justificativas para silenciar aquela pessoa, do que ela, se tivesse o poder, de silenciar a humanidade".

Diese Untersuchung handelt von einem Dichter und dessen Haltung zum politischen Geschehen seiner Zeit. Stefan Zweig heißt der Mann, lebte in der ersten Hälfte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts und bezog Stellung zu einer Form des Gemeinwesens, die zugrunde ging und einer der größten politischen Katastrophen der Neuzeit Platz machte. Welche Stellung dieser Dichter bezog, was ihn dazu bewegte und wie das zu verstehen ist; das sind Fragen, die hier beleuchtet werden sollen. Den Anstoß zu dieser Übung in politischem Denken gibt eine Theoretikerin, der immer an der Bestimmung des Begriffs des Politischen gelegen war und die in derselben bewegten Zeit lebte wie der Dichter. Sie heißt Hannah Arendt und ist der Ansicht, der Dichter habe durch sein Handeln in dieser Zeit seine „Narrheit“ offenbart. In dieser Untersuchung soll darum auch gefragt werden, was genau diese Denkerin am Verhalten des Dichters beanstandete, was er ihrer Meinung nach hätte anders oder besser machen können.

ABSTRACT
The 2016–2017 Candlelight Revolution was one of the most significant
events in recent South Korean politics, but little attention has been
paid to the powerful conservative counter-movement that
accompanied and followed the candlelight protests. This countermovement
was symbolized by demonstrations by flag-carriers who
found Park Geun-Hye’s impeachment and Moon Jae-In’s
inauguration incomprehensible. They argued that Park was
innocent, called for her release from prison, and claimed that
Moon’s election was illegitimate. An analysis of speeches made
during conservative counter-protests between 2016 and 2019
illustrates how these activists reject the values of a new era in South
Korean political and economic life. Instead, their speeches conveyed
a clear desire to have the legacy of the industrialization generation
recognized in contemporary South Korea. These flag-carriers are
evidence that a marginalized set of desires and aspirations about
South Korean nationalism and identity coexist with the progressive
views of the candlelight protesters. The persistence of such an
intense and partisan worldview, however, poses a threat to the
future of liberal democracy in South Korea.

Churchill certa vez deu uma declaração que ficou famosa: "a democracia é a pior forma de governo, à exceção de todas as outras que têm sido testadas de tempos em tempos" 1 . Certamente, isto não era verdade para a grande maioria dos pensadores que escreveram sobre política no inicial período moderno. Não que a coisa tivesse sido melhor na Grécia antiga. Para Platão, demokratia era a regra da ralé. Igualmente, Sócrates, Aristóteles, Tucídides e Aristófanes condenaram a democracia, e Políbio usou a pejorativa "oclocracia" para descrever a sua degeneração. O legado desta desconfiança em relação ao governo popular persistiu da época romana até a Idade Média e encontrou solo fértil na Inglaterra, não exatamente das Guerras Civis (1642) em diante, mas desde o começo do Reino Elisabetano (1558). Por aceitar esse quadro, ou observar que naquela época a democracia não existia, a crítica a ela não valia a pena ser exploradas antes do século dezenove; o mainstream historiográfico deixou algumas questões importantes sem resposta 2 . Por que foi assim? Como tal crítica generalizada do governo popular foi articulada? De qual forma diferentes autores e gêneros descreveram o povo Institute (Itália) e atualmente desenvolve pesquisa como Junior Fellow na Universiät Erfurt (Alemanha) sobre o pensamento antidemocrático no início da Inglaterra moderna. Cuttica possui diversos livros e artigos publicados a respeito de temas como patriarcalismo, absolutismo e pensamento antidemocrático no início da modernidade europeia. e seu poder? Quais preocupações políticas e preconceitos sociais informavam este paradigma antidemocrático? O que a democracia realmente acreditava representar? Para tratar desses pontos, as páginas seguintes analisam como as ideias antidemocráticas foram elaboradas em política, teologia, filosófica e no discurso público dos reinos Elisabetano, Jacobiano e Carolino. Em particular, elas oferecem uma visão panorâmica sobre a variegada paisagem do pensamento antidemocrático, mostrando continuidade e mudanças denotadas por sua retórica. Inevitavelmente seletiva, as seções ordenadas cronologicamente do artigo esperam fornecer uma nova explanação de um assunto importante, mas ignorado, bem como um exame do longo prazo da relevância de princípios que ainda são muito debatidos hoje. *** Para começar, devemos levar em conta uma simples, mas importante consideração: a escoriação inicial das descrições modernas da democracia tem que ser lida em conjunção com a exaltação-mística, divina, histórica -da monarquia. A "maravilhosa auréola" circundando a instituição e os rituais da monarquia lhe deu a credibilidade moral que amentava a lealdade e a obediência do povo para com seus soberanos 3 . No que diz respeito à "linguagem mágica da política", o reino monárquico dominou graças ao seu enraizado aparato de crenças coletivamente persuasivas, performances e imagens 4 . Por comparação, a democracia ficou bem atrás da monarquia no que diz respeito à exibição de seu poder visual, o qual não tinha nada de uma aura sagrada e uma rica identidade simbólica ligada como ocorria com os reis/rainhas 5 . A democracia não teve um andaime útil com o qual promovesse uma imagem de si mesma como um governo legítimo, emblemas de virtudes e repositório de glória. Além disso, um governo sem rei raramente fora imaginado antes do regicídio de 1649. Politicamente, a democracia foi atacada de uma pluralidade de ângulos, incluindo suas origens (foi argumentado que o povo nunca tinha estabelecido uma autoridade legítima e que o poder popular correspondia a uma conduta violenta), o método de governo (isto 3 M.

Anti-democracy in England 1570-1642 is a detailed study of anti-democratic ideas in early modern England. By examining the rich variety of debates about democracy that took place between 1570 and 1642, it shows the key importance anti-democratic language held in the late Tudor and early Stuart periods. In particular, it argues that anti-democratic critiques were addressed at 'popular government' as a regime that empowered directly and fully the irrational, uneducated, dangerous commonalty; it explains why and how criticism of democracy was articulated in the contexts here under scrutiny; and it demonstrates that the early modern era is far more relevant to the development of democratic concepts and practices than has hitherto been acknowledged. The study of anti-democracy is carried out through a close textual analysis of sources often neglected in the history of political thought and by way of a contextual approach to Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline history. Most importantly, the study re-evaluates the role of religion and cultural factors in the history of democracy and of political ideas more generally. The point of departure is at a time when the establishment and Presbyterians were at loggerheads on pivotal politico-ecclesiastical and theoretical matters; the end coincides with the eruption of the Civil Wars. Cesare Cuttica not only places the unexplored issue of anti-democracy at the centre of historiographical work on early modern England, but also offers a novel analysis of a precious portion of Western political reflection and an ideal platform to discuss the legacy of principles that are still fundamental today.

Reviewed by:
1. Ronald G. Asch, Historische Zeitschrift, 316:1 (2023), pp. 248-250 (in German).
2. Luc Foisneau, Bulletin de Philosophie Anglaise II, Archives de Philosophie, 86:2 (2023), pp. 182-185 (in French).
3. Marco Barducci, Articoli Recensioni/Reviews/Rezensionen Online (ARO), 6:2 (2023), https://aro-isig.fbk.eu/issues/2023/2/anti-democracy-in-england-1570-1642-marco-barducci/ (in Italian).
4. Endre Sashalmi, Klio, 2 (2023), pp. 16-19 (in Hungarian).
5. Rachel Hammersley, History of Political Thought, 45:1 (2024), pp. 191-194.

In recent years, the fortunes of democracy have waned both in theory and practice. This has added impetus not only to the republican case for strengthening democratic institutions but also to new anti-democratic thought. This article examines the claim made by Jason Brennan that epistocracy, rule by the ‘knowledgeable’, is compatible with freedom from domination. It begins by briefly explaining epistocracy and republicanism. It then presents the argument for epistocratic republicanism: that democracy can be a source of domination and that freedom from domination can be secured through non-democratic political institutions. The case against epistocratic republicanism is grounded in concerns about systemic domination and the ability of epistocrats to arbitrarily set the terms of social cooperation. These two arguments are judged on the basis of which better minimises domination while respecting its value to all people. Epistocratic republicanism is found to be less reliable because of the risks of epistemic injustice that accompanies systemic domination; democracy, accompanied by other republican institutions, is better at minimising domination and respecting persons. It concludes that republicans ought to be democrats.

Author's Accepted versions can be viewed at: https://www.gdblunt.com/publications

This paper focuses on prospects for Western style “democracy” in the Middle East, pursuing three interrelated points. First, I argue that some “democratic” experiments—for example, Egypt under Mohammed Morsi—are not in keeping with etymological and historical meanings of democracy; second, that it may be totalitarian and also colonialistic and thus possibly contrary to democratic ideals to suppose Western style governments are the only morally acceptable ones; and third, that Middle Eastern countries face realities foreign to the West, and it is wrongheaded to presume that Western systems will inevitably work there if the aim is to improve human wellbeing.  While generally skeptical of Western attempts to export democracy, partly because concepts of democracy in the West are already impoverished, and also because “freedom” and “oppression” are often shallowly conceived, I finish on a more hopeful note, focusing on Tunisia, and exploring conditions that led it to succeed were others floundered. I also consider a country for which many hold little hope—Libya—but discuss things that Libya has done right, and why optimism may be warranted.

In a historical and cross-cultural perspective the fact cannot be denied that most democracies failed. Many formerly democratic countries do not have a democratic government now. Many countries have never known democracy. Only western democracies for a short while - maybe to be dated from the fall of Soviet communism to the rise of radical Islam - believed themselves invincible. It seems therefore expedient to think about political alternatives once more and to study threats to democracy from within and without as well as common modes of failure of democracy and democratization across times and cultures. Will people's disillusion with democratic practices (such as the impact money has on campaigning), mass politics, and the equal inconsequence of everyone's vote ultimately terminate democracy? Oswald Spengler, in "The Decline of the West", said: "As then sceptre and crown, so now people's rights are paraded for the multitude, and all the more punctiliously the less they really signify." Still, all known political alternatives may have discredited themselves. The competing political systems of the twentieth century lost their struggle for world domination. Anti-democratic thought may be directed against a particular form of democracy only or against every form of democracy imaginable. Wherever a form of democracy arose or was proposed, it also found its critics and opponents. Historically, anti-democratic thought directed against abstract democratic principles and ideals most often originated from supporters of competing political systems such as guardianship, absolute monarchy, aristocratic government, collectivist anarchism, socialism, communism, fascism, or theocracy. Parliamentarism has thus been criticized by thinkers as diverse as Carl Schmitt ("Political Theology"), Vladimir Lenin ("The State and Revolution") and H.G. Wells ("After Democracy"). Many anti-democratic individualists on the other hand have felt coerced by majority decisions regardless of democracy's claim to be the political system least obstructive to individual liberty - as evidenced for example by the individualist anarchism of Max Stirner in "The Ego and Its Own". Criticisms of democracy purporting to propose ways of improving democratic processes and performance and/or the political participation of the people over against liberal democracy have arisen chiefly within the context of particular countries and their singular experience with democracy. Recently proposed measures to address democratic disenchantment and what has been called the post-democratic condition include selection of office bearers by lot (sortition), re-localization of decision-making to the community level, as well as emergent forms of electronic direct democracy. All alternative (that is, non-liberal) forms of democracy that have been proposed - while professing to capture the true essence of democracy - seem virtually indistinguishable from both anti-democratic thought and non-democratic forms of government.

Eighty years ago, Winston Churchill called to build an iron curtain to defend the democratic states from the evil soviet expansion. Hence, the trial of democracy began around the globe. It was the beginning of Cold War, which had divided the world into major blocs: Capitalists and Communists. With the beginning of the Cold War, the preparation for the forthcoming con icts became the pivotal feature of the leading societies of the world. Though, the war was won by the capitalist bloc by dismembering the Soviet Union, but since then, the omnipotence of democratic victory is su ering from the moral guilt. Although, the amelioration of the authoritarian victims began around the world,

From a historical and cross-cultural perspective it cannot be denied that most democracies failed. Only western democracies for a short while - from the fall of Soviet communism to the rise of radical Islam - believed themselves to be invincible. This book marks the start of a daring new debate and re-introduces anti-democratic thought and practice to the academic discourse and into the syllabus. It wishes to offer a serious discussion of anti-democratic thought, rather than an apology of democracy. The book outlines a positive agenda for the future. In a comprehensive overview, contributors to this volume discuss theoretical perspectives as well as examples of anti-democratic thought from ancient Greece to modern-day Israel and Bangladesh. A book that grew out of an international workshop on Anti-Democratic Thought organized by the Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) and held at the 2007 annual conference "Workshops in Political Theory" in Manchester, England.