Post-democracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The term Post-democracy designates a state conducted by democratic rules, but whose application is progressively limited. The English conservative journalist Peter Oborne presented a documentary of the 2005 general election, arguing that it had become anti-democratic because it targeted a number of floating voters with a narrow agenda. The LSE academic Colin Crouch, further developed the idea in an article called 'Is there a liberalism beyond social democracy?' for the think tank Policy Network and in his subsequent book 'The Strange Non-Death of Neo-Liberalism'.

The basic claim is based on certain observations on the economic and thus also political power of multinational corporations. Corporations and governments are in close relation because states are in need of corporations as great employers which cause enormous cash flow. But much of the production is outsourced and corporations have almost no difficulties to move to other countries. As a consequence labor-law becomes employee unfriendly and tax bites are moved from companies to individuals in order to make better conditions for corporations. The neoliberal doctrine brings state and the corporations even closer. The neoliberal order is the total rejection of the state as an institution which can serve the needs of the people and provide public and social services to the population regardless of wealth, class or creed. Once the state begins to abandon that, these tasks are handed over to private corporations. That allows corporations to influence the decisions of the state like how, where and what to build, what to buy, environmental and labor laws.

Definition tentative[edit]

This term appeared to define a running evolution within the democracies during the 21st century.

It is a polemical term because it calls attention to recognized democracies that are losing some of their foundations and evolving toward an Aristocratic regime.

A Post-democracy may be characterized as:

Although these features may seem to contradict pluralist assumptions, there is an accepted presumption that the common good can be determined objectively and conflicts of interest are to be handled not within democratic processes but instead within administrative proceedings.

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]