The Myth of Bourgeois Democracy

Andreas Christian Møller Mulvad; Rune Møller Stahl

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9

The Myth of Bourgeois Democracy

Andreas Christian Møller Mulvad, Rune Møller Stahl

Abstract

Mulvad and Stahl challenge the claim that parliamentary democracy is inherently ‘bourgeois’, identifying the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the most prominent contemporary proponent of this misguided idea. The chapter proceeds in three parts. First, it explores how the introduction of parliamentary democracy—defined as the ‘constitutionalisation’ of state power under a legislative body, with regular elections and universal suffrage—was everywhere a result of the activity of social movements working against the aspirations of both conservatives and liberals. Second, a rereading of Marx reveals that he actually wanted to radicalise representative democracy, not abolish it. Third, it is argued that Leninists and liberals have colluded in sustaining the myth of parliamentary democracy as a bourgeois invention. The conclusion asserts that the left’s task today is to defend existing representative institutions from persistent attacks, not abandon them.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	From Financial Crisis to Social Change : Towards Alternative Horizons
Number of pages	25
Place of Publication	Cham
Publisher	Palgrave Macmillan
Publication date	1 Jan 2018
Pages	171-195
ISBN (Print)	9783319705996
ISBN (Electronic)	9783319706009
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2018

Keywords

Faculty of Social Sciences
Parliamentary democracy
Republicanism
Liberalism
Marx Žižek

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9

Cite this

@inbook{53cf7de58b3c4504855121dc4481f922,

title = "The Myth of Bourgeois Democracy",

abstract = "Mulvad and Stahl challenge the claim that parliamentary democracy is inherently {\textquoteleft}bourgeois{\textquoteright}, identifying the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj {\v Z}i{\v z}ek as the most prominent contemporary proponent of this misguided idea. The chapter proceeds in three parts. First, it explores how the introduction of parliamentary democracy—defined as the {\textquoteleft}constitutionalisation{\textquoteright} of state power under a legislative body, with regular elections and universal suffrage—was everywhere a result of the activity of social movements working against the aspirations of both conservatives and liberals. Second, a rereading of Marx reveals that he actually wanted to radicalise representative democracy, not abolish it. Third, it is argued that Leninists and liberals have colluded in sustaining the myth of parliamentary democracy as a bourgeois invention. The conclusion asserts that the left{\textquoteright}s task today is to defend existing representative institutions from persistent attacks, not abandon them.",

keywords = "Faculty of Social Sciences, Parliamentary democracy, Republicanism, Liberalism, Marx {\v Z}i{\v z}ek",

author = "Mulvad, {Andreas Christian M{\o}ller} and Stahl, {Rune M{\o}ller}",

year = "2018",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9",

language = "English",

isbn = "9783319705996",

pages = "171--195",

booktitle = "From Financial Crisis to Social Change",

publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",

address = "United Kingdom",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - The Myth of Bourgeois Democracy

AU - Mulvad, Andreas Christian Møller

AU - Stahl, Rune Møller

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Mulvad and Stahl challenge the claim that parliamentary democracy is inherently ‘bourgeois’, identifying the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the most prominent contemporary proponent of this misguided idea. The chapter proceeds in three parts. First, it explores how the introduction of parliamentary democracy—defined as the ‘constitutionalisation’ of state power under a legislative body, with regular elections and universal suffrage—was everywhere a result of the activity of social movements working against the aspirations of both conservatives and liberals. Second, a rereading of Marx reveals that he actually wanted to radicalise representative democracy, not abolish it. Third, it is argued that Leninists and liberals have colluded in sustaining the myth of parliamentary democracy as a bourgeois invention. The conclusion asserts that the left’s task today is to defend existing representative institutions from persistent attacks, not abandon them.

AB - Mulvad and Stahl challenge the claim that parliamentary democracy is inherently ‘bourgeois’, identifying the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the most prominent contemporary proponent of this misguided idea. The chapter proceeds in three parts. First, it explores how the introduction of parliamentary democracy—defined as the ‘constitutionalisation’ of state power under a legislative body, with regular elections and universal suffrage—was everywhere a result of the activity of social movements working against the aspirations of both conservatives and liberals. Second, a rereading of Marx reveals that he actually wanted to radicalise representative democracy, not abolish it. Third, it is argued that Leninists and liberals have colluded in sustaining the myth of parliamentary democracy as a bourgeois invention. The conclusion asserts that the left’s task today is to defend existing representative institutions from persistent attacks, not abandon them.

KW - Faculty of Social Sciences

KW - Parliamentary democracy

KW - Republicanism

KW - Liberalism

KW - Marx Žižek

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-70600-9

M3 - Book chapter

SN - 9783319705996

SP - 171

EP - 195

BT - From Financial Crisis to Social Change

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - Cham

ER -

The Myth of Bourgeois Democracy

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this