Demo-Skepticism and Genocide

Abstract

Genocide studies have expanded rapidly over the last twenty years, impelled by events such as the Bosnian and Rwandan tragedies and aided by the interdisciplinary confluence between comparative politics, history, anthropology and other social sciences. The challenge from historical sociology is particularly meaningful and few scholars are better equipped to achieve this task than Michael Mann. His explanation, linking genocide to ‘democracy’, is a relatively novel one. However, while scholars from various disciplines broadly agree on the link between genocide and modernity, the description of ethnic cleansing as the ‘dark side of democracy’ is more controversial. This article assesses Mann's claim, contrasting it with recent research in the field: after situating Mann's contribution within the structure–agency debate, I question whether causality and human responsibility are lost. I then explore the broader, recent trend of ‘demo‐skepticism’ to which the book belongs. Its main weakness is a contraction of the concept of democracy into that of ‘majority rule’. This is accompanied by an intermittent overlap between the concepts of democracy, liberalism and neoliberalism, under the umbrella term ‘liberal democracy’.

Democracy, Nationalism and Culture: A Social Critique of Liberal Monoculturalism

“…The term demo‐skepticism (Conversi 2006) is used here to distinguish this contemporary trend from erstwhile anti‐democratic thought. All the authors considered here share little in common with early twentieth‐century aversion to parliamentary politics.…”

Paradigms of Postmodern Democracies

“…Daniele Conversi (2006) refers to such a crisis as "demoskepticism," "the very fact that we begin to feel that we no longer live in 'democratic' societies" (p. 257). Conversi also explores "deep-reaching democracy" verses "majoritarian democracy."…”

Reply: Is Democracy, and was Fascism, Sacred?

“…In my book, I try to sketch out the forms of democracy more appropriate to bi‐ or tri‐ethnic states (confederalism, consociationalism, etc.). But when Conversi says that my brief and sketchy remarks about neoliberalism constitute ‘one of the book's strongest points’ (Conversi, 2006, p. 256), I am not sure whether he is being over‐generous or critical of the remaining 99 per cent of my book! For, in truth, my book has little to say about neoliberalism.…”

“…We are habituated to blaming the ills of the world on nationalism, so ethnic cleansing is just another of them.Yet, the vast bulk of nationalism around the world is harmless -witness the Olympic Games or the World Cup, or French conceptions of their cultural superiority or Swedes of their unique benevolence to the world. Nobody would think of coining the term 'natio-skepticism', analogous to Conversi's term 'demo-skepticism' (Conversi, 2006), though perhaps it could be used in the completely opposite sense of pointing out all the good Durkheimian things about national solidarity -standing firm against aggression, generous welfare states or successful economic development. But democracy has become a sacred term, at least in the realm of public discourse, responsible only for good things (though most American citizens reveal considerable skepticism in public opinion polls about their own democracy).…”