Political Liberalism vs. “The Great Game of Politics”: The Politics of Political Liberalism

Muirhead, Russell; Rosenblum, Nancy L.

doi:10.1017/s1537592706060105

Cited by 34 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Generality, on the other hand, means 'that all those subject to the norms in question must have equal chances to advance their claims and arguments'. These two principles (or closely related variants of them ) stand at the cen Muirhead and Rosenblum (2006) and White and Ypi (2011).…”

Section: Liberalism and Political Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of peoplehood

Wolkenstein

2016

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Populism is widely thought to be in tension with liberal democracy. This article clarifies what exactly is problematic about populism from a liberal–democratic point of view and goes on to develop normative standards that allow us to distinguish between more and less legitimate forms of populism. The point of this exercise is not to dismiss populism in toto; the article strives for a more subtle result, namely, to show that liberal democracy can accommodate populism provided that the latter conforms to particular discursive norms. What the article calls a ‘liberal ethics of populism’ turns out to be closely bound up with a broader ethics of peoplehood, understood as a way of articulating who ‘the people’ are in a way that is compatible with liberal–democratic principles of political justification. Such an ethics, concludes the article, inevitably has a much wider audience than populist political actors: its addressees are all those who seek legitimately to exercise power in the name of the people.

show abstract

Section: Liberalism and Political Justificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of peoplehood

Wolkenstein

2016

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…. they connect particular interests with general principles’ (Muirhead and Rosenblum, 2006, p. 104). They are neither mere associations nor state institutions.…”

Section: The ‘Bilingualism’ Of Political Partiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising Political Parties: A Normative Framework

Bonotti

2011

Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political parties occupy a unique intermediate position between civil society and the public political realm and provide a hybrid and semi-institutional connection between the two domains. In this article I argue that, in order to preserve their unique and hybrid nature, political parties ought to balance partiality and unity and abide by a set of normative criteria, above all respect for party pluralism and for the institutional framework in which they operate. By complying with these criteria, political parties can convey values and interests in a way that favours democracy.

show abstract

“…The idea that parties are integral to Rawls's political liberalism has been suggested by Muirhead and Rosenblum (2006). They argue that parties represent an institutional and 'quasi-official' link between civil society and public political realm (Muirhead and Rosenblum 2006, p. 104), that they are '''bilingual''…as…they connect particular interests with general principles' (Muirhead and Rosenblum 2006, p. 104).…”

Section: Reasonableness and The Ethics Of Partisanshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Political Parties and the Limits of Political Liberalism

Bonotti

2010

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political parties have only recently become a subject of investigation in political theory. In this paper I analyse religious political parties in the context of John Rawls's political liberalism. Rawlsian political liberalism, I argue, overly constrains the scope of democratic political contestation and especially for the kind of contestation channelled by parties. This restriction imposed upon political contestation risks undermining democracy and the development of the kind of democratic ethos that political liberalism cherishes. In this paper I therefore aim to provide a broader and more inclusive understanding of 'reasonable' political contestation, able to accommodate those parties (including religious ones) that political liberalism, as customarily understood, would exclude from the democratic realm. More specifically, I first embrace Muirhead and Rosenblum's (Perspectives on Politics 4: 99-108 2006) idea that parties are 'bilingual' links between state and civil society and I draw its normative implications for party politics. Subsequently, I assess whether Rawls's political liberalism is sufficiently inclusive to allow the presence of parties conveying religious and other comprehensive values. Due to Rawls's thick conceptions of reasonableness and public reason, I argue, political liberalism risks seriously limiting the number and kinds of comprehensive values which may be channelled by political parties into the public political realm, and this may render it particularly inhospitable to religious political parties. Nevertheless, I claim, Rawls's theory does offer some scope for reinterpreting the concepts of reasonableness and public reason in a thinner and less restrictive sense and this may render it more inclusive towards religious partisanship.

show abstract

Political Liberalism vs. “The Great Game of Politics”: The Politics of Political Liberalism

Cited by 34 publications

References 69 publications

Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of peoplehood

Populism, liberal democracy and the ethics of peoplehood

Conceptualising Political Parties: A Normative Framework

Religious Political Parties and the Limits of Political Liberalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About