Restrained democracy and its radical alternatives after 1989

Abstract

By all means, the fall of the Berlin Wall was a triumph of democracy. After 1989, it was repeatedly confirmed that liberal democracy was 'the only game in town.' As argued in the first editorial of the Journal of Democracy, newly established in 1990: 'The resurgence of democracy may be attributed in part to the failure of its rivals.' 1 Not only were liberal democracy's ideological contenders-fascism and communism-defeated, but the bloodless revolution of 1989 demonstrated that 'the people' were able to take their fate into their own hands, and to claim popular sovereignty in the face of authoritarian leaders and repressive state power. Even more, the transitions from dictatorship to democracy in Eastern Europe witnessed the emergence (or re-emergence to some, after 1848, 1918, and 1968) of the powers of spontaneous self-organization in civil society. The experiments in democratic deliberation in the Polish Round Table Talks, the Czechoslovak Civic Forum, and other forms of direct democracy were proof that the revolution of 1989 was not just a 'gewissermaßen rückspulende Revolution […] die den Weg frei macht, um versaumte Entwicklungen nachzuholen,' as Jürgen Habermas had argued. The wave of democratization in Eastern Europe not only caught up with the development of democracy in the West, but actually contributed to the innovation of democracy beyond the confirmation of the uncontested dominance of liberal democracy. 2 By now, little of that optimism is left. In their introduction, Eleni Braat and Pepijn Corduwener reconfirm Habermas's conservative estimate, arguing that '1989 seemed not only the victory of democracy,' but that it cemented the reputation of a 'restrained' liberal democracy after decades in which this model of democracy had been subjected to severe criticism. 3 Yet they also observe that this particular type of democracy is currently challenged anew, because of its inherent limitations, and by the emergence of populism.These observations raise two sets of questions. The first concerns issues of historical analysis: how is the perceived crisis of democracy related to the demise of communism? Did 1989 demarcate not just a high point, but also a turning point in the triumphal march of democracy? If the crisis tendencies of Western democracy are the result of more enduring tensions, what then has been the impact of 1989 on Restrained democracy and its radical alternatives after 1989The threefold crisis of democracy in the 'Former West'

Personalism and European Integration: Jacques Delors and the Legacy of the 1930s

“…This criticism was a traditional tenet of French personalism, which Delors emphasised even after 1989 made democracy 'the only game in town'. 116 For Delors, this was a historic opportunity to revive the public debate on the democratic character of the Community in view of the launch of the intergovernmental conference on political union which had been agreed on by the EEC member states at the Dublin European Council in April 1990. Delors agreed to reinforce the co-decision powers of the European Parliament and to make the Commission and Parliament operate in tandem, understanding the limits of a technical power detached from popular support.…”