Anxieties of Democracy in Europe and North America
Final Report Abstract
In recent years, commentators have voiced increasing alarm not only about the state of, but also about the future of liberal democracy. It has become apparent that in our age, democracy is less likely to be overturned by military coups or wars than to die silently at the hands of elected authoritarian rulers. If the forces that threaten to undermine democratic institutions are brought to power by democratic majorities and operate within these very institutions, any assessment of the vulnerability and resilience of liberal democracy needs to be informed about what citizens mean by, and expect from representative democracy, as well as about the capacity of democratic institutions to deliver it without sacrificing fundamental rules and norms. Over more than three years from 2016-2020, the Anxieties of Democracy-Programme, a joint initiative of the Social Science Research Council and a DFG-funded team convened by the applicants, has brought together scholars from Europe and the United States to discuss contemporary challenges to liberal democracy in a comparative perspective and to forge collaborations. In a series of workshops, each attended by 15-25 members of the SSRC’s Anxieties of Democracy Program as well as researchers from Germany and several other European countries, three aspects were identified as pressing challenges to liberal democracies that can and should be studied: (1) new and deepening cleavages in the citizenry and the way they are voiced and represented, (2) the way in which these cleavages may lead to increasing polarization within the political system, affecting the capacity of representative institutions, and parliaments in particular, to deliver stable government and credible policy responses under such adverse conditions and (3) the degree to which citizens’ aspirations for democratic institutions and practices are compatible or diverge. The format we chose for these workshops was crucial for thorough conceptual and empirical discussions. We made it an absolute priority to devote at least one hour to the discussion of each paper, thus giving participants the chance to elaborate on their ideas and to discuss them extensively and openly in a relaxed and friendly, but also focussed atmosphere. Judging from the positive feedback we received from participants, this format has greatly contributed to the workshops’ success and to the consolidation of the network.
Publications
- "Instrumental or procedural democrats? The evolution of procedural preferences after democratization." Political Research Exchange 1.1 (2019): 1-19
Landwehr, Claudia, and Arndt Leininger
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2019.1654838) - "Backlash against the procedural consensus." The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22.4 (2020): 598-608
Landwehr, Claudia
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148120946981) - “Not just money: Unequal Responsiveness in Egalitarian Democracies.” Journal of European Public Policy, 28, 1890-1908
Elsässer, Lea, Svenja Hense, and Armin Schäfer
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1801804) - "Democracy and depression: a cross-national study of depressive symptoms and nonparticipation." American Political Science Review 115.1 (2021): 323-330
Landwehr, Claudia, and Christopher Ojeda
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000830) - Die demokratische Regression. Die politischen Ursachen des autoritären Populismus. Suhrkamp Verlag, 2021
Schäfer, Armin, and Michael Zürn
- “Party-system polarisation, legislative institutions and cabinet survival in 28 parliamentary democracies, 1945–2019. West European Politics, 45.3, 612–637
Bergmann, Henning, Hanna Bäck, and Thomas Saalfeld
(See online at https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2020.1870345) - Contested Representation. Challenges, Shortcomings and Reforms. Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022
Landwehr, Claudia, Thomas Saalfeld, and Armin Schäfer
