Liberal democracy: crisis or disruption/decline?

Abstract

Crisis or rupture/decline? For some researchers, democracy continues to have wide appeal, but the commitment to it is not always very deep. This low level of commitment can create an environment of relative tolerance for actions that distort or break the rules of democracy. It could open the door to restrictions on free speech, excessive use of executive power, or even military intervention in politics. In view of this, is the equilibrium democracy model able to prevent the internal corrosion described by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, or the lack of interest in defending it in times of Amazon, internet and social networks, as David Runciman seems to suggest? In this article, I propose an approach to liberal democracy from the critique of a certain representation and idea of democracy presented by critical thinkers, in particular, the philosopher Jacques Rancière. Theorists who emphasized the importance of disagreement and the often sporadic nature of politics. These theories focus on a strong critique of existing minimalist democratic theories and practices. Rancière turns his critical attention to what he calls “consensual democracy”, the attempt to eliminate all forms of disagreement, and therefore politics, from the social body. The desire for consensual democracy is the desire for a politics that has eliminated disruptive democratic politics, to be replaced by apolitical administration and private domination, a desire perhaps felt in Fukuyama's end-of-history thesis and deeply linked to neoliberal ideology.