Mass democracy

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word mass democracy is a critical term for the forms of the systems that characterize themselves as democratic and their modes of operation. Conservative thinkers such as Carl Schmitt see in mass democracy the rule of the relativism of social norms and values ​​in general and the decline of the idea of responsibility in particular. But also decidedly liberal or libertarian philosophers , such as Friedrich August von Hayek , criticize the “rule of the masses ” in modern democracy, since they are viewed as easily manipulable , primitive and irrational.

Attempt at a definition

Alexis de Tocqueville saw in the democracy of the United States of America an oppression that threatened democracy by itself. However, he did not find a suitable term for it. That is why he described the phenomenon: “I see innumerable multitudes of similar and identical people who restlessly turn around themselves in order to obtain small and ordinary joys that fill their soul. Each of them is focused on himself and behaves like a stranger to the fate of the others ... But a tremendous power of guardianship rises above all of them ... It ensures their security, anticipates and secures their needs, promotes theirs Amusements, conducts her most important affairs, directs her work, arranges her succession, distributes her inheritance; could she not completely relieve them of the burden of thinking and the trouble of living? "

Concept of mass democracy according to Panajotis Kondylis

Panajotis Kondylis sees a change from the synthetic-harmonizing thinking of modernity to the analytical-combinatorial way of thinking of postmodernism. Bourgeois society is being displaced by the new social formation of mass democracy. The attribute “masses” has a negative meaning in this context. Terms like mass traffic, mass tourism and mass production trigger similar associations. With his concept of mass democracy, Kondylis means a kind of compromise on the social and political role of the masses since the 18th century: a synthesis of liberalism , conservatism and socialism . "From liberalism the individualistic human rights entered the synthesis, from socialism the materialistic concretization of human rights on an egalitarian basis, from conservatism, if anything, the state-relatedness shared with socialism, which resulted in the welfare state as the overarching institution of mass democracy." In his understanding, mass democracy is a third result - after the failure of communism. It is the end of history , according to which liberal democracy has defeated communism and determines the future. He pays particular attention to the problem of the stability of democracy. The unity of the will of the masses - that is, the unity of the community - always takes precedence over an outside party when it comes to securing the existence of one's own. Whether and to what extent this succeeds will decide the respective fate of mass democracy.

During the Cold War, “prosperity for all” in the West prevented the danger of a communist seizure of power. This promoted the development of modern mass democracy. This process went hand in hand with the formation of new elites in business and politics, which replaced the old bourgeoisie. As sociological types, managers and technocrats are something completely different from citizens. In this sense, the West only defeated the East when bourgeois class society gave way to mass democracy. “The farewell to utopia in the east was made possible by the realization of utopia in the west. In fact, for the first time in world history, the shortage of goods was overcome in western mass democracy and society was broken down according to functional and performance criteria. "This would lead to a de-ideologization of politics, but de-ideologized struggles will possibly be even more violent when certain goods are calculated at a time when overcoming the scarcity of goods is postulated as the primary goal of humanity.

The role of the elite

In the scientific discussion the opinion is expressed that in modern mass democracy the people in no way form a unit of will towards the respective government. It is an illusion to assume that the democratic decision-making process proceeds from the bottom up, so that the political leaders are only executors of a general popular will. Democracy is more rule by order than rule by the people . Against this background, the thesis is put forward that the people are not in a position to decisively influence the formation of political will without the help of active minorities. These minorities include parties, associations and publicists, for example. From a sociological point of view, these are functional elites.

The role of the media

Political scientist Heinrich Oberreuter , director of the Institute for Journalist Training Passau, said: “Mass democracy needs the mass media. The public can no longer be created directly, but depends on the mediation of the media. These have long since become enforcers of the principle of parliamentary publicity. Parliamentary communication offers often get caught in the network of journalistic selection and interpretation patterns and do not reach their addressees. But what is not in the media does not become part of the everyday reality of the audience. In this respect, thought must also be given to the representational function of modern parliamentarism. ” Siegfried Weischenberg , communication scientist and journalist considers the relationship between politics and journalism to be a self-referential system that above all keeps itself going. Martin Walser pointed out: “The media may and must not do anything. No other power is as illegitimate as that of the media. ” In this context, Norbert Lammert asked himself whether journalists are part of the political system. His answer is ambivalent: “It must not be you if it means that you run joint campaigns and take care of each other. It has to be you if democracy is meant by this system. Because, yes, we have an interest in the democratic rule of law, freedom of expression and pluralism surviving, that is part of our nature. That is why political journalism should have no common interest - except for maintaining the reproductive possibilities of democratic politics. "

In other words: in mass democracy, attention journalism ensures that in politics it is not the better but the stronger arguments that win, especially in economic and social policy. That is why in mass democracy "a continuously demoscopically controlled conformity of opinion is the alpha and omega". Reform policy is measured by whether it agrees with the assessments of important sections of the population. This approval is particularly evident in the media. The mass democracy has, so to speak, a short circuit in the media, which extremely restricts the political scope for action. Already in the young Federal Republic it was established "that in a mass democracy it is obviously not so difficult to leave the beaten track and push through new ideas - especially when it comes to social issues". In 1960, the weekly newspaper Die Zeit said that the health insurance reform stands and falls with the belief that it is still possible to do what is necessary in a mass democracy - even if it is unpopular.

Opinion polls are the framework for political decisions. The media scientist Norbert Bolz therefore believes that this has its price more in terms of participation. In this culture, prudence and taste would hardly stand a chance. We should learn to live with bad taste. Because taste discriminates and that is unbearable in a mass democracy.

literature

  • Peter Furth: Mass democracy: on the historical compromise between liberalism and socialism as a form of rule . four essays, with an introduction by Frank Böckelmann. Landt, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-944872-19-3 ( d-nb.info [accessed on February 23, 2016]).
  • Panajotis Kondylis: The decline of the bourgeois way of thinking and living: the liberal modernity and the mass democratic postmodernism . 3. Edition. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-05-005052-2 ( d-nb.de [accessed on February 23, 2016]).

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ^ A b Peter Furth: About mass democracy. (PDF) Eurozine, archived from the original on February 23, 2016 ; accessed on February 23, 2016 .
  2. ↑ Panajotis Kondylis: The end of ideologies is not the end of history. (PDF) October 5, 1991, accessed February 23, 2016 .
  3. ^ Otto Stammer: Democracy and elite education. (PDF) Retrieved February 23, 2016 .
  4. ^ Norbert Lammert : Parliament and participation in mass democracy. (PDF) Konrad Adenauer Foundation , May 2011, accessed on February 23, 2016 .
  5. ↑ Elmar Rieger: The socio-political counter-reformation. Federal Agency for Civic Education , November 12, 2002, accessed on February 23, 2016 .
  6. ↑ Wolfgang Krüger: Hocus-pocus of conventional social policy . In: Die Zeit , No. 29/1960
  7. ↑ Norbert Bolz : Cuddle or kill . In: Der Spiegel . No. 6 , 2004 ( online ).