Alen Toplišek

Political accounts for the contemporary rise of populism in Western democracies generally agree that elite unresponsiveness and a wider crisis of political representation are to blame for the current political predicament. Mainstream political elites are caught between increasingly irreconcilable responsibilities bound by external constraints and institutions and growing popular demands for responsiveness. These accounts, however, fail to explain what underlying processes and structures are constraining elite responsiveness. In this paper, I give a political economy explanation, which links elite unresponsiveness with the weakening problem-solving capacity of Western democracies to deliver to their citizens in the face of increasing global economic integration, the power of financial markets and neoliberal hegemony. Moreover, I argue that the success of populist actors lies precisely in attempting to overcome these structural constraints by employing state power to address the challenges posed by global economic processes and the imbalances they create to democracy and national sovereignty.

This chapter offers the first in-depth study of both structural and agential factors behind the emergence and electoral breakthrough of a new radical left party in Slovenia, the Left. It defines the party's ideological profile and it analyses its tactics of party competition through a selection of concrete examples. It concludes by outlining two possible trajectories for the future electoral and organisational development of the party.

This chapter offers the first in-depth study of both structural and agential factors behind the emergence and electoral breakthrough of a new radical left party in Slovenia: the Left. It defines the party’s ideological profile and it analyses its tactics of party competition through a selection of concrete examples. It concludes by outlining two possible trajectories for the future electoral and organisational development of the party.

This paper analyses the economic dimension of populist governance in post-crisis Europe by exploring whether and in what ways populist economic policies diverge from neoliberal orthodoxy. Existing literature on contemporary populism in Central and Eastern Europe is ambivalent on this question and lacks systematic analyses of populist economic policies while in government. The comparative analysis of the Fidesz-led government in Hungary and the Law and Justice government in Poland is used to analyse the policy shifts in different domains. The main claim is that a combination of both domestic ideological change at the level of government and transnationally conditioned structural factors need to be considered to explain the shift towards and the variation in the pursuit of a ‘heterodox’ economic strategy under the two populist governments. The paper concludes by offering a reflection on why the analysed policy changes do not correspond with a more decisive shift towards an alternative trajectory of capitalist development in post-crisis Europe.

[WORK IN PROGRESS ]
Seeing the effects of continuing privatization and re-regulation of the economic environment, we get the eerie feeling that public spaces are being depoliticized and blurred into the domain of the private. The interweaving of the public and private has become so intricate over the last decade that it is increasingly difficult to launch an offensive for the protection of public goods and services - who to address, who is responsible, through what channels and by occupying what spaces/grounds? Is capitalism really just a monolith dominating established politics or is it a more heterogenous network composed of both capitalist, for profit, mechanisms and non-capitalist, more hybrid economic processes? Within the capitalist rationality, politics is recognized as an unpredictable and, potentially, an antithetical force which needs to be tamed in order to be made predictable, stabilized and neutralized. This explains the establishment of the technical infrastructure which transformed the previously (and directly) state-managed public services into a devolved and fragmented network of private contractors for the provision and delivery of goods. I will address this paradox of de-politicizing tendencies through Michel Foucault’s analysis of the liberal governmentality, who also identified contradictory processes at the interstices of the market and the state. By turning to Foucault, I will demonstrate that the seemingly depoliticizing processes at work are in fact bolstered by political mechanisms within the framework of the market logic. The critical interrogation of the self-limiting principle of liberalism will expose the paradox of these depoliticizing tendencies that shows itself in the parallel biopolitical extension of state control.


On the other hand, recent (re)politicizations characterized by popular uprisings will be conceptually rethought by discussing Foucault’s ‘counter-conduct” through Hannah Arendt, Max Weber and Jacques Derrida. In this light, the conventional binary between politics and resistance will be displaced and reconfigured so as to expose the common ontology of politics and resistance through the concept of power.  While Arendt’s account of power will bring to the fore some of the concept’s positive dimensions, Weber’s understanding of charisma and Derrida’s notion of the force of law will illustrate the cyclical nature of this ontology. Power has too often been simplistically portrayed as negative, leaving behind a feeling of impotence in the face of it. Power is also regularly conflated with terms such as influence, strength, authority and coercion – Arendt’s recognition of this disciplinary confusion and subsequent conceptual distinguishing of terminology will be helpful in this regard. The paper will propose a more nuanced conception of power which incorporates both politics and its rebellious sister, resistance. An alternative understanding of power will hopefully contribute to a better understanding of the dynamic of depoliticizing and politicizing processes at both the state and societal level.


In the third part, the paper will take a psychoanalytical twist by turning to a Lacanian reading of the hegemony theory by Yannis Stavrakakis. As it has already been stated by one of the key theorists of hegemony, Ernesto Laclau, and I agree fully with him on this point, psychoanalysis is “the only valid road to explain the drives behind construction” and “the only fruitful approach to the understanding of human reality” (Laclau 2004, 326).

The critics of austerity would be quick to dismiss such claims. They would point towards clear  economic figures, demonstrating still increasing public spending, despite all the austerity medicine taken. The economic growth data are in the green, but economic recovery is still very weak, the critics would say. On a different note, people’s quality of living is in decline, bills and prices are rising, yet most (if not all of them) public opinion polls show that the support for  austerity and structural reforms remains strong. There is no major resistance to austerity from the general public, much less from the formal political opposition. Banks and financial markets are re-consolidating their influence, the ruling class continues with privatization plans of  state-owned assets and searches for innovative ways to capitalize on (existing and emerging) profit opportunities. So, rather than trying to prove them wrong, that austerity is not working, we should acknowledge that austerity agenda is working. But why is that so? In this paper, I will argue that austerity and economic rescue efforts obfuscate the way capitalist system is readjusting itself to the new post-crisis context. This is being done at a time when radical critique and political alternatives seem futile against the dominant position of the liberal democratic/capitalist consensus. First, I will situate the current austerity agenda within Michel Foucault’s analysis of liberal governmentality and its role in accommodating the market/framing the readjustment of capitalism. I will then turn my attention to the vaining effective power of  critique. Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello’s contrasting of social and artistic critique in The New Spirit of Capitalism and Jacques Rancière’s analysis of critical art will help me in understanding the play between appearance and reality that seems to be taking place in the repositioning of ‘the state of (austere) normality’.

"Najprej naj pojasnim, zakaj sta me vprašanji svobode izražanja in sovražnega govora toliko časa mučili: na eni stran imamo živa, iz čustev zgrajena telesna bitja, ki so ob-čutljiva na odzive preostalih prisotnih in živečih v družbi. Ti odzivi so lahko fizični, govorni ali kako drugače neverbalno artikulirani. Kot čuteča bitja smo ranljivi na te odzive, kar je v veliki meri odvisno od naše psiho-sociološke sestave in mesta, kot ga vidimo sami in nam ga podaja družba v spletu različnih družbenih hierarhij in normativnih procesov »sprejemljivosti« ter »normalnosti«. Tako so nekateri lahko bolj izpostavljeni raznim izrazom mehanizmov in struktur družbenih norm kot drugi, ki ustrezajo modelu »normalnega« in »sprejemljivega«. Skozi desetletja boja različnih gibanj za pravice in družbeno pravičnost smo uspešno preoblikovali državne institucije in institute, da so bolj uvidevni do in dovzetni za te ranljivosti. Zakonodajno reguliranje sovražnih diskurzov je eden takih institutov.

Na drugi strani pa se srečujemo z vedno novimi poizkusi krčenja meja »sprejemljivega« in »razumnega« govora. Te omejitve prihajajo v obliki delovanja zakonodajnih ukrepov, prisilnih državnih institucij v sferah javnega  (kot tudi zasebnega, npr. na spletu), ekonomsko močnih družbenih institucij, kot tudi hramov modrosti in znanja (visokošolskih zavodov). Izhajam iz trdnega prepričanja, da mora vsaka potreba po izrazitvi imeti možnost artikulacije, da je vsak glas slišan in poslušan. V duhu odprte družbe za spodbujanje artikulacije družbenih antagonizmov seveda pride tudi do izražanja fašistoidnih diskurzivnih praks, ki so največkrat uperjene v marginalizirane in ranljive skupine ljudi. Kot fašistoidne razumem tiste diskurze, ki so usmerjeni proti ekonomsko in socialno ranljivim družbenim skupinam na podlagi »nezaželenih« identitetnih značilnosti – sovražni in destruktivni so v smislu neprepoznavanja heterogenosti družbenega življenja in poskusov uničenja eksistencialnih pogojev osebnosti Drugega.  V nadaljevanju bom uporabljal tudi nekoliko pravniški termin »sovražni govor«. Sovražni govor prištevam med fašistoidne diskurzivne prakse, predvsem ko te postavljajo v negotovost in napadajo identitetno-eksistencialne temelje določene (ranljive) družbene skupine.

V svoji analizi se bom najprej obrnil na pronicljivo poststrukturalistično teoretičarko Judith Butler, ki se v svoji razpravi o performansu govora poda v raziskovanje kompleksnosti paradoksa med »jezikovno ranljivostjo« in svobodnim izražanjem. V drugem delu bom sledil Chantal Mouffe in obravnaval politično kulturo zmernosti in konsenza v »naprednih« liberalnih demokracijah kot enega od glavnih razlogov za osiromašenje raznolikosti nasprotujočih si ideologij in politično-ekonomskih idej v časih, ko so elite in oblastniki prikladno zbrani okrog liberaldemokratsko-kapitalističnega konsenza. Ta anti- oz. post-politični pojav po mojem mnenju vodi v potiskanje uporniških in nasprotnih mnenj na obrobje političnega diskurza, kjer ga je laže kot takega obsoditi in razvrednotiti.
"

In times of the second phase of a double-dip recession, the European Union (EU) is undergoing a fundamental stress test for democracy. In all sincerity, the project of European integration has always been lacking considerable amount of democratic legitimacy, but the core principles of our common heritage have never before been so shaken up and threatened. On 31 October 2011 the Greek prime minister, George Papandreou called for an unexpected referendum on the EU bailout deal that would impose a new set of serious austerity measures on the Greek people. Leaving his genuine reasons behind this surprising announcement aside, it was a very courageous and authentically democratic move for him to make in the present circumstances, considering the inevitable criticism he would come up against. Just three days after facing unimaginable and utterly unacceptable outburst of rage and fury from fellow EU member states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other financial institutions, Papandreou’s cabinet decided to call off the referendum. There were at least two other democratically questionable events that met with much enthusiasm from the political-financial elites and the media. George Papandreou was succeeded by Lucas Papademos, former Vice President of the European Central Bank, (2002 – 2010), whereas in Italy it was the former international advisor to Goldman Sachs, Mario Monti, who was going to replace the notorious now-former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. How is it possible that unelected technocrats, supported by outside forces, can abruptly obviate constitutional democratic procedures? What kind of conditions and circumstances have led to this utter failure of democracy? What meaning is there left in concepts such as political and economic sovereignty? Are modern liberal democracies in Europe still based on popular sovereignty and if not, where do they then draw their legitimacy from?

We are born into this world believing that our identity is a concrete, petrified and natural(ized) essence of who we are. We are not encouraged to strive to find our true self through challenging, questioning, subverting, ironizing the perception of the self that we hold which is imposed, regulated and maintained by the self-evident and totalizing structures of domination. Each human being is a body of multiple socially constructed identities. One can be a female student born in a low income Muslim family who never wants to get married and have children. One can be an old black man who separated his wife after 30 years of marriage in order to be able to spend the rest of his life with his male lover. There are identities we are born with biologically or born into by specific social conditions and most of them can change over time and space. These conceptions of identity are always becoming, amending, being modified, subverting the self. While recognizing the significance of multiple different identities in distinct social contexts, in this essay I will turn my attention to the (in)visibility of a particular social identity that is still very contentious and controversial in many parts of the world today – that of sexuality. The main issue of my concern will be uncovering the invisible, the ignored and the abnormal by making it visible, acknowledged and acceptable in a public space of appearance. What I will try to resolve is the question whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) identity politics can be reconciled with a broader radical political project that seeks to open up a space for imagining alternatives to the current system we live in.

The current economic crisis seems an ideal opportunity to reflect on the structure of the economic system and the crucial changes needed to promote general prosperity. Political and economic elites continue to preach the philosophy of international competitiveness and economic growth, yet there is ever-increasing concern over the continuation of neoliberal economic policies in the light of growing inequalities and the limited resources of our planet. The concept of sustainable development presents an important policy challenge on the path of evolution of the world’s economic structure; however, since it has been incorporated into the dominant discourse of political and economic institutions, it has become just another synonym for economic growth. The new economics approach, which has been cited by some authors as “economic localisation”, offers alternative responses to the pressing global issues of our time.

Janis Stavrakakis je grški politični teoretik. Prav zdaj gostuje na Univerzi kraljice Marije v Londonu, sicer pa je stalno zaposlen na Aristotelovi univerzi v Solunu. V času, ko so zaradi kritičnih družbenih razmer, ki jih je v domovini povzročila kriza, vsa intelektualna prizadevanja Grkov usmerjena v to, da bi pomagali osmisliti nenehne posege tujih držav in institucij v njihovo odločanje o prihodnosti, grška družba doživlja korenite spremembe. Grčija pri tem ni osamljena, podobni poskusi potekajo tudi drugod po Evropi, ne samo na njenem obrobju. Kakšna bo nova Evropa po letih varčevalnih ukrepov in strukturnih reform? In kakšni bodo Evropejci? Bi moral biti odgovor na protiljudski neoliberalni projekt več populizma? Stavrakakisov prispevek v tej zgodbi temelji predvsem na njegovem poudarjanju psihoanalitskih dognanj, pomembnih za razumevanje sodobne družbe.

V ZDA danes že obstajajo terapevtske skupine za brezposelne, saj je brezposelnost obravnavana kot psihološki problem, podoben odvisnosti. Zakaj se je odnos do dela tako spremenil, smo se pogovarjali z dr. Jasonom Readom, filozofom z Univerze v Južnem Mainu.

Je marksist, a ga ne bi postavili med ozkoglede ortodoksne teoretike razrednega boja. Politične teorije se ne loteva na tradicionalen način, s preučevanjem delovanja politikov, strank in parlamentov, ampak jo razume širše, skozi splet etike, estetike, političnega in psihoanalize. Kritične vpoglede v družbo črpa iz radikalne politične filozofije, pri tem pa uporablja konceptualna orodja, kot so multituda, demos, politična ontologija, hegemonija in biopolitika. Z drugimi besedami, zaveda se razmerij moči v družbi, ki prepletajo našo ekonomijo, politične institucije in druge družbene sfere. Uporniški duh današnjega časa osmišlja kot predrugačenje dosedanje politične prakse ter idej socializma in Evrope. Njegova najnovejša knjiga Filozofija in upor v času krize bo izšla maja letos.

Jodi Dean, ena najglasnejših in najdejavnejših aktivistk in teoretičark gibanja Zavzemimo Wall Street, je profesorica sodobne politične teorije, ki poučuje na Hobart and William Smith Colleges v ameriški zvezni državi New York. Akademski kolega jo je na nedavnem predavanju v Kanadi, kjer je predstavila svojo novo knjigo Komunistično obzorje, označil za Emmo Goldman današnje generacije. Jodi ni tipična univerzitetna profesorica, ki bi bila zaprta v svoji pisarni in bi se previdno umikala pred javno sfero politike, ampak se vselej dejavno in neposredno povezuje s protestnimi gibanji in skupinami, ki se borijo proti družbenim krivicam v sedanji politični in gospodarski ureditvi.

Kanadski profesor madžarskega rodu Imre Szeman je avtor knjige Po globalizaciji, ki jo je napisal v soavtorstvu s profesorjem Ericom Cazdynom. Razlaga, zakaj v francosko govorečem Quebecu v Kanadi potekajo tako silovite demonstracije študentov. Seveda govori tudi o finančni krizi, globalizaciji, naravi kapitala, Paulu Krugmanu in Naomi Klein, potrošnikih. Szeman je raziskovalec kulturolog, na Univerzi v Alberti poučuje angleščino, njegovo področje so filmske študije in sociologija, poleg tega je ustanovitelj Kanadskega združenja za kulturologijo.