Pierre Rosanvallon, Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity, Translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, (2011), 2015, 235 hlm.

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Ito Prajna-Nugroho

Sejak 2001 Collége de France, lembaga pendidikan tinggi Prancis paling bergengsi yang berisi para filsuf dan pemikir terkenal dari berbagai bidang, menginisiasi munculnya sebuah fakultas baru. Modern and Contemporary History of the Political adalah nama fakultas baru tersebut. Pierre Rossanvallon, seorang ahli filsafat politik dan penulis buku yang produktif, didaulat sebagai Guru Besar untuk yang pertama kali dan masih menjabat hingga saat ini. Nama fakultas tersebut rupanya sejalan dengan perkembangan termutakhir dalam kajian filsafat politik, yaitu penelaahan kembali asas-asas politik demokratis dalam masyarakat yang heterogen dan plural, bangsa-bangsa yang semakin melintas batas, negara yang tidak lagi digerakkan oleh ideologi-ideologi besar, dunia yang semakin terhubung, serta kecenderungan konflik yang semakin acak menyebar. Perkembangan dalam kajian filsafat politik ini sebenarnya bukan sesuatu yang baru sebab telah dimulai sejak periode 1980-an oleh beberapa tokoh kunci dalam filsafat politik, seperti Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe, Claude Lefort, dan Leo Strauss. Pada umumnya, para ahli filsafat politik tersebut menghidupkan kembali pemikiran Carl Schmitt, seorang pakar hukum dan ahli politik di Republik Weimar, Jerman mengenai Das Politische (Yang Politis/The Political) sebagai dasar penggerak politik yang selalu konfrontatif, konfliktual, agonistik, dan senantiasa mengelak dari prosedur-prosedur rasional demokratis. Pierre Rosanvallon berada di dalam satu barisan para pemikir kontemporer tersebut, barisan yang kini dikenal dengan nama para pemikir post-foundational. Sebelum menerbitkan buku Democratic Legitimacy, Rosanvallon telah menerbitkan beberapa karya monumental dan telah diterjemahkan ke dalam berbagai bahasa, seperti L’âge de l’autogestion (1976), Le capitalisme utopique (1979), Le nouvel âge des inégalités (1996), dan La contre-democratie (2006). Buku Democratic Legitimacy: Impartiality, Reflexivity, Proximity, merupakan kelanjutan dari karya-karya awalnya sekaligus pendalaman dari buku terakhirnya Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust (2008). ..... Sebagai sebuah karya filsafat politik, Democratic Legitimacy memiliki tujuan praktis yang dirumuskan secara jelas. Maka buku ini juga memuat beberapa kemungkinan solusi dan resolusi atas kontradiksi-kontradiksi internal demokrasi seperti misalnya re-institusionalisasi lembaga-lembaga demokrasi. Untuk Indonesia yang sedang bergumul dengan demokrasi, sistem kepartaian, otonomi daerah, serta munculnya persoalan-persoalan seperti fundamentalisme agama, korupsi, inefisiensi birokrasi, dan sebagainya, buku Democratic Legitimacy merupakan buku yang wajib dibaca oleh para ahli filsafat, para politisi, para penasihat penguasa, dan penyelenggara negara serta pengambil kebijakan. Democratic Legitimacy mampu menjelaskan dengan kalem berbagai persoalan yang acapkali dipeributkan dalam politik nasional/lokal kita, sekaligus memberikan kerangka pemahaman yang solid dan jelas mengenai arah demokrasi untuk 50 tahun ke depan. (Ito Prajna-Nugroho, Alumnus Program Sarjana dan Pascasarjana STF Driyarkara, Jakarta)

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20
Author(s):  
Daniel Arturo Palma Álvarez

ABSTRACTThis paper analyses how dehumanisation presents itself in armed conflicts and tries to demonstrate that, in most cases, the ‘discursive’ and the ‘violent’ coexist so the ‘other’ is a blurred construction that changes according to the context. As a consequence, a clear division between ‘enemy’ and ‘adversary’ cannot be established, so it has to be accepted that this relationship is much more complex. For this analysis, the history of the Colombian armed conflict is revised from the mid-twentieth century, using Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau’s post-structuralist discourse theory, and Carl Schmitt’s concept of the ‘political’.RESUMENEste documento analiza cómo se presenta la deshumanización en los conflictos armados e intenta demostrar que, en la mayoría de los casos, lo ‘discursivo’ y lo ‘violento’ coexisten de modo que el ‘otro’ es una construcción difusa que cambia según el contexto. Como consecuencia, no puede establecerse una división clara entre ‘enemigo’ y ‘adversario’, por lo que debe aceptarse que dicha relación es mucho más compleja. Para esto, se revisa la historia del conflicto armado colombiano desde mediados del siglo XX, usando la teoría posestructuralista del discurso de Chantal Mouffe y Ernesto Laclau, y el concepto de lo ‘político’ de Carl Schmitt.


Author(s):  
Courtney Freer

This book, using contemporary history and original empirical research, updates traditional rentier state theory, which largely fails to account for the existence of Islamist movements, by demonstrating the political capital held by Muslim Brotherhood affiliates in Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While rentier state theory predicts that citizens of such states will form opposition blocs only when their stake in rent income is threatened, this book demonstrates that ideology, rather than rent, has motivated the formation of independent Islamist movements in the wealthiest states of the region. It argues for this thesis by chronicling the history of the Brotherhood in Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, and showing how the organization adapted to the changing (and often adverse) political environs of those respective countries to remain a popular and influential force for social, educational, and political change in the region. The presence of oil rents, then, far from rendering Islamist complaint politically irrelevant, shapes the ways in which Islamist movements seek to influence government policies.


Il Politico ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-116
Author(s):  
Marco Menon

This paper offers a short overview of Heinrich Meier’s books on Carl Schmitt’s political theology, namely Carl Schmitt und Leo Strauss, and Die Lehre Carl Schmitts. These writings, published respectively in 1988 and 1994, and recently translated into Italian by Cantagalli (Siena), have raised both enthusiastical appraisal and fierce criticism. The gist of Meier’s interpretation is the following: the core of Schmitt’s thought is his Christian faith. Schmitt’s political doctrine must be unterstood as political theology, that is, as a political doctrine which claims to be grounded on divine revelation. The fundamental attitude of the political theologian, therefore, is pious obedience to God’s unfathomable will. The hypothesis of the paper is that Meier’s reading, which from a historical point of view might appear as highly controversial, is essentially the attempt to articulate the fundamental alternative between political theology and political philosophy. Meier’s alleged stylization of Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss is a form of “platonism”, i.e., a theoretical purification aimed at a clear formulation of what he means by “the theologico-political problem”.


1991 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-223
Author(s):  
Susan Shell

Heinrich Meier 's careful and illuminating study of the relation between Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss should come as something of a revelation to many* Through a painstaking analysis of the three editions of Schmitt's influential Concept of the Political, Meier uncovers a heretofore largely overlooked “dialogue,” albeit one partly conducted “in absentia.”As Meier observes Schmitt is one of a relatively small number of contemporaries whose work Strauss publicly reviewed. The first edition of Schmitt's essay appeared in 1927; a second was published in 1932, and it is to this that Strauss's 1932 “Comments” is (openly) addressed. A second was published in 1932. A third edition, published in 1933, presents, on Meier's reading, Schmitt's implicit response. For a variety of reasons, not the least being Schmitt's increasing involvement with the National Socialists, Strauss's role as interlocutor went largely unacknowledged, it being “impossible,” as Strauss would later write, for Schmitt to admit his “dependence on a Jew” (p. 138).


2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (10) ◽  
pp. 165-182
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Pasamar

The present article revolves around the interest in contemporary history from ancient writers to humanist historians. Its objective, which forms part of a broader purpose devoted to elucidating the characteristics of the so-called History of the Present, is to examine the forms this interest has traditionally adopted. In this way, we put for consideration the following hypothesis: from classical historians onwards, concern with contemporary history was always considered a hard and inevitable task to be undertaken, since it affected rulers and living people. Nevertheless, the long-standing doctrine of history as memory of events for centuries prevented historians from facing paradoxes that interest in contemporary past implies, that is: how can historians confront the political uses, memories and demands of public opinion to deal with the recent past without jeopardizing historical truth?


2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-82
Author(s):  
RICHARD H. KING

My interest here is in the way Leo Strauss (1899–1973) and his followers, the Straussians, have dealt with race and rights, race and slavery in the history of the United States. I want, first, to assess Leo Strauss's rather ambivalent attitude toward America and explore the various ways that his followers have in turn analyzed the Lockean underpinnings of the American “regime,” sometimes in contradistinction to Strauss's views on the topic. With that established, I turn to the account, particularly that offered by Harry Jaffa, of how slavery and race comported—or did not—with the Straussian account of the political foundations of the new nation and how latter-day followers of Strauss have dealt with the persisting topic of race and racism in America. Overall, I want to make two large points. First, the Straussian commitment to superhistorical standards provides the Straussians with a moral perspective on slavery, race, and racism. Second, though race and slavery have been less than central among the concerns of most followers of Strauss, the contributions of Jaffa and others have significantly shaped the present American conservative position on race, including the idea of color-blindness.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boyd Jonathan

Three influential interpreters – Michael Oakeshott, Leo Strauss, and Carl Schmitt – note that Hobbes’s sovereign is tasked with containing the natural wills of subjects for the sake of civil peace. Yet Hobbes’s sovereign also has a mandate to govern or use his subjects for collective defence, and each suggest that the political-psychological means to ensure submission preclude and prevent the contribution of subjects towards collective ends, which would render Hobbes’s commonwealth near indefensible. This paper will argue instead that Hobbes does envision a way his sovereign could harness potentia publica: the sovereign must also instil an artificial will through civil honour, an artificial will that is necessary for the defence of the commonwealth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document