Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)

Populism and technocracy reject vertical accountability and horizontal accountability. Populism and technocracy can combine to form ‘technocratic populism.’ The study assesses the extent to which democratic decay can be traced to the actions of technocratic populists as opposed to institutional fact...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Petra Guasti
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Cogitatio 2020-12-01
Series:Politics and Governance
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3420
id doaj-0899a71dfbc040afa464bde63653239f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-0899a71dfbc040afa464bde63653239f2020-12-17T11:20:40ZengCogitatioPolitics and Governance2183-24632020-12-018447348410.17645/pag.v8i4.34201790Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)Petra Guasti0Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech RepublicPopulism and technocracy reject vertical accountability and horizontal accountability. Populism and technocracy can combine to form ‘technocratic populism.’ The study assesses the extent to which democratic decay can be traced to the actions of technocratic populists as opposed to institutional factors, civil society, fragmentation and polarization. The main findings of this article are that technocratic populism has illiberal tendencies expressed best in its efforts at executive aggrandizement (cf. Bermeo, 2016). Without an effective bulwark against democratic erosion (cf. Bernhard, 2015), technocratic populism tends to undermine electoral competition (vertical accountability), judiciary independence, legislative oversight (horizontal accountability), and freedom of the press (diagonal accountability). The most effective checks on technocratic populist in power, this study finds, are the courts, free media, and civil society. This article highlights the mechanisms of democratic decay and democratic resilience beyond electoral politics. It indicates that a combination of institutional veto points and civil society agency is necessary to prevent democratic erosion (cf. Weyland, 2020). While active civil society can prevent democratic erosion, it cannot reverse it. Ultimately, the future of liberal democracy depends on the people’s willingness to defend it in the streets AND at the ballot box.https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3420accountabilityczech republicdemocratic decaydemocratic resiliencepopulismtechnocracytechnocratic populism
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Petra Guasti
spellingShingle Petra Guasti
Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
Politics and Governance
accountability
czech republic
democratic decay
democratic resilience
populism
technocracy
technocratic populism
author_facet Petra Guasti
author_sort Petra Guasti
title Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
title_short Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
title_full Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
title_fullStr Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
title_full_unstemmed Populism in Power and Democracy: Democratic Decay and Resilience in the Czech Republic (2013–2020)
title_sort populism in power and democracy: democratic decay and resilience in the czech republic (2013–2020)
publisher Cogitatio
series Politics and Governance
issn 2183-2463
publishDate 2020-12-01
description Populism and technocracy reject vertical accountability and horizontal accountability. Populism and technocracy can combine to form ‘technocratic populism.’ The study assesses the extent to which democratic decay can be traced to the actions of technocratic populists as opposed to institutional factors, civil society, fragmentation and polarization. The main findings of this article are that technocratic populism has illiberal tendencies expressed best in its efforts at executive aggrandizement (cf. Bermeo, 2016). Without an effective bulwark against democratic erosion (cf. Bernhard, 2015), technocratic populism tends to undermine electoral competition (vertical accountability), judiciary independence, legislative oversight (horizontal accountability), and freedom of the press (diagonal accountability). The most effective checks on technocratic populist in power, this study finds, are the courts, free media, and civil society. This article highlights the mechanisms of democratic decay and democratic resilience beyond electoral politics. It indicates that a combination of institutional veto points and civil society agency is necessary to prevent democratic erosion (cf. Weyland, 2020). While active civil society can prevent democratic erosion, it cannot reverse it. Ultimately, the future of liberal democracy depends on the people’s willingness to defend it in the streets AND at the ballot box.
topic accountability
czech republic
democratic decay
democratic resilience
populism
technocracy
technocratic populism
url https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3420
work_keys_str_mv AT petraguasti populisminpoweranddemocracydemocraticdecayandresilienceintheczechrepublic20132020
_version_ 1724379918172684288