نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، مازندران، بابلسر، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
In recent decades, populism has become a central concept in analyses of constitutional democracy crises. Yet its relationship with fundamental constitutional norms remains contested. This article examines how populism, by invoking “the will of the people,” can function both as a democratic critique of failures of representation and as a mechanism for weakening pluralism, limits on power, and fundamental rights. Using a conceptual-normative method and a comparative theoretical approach, it analyzes this relationship through a critical reading of two influential theories: Jan-Werner Müller’s account, which defines populism through anti-pluralism, exclusive representation, and the delegitimation of opponents; and Ernesto Laclau’s theory, which understands populism as a logic of constructing “the people” and repoliticizing excluded demands. The article argues that Müller’s approach is necessary for explaining the institutional dangers of populism, but does not fully capture its capacity to expose crises of representation. Conversely, Laclau highlights populism’s democratic potential, but offers no sufficient institutional criterion for distinguishing democratic representation from exclusive appropriation of the people. Accordingly, populism is not inherently anti-constitutional; it becomes corrosive when combined with denial of pluralism, the reduction of the people to a momentary majority, the weakening of intermediary institutions, and the instrumental use of constitutional law.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)