These negotiations always establish the hegemony of one of them. This tension, expressed in political terms along the frontier between right and left, can only be stabilized temporarily through pragmatic negotiations between political forces. Democratic liberal politics consists of a constant process of negotiation -through different hegemonic configurations- of this constitutive tension. The democratic logic of constructing a people and defending egalitarian practices is necessary to define a demos and to subvert the tendency of liberal discourse to abstract universalism but its articulation with liberal logic allows us to challenge the forms of exclusion that are inherent in the political practices of determining the people who will govern. In The Democratic Paradox, I proposed to conceive the articulation of these traditions -indeed, ultimately irreconcilable- on the mode of a paradoxical configuration, as the locus of a tension that defines the originality of liberal democracy and guarantees its pluralistic character. But, I think he is mistaken in presenting that conflict in terms of a contradiction that must inevitably lead the pluralistic liberal democracy to self-destruction. Schmitt is certainly right in pointing out the presence of a conflict between the liberal 'grammar' of equality -which postulates universality and the reference to 'humanity'- and the 'grammar' of democratic equality, which requires the construction of a people and a frontier between a 'we' and a 'they'. Some authors like Carl Schmitt affirm that this articulation -which was the origin of parliamentary democracy- produced an unviable regime, as liberalism denies democracy and democracy denies liberalism others, following JГјrgen Habermas, maintain the co-originality of the principles of freedom and equality. Contrary to what is sometimes said, there is no necessary relationship between these two traditions, but only a contingent historical articulation which -as CB MacPherson has shown - took place in the nineteenth century through the joint struggles of the liberals and the democrats against absolutist regimes. On the one hand, the tradition of political liberalism: the rule of law, the separation of powers and the defense of individual freedom on the other hand, the democratic tradition, whose central ideas are equality and popular sovereignty. This model -which has received a variety of names: modern democracy, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, constitutional democracy, liberal democracy, pluralist democracy- is characterized by the articulation of two different traditions.

When we speak of 'democracy' in Europe we refer to a specific model: the Western model that results from the inscription of the democratic ideal in a particular historical context. It is a principle of legitimacy that is not exercised in the abstract, but instead through specific institutions. As it is known, etymologically speaking, democracy comes from the Greek demos/kratos, which means power of the people. What exactly is meant by 'post-democracy'? Let us begin by clarifying the meaning of 'democracy'. It is important to address this anti-populist hysteria by examining what is at stake in the emergence in recent years of the movements called 'populist'. With the rise of neoliberalism, these principles have been relegated to zombie categories, and this is why our societies have entered a 'post-democratic' era. Those dangers are real, but they result from the abandonment by those parties presenting themselves as 'democratic' of the principles of popular sovereignty and equality that are constitutive of democratic politics. It is imperative to put forward a serene analysis of the current state of our democracies in order to visualize ways to strengthen democratic institutions against the dangers to which they are exposed.

They believe that the demonization of populism and the fear of a possible return of 'fascism' will be sufficient to prevent the growth of parties and movements that call into question the neoliberal consensus. We are hounded by alarmist statements claiming that populism must be eliminated because it constitutes a deadly threat to democracy. Members of the establishment have seemingly begun to worry about the potential for social discontent they have so far overlooked. However, with the victory of the Brexiteers in the UK and Trump's unexpected success in the United States, the denunciation of populism has become more strident. It is for some time now that voices have warned us of the danger of populism, presented as a 'perversion of democracy'.

ThisВ piece is aВ development of The Populist Moment ,В an earlier article recentlyВ published by democraciAbierta / openDemocracy. Alexis Tsipras at an election rally, May 2014.

Tkaraoke pro 2