It is not unusual to hear or read that we live in a post-democratic world. The term postdemocracy is a current buzzword used profusely in the media especially following the results of the 2016 UK EU Membership Referendum and the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States the same year. As per the dominant media consensus, we have entered the period of post-democracy because the masses ignore the warnings of the elite experts and cognoscenti and are misled by populist politicians who present them with easy solutions to very complex problems. The shortcoming of this approach is that post-democracy is strictly seen as a recent phenomenon and not as something directly linked to the neoliberal experience. Yet, the term, was coined by the British sociologist Colin Crouch in the beginning of this century, who argued that there is a direct link between the marketisation of every aspect of daily life and the crisis of democracy. The narrative of economic inevitability to which most of the mainstream parties accede to, implies that democratic elections have little influence on the lives of the majority of their citizens, who turn their backs to politics. This has tremendous consequences for the function of democracy. Citizens are dissatisfied with politics because they feel that the political debate between mainstream parties does not challenge the dominant economic consensus of the limited government. In effect, despite the pluralism of parliamentary parties, their political programmes have minor differences. Their reluctance to enter discussions related to the redistribution of wealth and power, their inability or unwillingness to restrain powerful economic interests, and their disinterest in putting forward policies that can tackle economic inequality lead to the trivialisation of democracy. This, for Crouch, is to be attributed to the neoliberal orthodoxy according to which we are not allowed to envisage alternatives to the existing order. As Crouch states, ‘The globalization of business interests and fragmentation of the rest of the population does this, shifting political advantage away from those seeking to reduce inequalities of wealth and power in favour of those wishing to return them to levels of the predemocratic past’ (Crouch 2004, 15). In the era of post-democracy, the devaluation of labour and the weakening of the workers’ capacity to challenge the existing state of things and achieve better wealth distribution generates political apathy. This indifference empowers powerful minority interests which have privileged political access as opposed to the majority of the citizens. Thus, the devaluation of democracy is fundamentally tied up with an economic environment that diminishes the workers’ bargaining and participation rights. The implications of this connection can be brought into sharper focus when considering

中文翻译：

---

简介：欧洲电影和后民主

听到或读到我们生活在后民主世界中并不少见。术语postdemocracy是特别下列2016年英国的欧盟公投的结果和唐纳德·特朗普的当选，同年美国总统的媒体大汗使用当前流行词汇。按照主流媒体的共识，我们进入了后民主时代，因为群众无视精英专家和知识分子的警告，而受到民粹主义政客的误解，他们向他们提供了解决非常复杂问题的简便方法。这种方法的缺点是，严格把后民主视为新近出现的现象，而不是与新自由主义经验直接相关的东西。然而，这个词是由英国社会学家柯林·克劳奇（Colin Crouch）在本世纪初提出的，他认为，日常生活的各个方面的市场化与民主危机之间都有直接的联系。大多数主流政党都赞同经济不可避免的说法，这意味着民主选举对大多数公民的生活几乎没有影响，而大多数公民则转而投身政治。这对民主的职能产生了巨大的影响。公民对政治不满意，因为他们认为主流政党之间的政治辩论不会挑战有限政府的主导经济共识。实际上，尽管议会政党具有多元性，但其政治纲领之间却存在微小差异。他们不愿参加有关财富和权力再分配的讨论，他们无力或不愿意束缚强大的经济利益，不愿提出解决经济不平等的政策，导致民主化。对于克劳奇来说，这应归因于新自由主义正统观念，根据这种观念，我们不能设想现有秩序的替代形式。正如克劳奇（Crouch）所言：“商业利益的全球化和其余人口的分散化，将政治优势从那些试图减少财富和权力不平等的人转移到那些希望使他们回到民主前时代的人们身上” （Crouch 2004，15）。在后民主时代，劳动力贬值和工人挑战现有事物状态并实现更好的财富分配的能力减弱，产生了政治冷漠。这种冷漠态度赋予了强大的少数群体利益，这些特权赋予了政治权利，而不是大多数公民。因此，民主的贬值与减少工人的议价权和参与权的经济环境从根本上联系在一起。在考虑时，可以更清晰地关注这种联系的含义 民主的贬值从根本上与减少工人的议价权和参与权的经济环境有关。在考虑以下因素时，可以更明确地关注这种联系的含义 民主的贬值从根本上与减少工人的议价权和参与权的经济环境有关。在考虑以下因素时，可以更明确地关注这种联系的含义