The purpose of this paper is to examine the characteristics of two political phenomena: populism and technocracy. Often seen as opposites, the two factors are linked by some elements: both are described by their proponents as remedies to the legitimacy crisis that modern representative democracies are going through; both tend to define certain practices and principles of constitutional democracy that are insufficient to ensure effective governance of society; both see as their main remedy a restriction of the classical functions of representation and of the institutions of mediation (parties and parliament among all). Nevertheless, the two phenomena seem to follow the dynamics of opposite extremes: in the phases when the democratic order is increasingly identified with technocracy, the populist democratic eschatology gains confidence on the basis of the promise to return to citizens the power stolen from them by non-elective institutions. We will attempt to identify some key features that unite the two phenomena and we will highlight the differences in principle, the possible relationships as part of a more general democratic vulnus and the different types of impact they have on democracy and its principles.
BeckU. (1986). Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Suhrkamp.
7.
BellD. (1976). Welcome to the post-industrial society. Physics Today, 29(2), 46–49.
8.
BendixR. (1964). National-building and citizenship. Verlag nicht ermittelbar.
9.
BenthamJ. (1823). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. GBIP.
10.
BickertonC.AccettiC. I. (2017). Populism and technocracy: Opposites or complements?Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 20(2), 186–206.
11.
BickertonC.AccettiC. I. (2021). Technopopulism: The new logic of democratic politics. Oxford University Press.
12.
BickertonC. J.AccettiC. I. (2018). ‘Techno-populism’ as a new party family: The case of the five star movement and podemos. Contemporary Italian Politics, 10(2), 132–150.
13.
BobbioN. (1980). La democrazia e il potere invisibile. Italian Political Science Review, 10(2), 181–203.
14.
BohmanJ. (2012). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press.
15.
BorgerV. (2013). How the debt crisis exposes the development of solidarity in the Euro Area. European Constitutional Law Review, 9(1), 7–36.
16.
BuštíkováL.GuastiP. (2019). The state as a firm: Understanding the autocratic roots of technocratic populism. East European Politics & Societies, 33(2), 302–330.
17.
CanovanM. (1981). Populism. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt P.
18.
CanovanM. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies, 47(1), 2–16.
19.
CaramaniD. (2017). Will vs. reason: The populist and technocratic forms of political representation and their critique to party government. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 54–67.
20.
CaramaniD. (2020). The new technocracy - Introduction. In BertsouE.CaramaniD. (Eds.), The technocratic challenge to democracy (pp. 1–26). Routledge.
21.
ChiaramonteA.EmanueleV. (2013). Volatile and tripolar: The new Italian party system. The Italian General Election of, 63–68.
22.
CohenJ. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26–38.
23.
CraigT. (2014). Citizen forums against technocracy? The challenge of science to democratic decision making. Perspectives on Political Science, 43(1), 31–40.
24.
DahlR. A. (1972). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
25.
DahlR. A. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons. Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse.
26.
DardotP.LavalC. (2014). The new way of the world: On neoliberal society. Verso Trade.
27.
Della PortaD. (2017). Global diffusion of protest. Riding the protest wave in the neoliberal crisis. Amsterdam University Press.
28.
DiamondL.MorlinoL. (2005). Assessing the quality of democracy. Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
DuvergerM. (1981). Les partis politiques. FeniXX.
30.
EastonD. (1981). The political system besieged by the state. Political Theory, 9(3), 303–325.
31.
EsmarkA. (2020). The new technocracy. Policy Press.
32.
FerrajoliL. (2018). Democrazia e populismo. Rivista AIC, 3, 515–524.
33.
FischerF. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press.
34.
FisichellaD. (1997). L’altro potere. Tecnocrazia e gruppi di pressione. Laterza.
35.
FreelandC. (2010). Forget left and right. The real divide is technocrats vs. populists. Reuters, 5November.
36.
GrebloE. (2018). Il populismo e il trono vuoto della democrazia. Politica & Società, 7(1), 111–130.
37.
GuntherR.DiamondL. (2001). Types and functions of parties. In DiamondL.GuntherR. (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 3–37). The John Hopkin University Press.
38.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426.
39.
HaywardJ. (1996). Elitism, populism, and European politics. Oxford University Press.
40.
HorkheimerM. (1947). Eclipse of Reason. Oxford University Press.
41.
HorkheimerM.AdornoT. W. (1947). Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente Geburtstag.
42.
JessopB. (2014). A specter is haunting Europe: A neoliberal phantasmagoria. Critical Policy Studies, 8(3), 352–355.
43.
KelsenH. (1981). On the basis of legal validity. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 26, 178–189.
44.
KrastevI. (2007). The strange death of the liberal consensus. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 56–64.
45.
KriesiH. (2014). The populist challenge. West European Politics, 37(2), 361–378.
46.
LefortC. (1986). The political forms of modern society: Bureaucracy, democracy, totalitarianism. MIT Press.
47.
LijphartA. (2001). Democracy in the 21st century: Can we be optimistic?European Review, 9(2), 169–184.
48.
LippmannW. (1957). La filosofia pubblica (Declino e rinnovamento della società occidentale). Edizioni di Comunità.
49.
LipsetS. M. (1963). The value patterns of democracy: A case study in comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 28, 515–531.
50.
LorimerM. (2020). Europe as ideological resource: The case of the Rassemblement National. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(9), 1388–1405.
51.
MairP. (2013). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. Verso books.
52.
MényY. (2019). Popolo ma non troppo. Il Mulino.
53.
MeynaudJ. (1964). Technocracy. Faber and Faber.
54.
MorlinoL. (2011). Changes for democracy: Actors, structures, processes. Oxford University Press.
55.
MorlinoL.PianaD.FrancescoR. (Eds.). (2013). La qualità della democrazia in Italia (pp. 134–160). Il Mulino.
56.
MuddeC. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.
57.
MüllerJ. W. (2017). What is populism?Penguin UK.
58.
NeumannS. (1956). Toward a comparative study of political parties. In Neumann (Ed.), Modern political parties (pp. 395–421). Chicago University Press.
59.
PabstA. (2022). Beyond binaries: Technocracy, populism and public policy. National Institute Economic Review, 259, 67–80.
60.
PalombellaG. (2019). Two threats to the rule of law: Legal and epistemic (between technocracy and populism). Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 11(2-3), 383–388.
61.
PappasT. S. (2019). Populists in power. Journal of Democracy, 30(2), 70–84.
62.
PerottinoM.GuastiP. (2020). Technocratic populism à la française? The roots and mechanisms of Emmanuel Macron’s success. Politics and Governance, 8(4), 545–555.
63.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation (Vol. 75). University of California Press.
64.
PortinaroP. P. (1995). Aristocrazie artificiali. Governo dei custodi, elitismo, tecnocrazia. Filosofia politica, 3, 389–406.
65.
PosnerE. A. (2017). Liberal internationalism and the populist backlash. Arizona State Law Journal, 49, 795.
66.
RadaelliC. M. (2017). Technocracy in the European Union. Routledge.
67.
RagazzoniD. (2016). Il leviatano democratico: Parlamento, partiti e capi tra Weber e Kelsen. In Il leviatano democratico, Storia e letteratura (pp. 1–205).
68.
RenanE. (1876). Dialogues et fragments philosophiques. Calmann Lévy.
69.
RosanvallonP. (2011). Democratic legitimacy, impartiality, reflexivity, proximity. Princeton University Press.
70.
Saint-SimonC.-H. D. R. (1823–1824). Catéchisme des industriels. Imprimerie de Sétier.
71.
SartoriG. (1987). Political man: The theory of democracy revisited. Chatam.
72.
SartoriG. (1991). Market, capitalism, planning and technocracy. In ThompsonG. (Ed.), Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordination of social life (pp. 156–203). SAGE.
73.
SartoriG. (1997). Understanding pluralism. Journal of Democracy, 8(4), 58–69.
74.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Brothers.
75.
SciclunaN.AuerS. (2019). From the rule of law to the rule of rules: Technocracy and the crisis of EU governance. West European Politics, 42(7), 1420–1442.
76.
StokesS. C. (1999). Political Parties and democracy. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 243–267.
77.
TarchiM. (2002). Populism Italian style. Democracies and the populist challenge (pp. 120–138). Palgrave Macmillan.
78.
TillyC. (2010). Conflitto e democrazia in Europa, 1650-2000. Bruno Mondadori.
