Democracy and the Social Question
In a time of mounting challenges to democracy worldwide, scholars and politicians pay increasing attention to “the social question”: growing poverty and social inequality. To fight authoritarian populism and recreate confidence in democracy it is not enough to support rule of law and elections. A stable democracy also requires economic security and social integration. It diminishes hostility between groups and increases toleration in society.
Still, many democratic theorists hesitate to include the social question in the concept of democracy. They argue that doing so undermines democracy: it satisfies human needs at the expense of freedom, it confuses democracy with the ideological contents of politics and/or it demoralises democracy as a means to a certain justified end.
The purpose of this book project is to examine the underlying assumptions behind these arguments, and show that they all rely on a reductionist understanding of democracy: as ideational, procedural and instrumental respectively. By redefining democracy as a political lifeform (in Montesquieu’s sense of the term) it is possible to integrate the social question in the concept of democracy without falling prey to said dilemmas.
The project is important as it demonstrates how attention to the social question may contribute to the defence of democracy. In addition, it offers better theoretical tools to evaluate and predict trends of democratic decline and development, including variation in democratic resilience.
Still, many democratic theorists hesitate to include the social question in the concept of democracy. They argue that doing so undermines democracy: it satisfies human needs at the expense of freedom, it confuses democracy with the ideological contents of politics and/or it demoralises democracy as a means to a certain justified end.
The purpose of this book project is to examine the underlying assumptions behind these arguments, and show that they all rely on a reductionist understanding of democracy: as ideational, procedural and instrumental respectively. By redefining democracy as a political lifeform (in Montesquieu’s sense of the term) it is possible to integrate the social question in the concept of democracy without falling prey to said dilemmas.
The project is important as it demonstrates how attention to the social question may contribute to the defence of democracy. In addition, it offers better theoretical tools to evaluate and predict trends of democratic decline and development, including variation in democratic resilience.
Final report
The future of democracy is more uncertain than ever. While this experience of uncertainty can serve as a potential for democratic reform and renewal, it can also be mobilised for authoritarian purposes. How do we make it work for democracy rather than against it?
In order to recreate confidence in the future of democracy, it is not enough to support rule of law and elections. One must also pay attention to “the social question”. This was the basic assumption of this project. Modern democracy draws much of its attraction from the promise it holds out of eradicating poverty and reducing social and economic inequality. It carries the hope of a better life, and ignoring that hope makes it vulnerable to exploitation by those seeking its demise. To make present-day uncertainties about the future work for democracy rather than against it, it is therefore vital to integrate the social in the concept of democracy.
The purpose of the project was to revisit democratic theory with this salient task in mind. More specifically, the project takes issue with the familiar fact that many political theorists are reluctant to include the social in the concept of democracy. Haunted by the spectre of twentieth century socialism, they argue that it is antithetical to democracy; it satisfies material needs at the expense of political freedom, it confuses democracy with the ideological substance of politics and/or it reduces democracy to bureaucracy. These are powerful arguments, advanced by prominent twentieth century thinkers, and supported by a vast number of theoretical and empirical scholars on democracy.
The project demonstrates that while each argument raises an important dilemma for those who seek to address the social question in democratic terms, it simultaneously relies on an overly reductionist conception of democracy—ideational, procedural and discursive respectively—unable to speak to present debates on the future of democracy. The most important result is that by redefining democracy as a political lifeform that pivots on uncertainty, it is possible to integrate the social in the concept of democracy without falling prey to said dilemmas. Experiences of uncertainty can elicit calls for democratic reform and renewal.
The monograph carries the title Democracy and the Social Question: Sharing Uncertainty in Uncertain Times. It is currently under review with an international university press. It contains five substantial chapters
1. Introduction
This chapter introduces the main idea and structure of the book. It begins by recapitulating the debate on the social question in the twentieth century. To avoid the fate of “actually existing socialism”, many prominent political theorists render the social essential to the concept of democracy, yet not integral to it: prepolitical (a material precondition for democracy), too political (an ideological substance of democracy) or apolitical (a bureaucratic extension of democracy). The introduction presents these three positions, and anticipates how the book moves beyond them. It ends by clarifying why it is important to reconceptualise democracy in the way proposed.
2. Democracy and the Social Question in a New Key
Why bother with the social question? This chapter argues that uncertainty is the secret link between modern democracy and the social question, and ignoring this link does a disservice to both literatures. Both democracy and the social question address an uncertain future, and they seek to find institutional mechanisms to accommodate it. Accordingly, the aim of the first chapter is to show that anyone who cares for the rejuvenation of democracy has good reasons to include the social in the concept of democracy, irrespective of his or her ideological conviction.
3. Saving Political Freedom
This chapter revisits the debate on political freedom, and the attempt to exclude the social from the concept of democracy by rendering it “prepolitical”: i.e. into a material precondition for democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It shows that by defining democracy in this way, one does not merely limit the substance and scope of democratic critique. One opens the door to the allegation that there is a necessary tradeoff between freedom and bread. When the rubber meets the road, the argument goes, democracy has very little to offer ordinary people. “You can’t eat democracy”. So why support it? The conclusion is that to safeguard political freedom, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
4. Securing Civic Peace
This chapter revisits the debate on civic peace, and the attempt to exclude the social from the concept of democracy by rendering it “too political”, i.e. into the ideological substance of democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It argues that this position fails to consider what makes us into good losers and gracious winners in the first place. If too much is at stake in an election, existentially, socially or economically, a loss at the polls may be difficult to stomach, and if too little, the incentive to exercise self-restraint is wanting. The conclusion is that to secure civic peace, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
5. Sustaining Democratic Openness
This chapter revisits the debate on democratic openness, and the subsequent propensity to think of the social question as “apolitical”, i.e. as a bureaucratic extension of democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It demonstrates that reducing democracy to discourse does not sustain democracy as an open-ended process of deliberation and contestation. It rather leaves the bureaucratic field open for other forces to nudge and promote undemocratic norms behind the scenes. The conclusion is that to sustain the openness of democracy, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
6. Democracy as a Political Lifeform
Is it possible to integrate the social in the concept of democracy without crippling political freedom, jeopardizing civic peace or compromising the openness of democracy? This chapter argues that once we define democracy as a political lifeform that pivots on uncertainty, it is possible to move beyond these dilemmas, and rework their democratic significance. The chapter stresses that not only democrats, but also authoritarian forces pay attention to social grievances and anxieties. To separate democratic from undemocratic responses to the social question, the chapter develops a yardstick to distinguish the one from the other. It ends by making use of real-world examples to illustrate this point.
7. Conclusion
The conclusion, finally, takes stock by turning back to the initial question raised in the book, namely how to make present-day uncertainties about the future work for democracy rather than against it. It summarizes the central contribution of the book to this question.
The main part of this monograph was undertaken in Sweden during 2023, but I also spent four months in the fall that same year in Berlin with the Cluster of Excellence: Contestations of The Liberal Script. This is a collaboration between Humboldt University and Freie Universität, and it proved to be a vibrant research environment with scholars working on topics related to the one I address in the book.
In addition to the monograph, the project on democracy and the social question has resulted in new invitations to universities, workshops and conferences, including three keynotes. It has also resulted in new contacts and networks that I will draw on in future research, and collaboration with practitioners. I list the academic invitations I have received on the basis of this project below:
Invited keynotes:
Feb 2026 Conference at the Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University, Lithuania.
Sep 2023 International Congress on Political Theory in Uncertain Times. Convenor the political theory section of German Association of Political Science, Bremen, Germany.
Aug 2023 World Humanist Congress: “Building better democracies through humanist values”. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Invited talks:
May 2024 Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Austria.
Mar 2024 Conference, Barcelona Centre for Contemporary Culture, Barcelona, Spain. Panel with Craig Calhoun and Dilip Gaonkar.
Feb 2024 Center for Statecraft and Strategic Communication, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
Nov 2023 BIRT Colloquium, The Liberal Script, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany.
Nov 2023 Political Theory Colloquium, Hamburg University, Germany.
Nov 2023 Institute for Political Science, University of Darmstadt, Germany.
Oct 2023 Conference “Resentment and Utopia”, University of St Gallen, Switzerland.
Oct 2023 The Department of Political Philosophy and Globalization Research of the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic.
June 2023 Theology Department, Uppsala universitet.
May 2023 General research seminar, Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University.
Feb 2023 Higher Research Seminar, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.
In order to recreate confidence in the future of democracy, it is not enough to support rule of law and elections. One must also pay attention to “the social question”. This was the basic assumption of this project. Modern democracy draws much of its attraction from the promise it holds out of eradicating poverty and reducing social and economic inequality. It carries the hope of a better life, and ignoring that hope makes it vulnerable to exploitation by those seeking its demise. To make present-day uncertainties about the future work for democracy rather than against it, it is therefore vital to integrate the social in the concept of democracy.
The purpose of the project was to revisit democratic theory with this salient task in mind. More specifically, the project takes issue with the familiar fact that many political theorists are reluctant to include the social in the concept of democracy. Haunted by the spectre of twentieth century socialism, they argue that it is antithetical to democracy; it satisfies material needs at the expense of political freedom, it confuses democracy with the ideological substance of politics and/or it reduces democracy to bureaucracy. These are powerful arguments, advanced by prominent twentieth century thinkers, and supported by a vast number of theoretical and empirical scholars on democracy.
The project demonstrates that while each argument raises an important dilemma for those who seek to address the social question in democratic terms, it simultaneously relies on an overly reductionist conception of democracy—ideational, procedural and discursive respectively—unable to speak to present debates on the future of democracy. The most important result is that by redefining democracy as a political lifeform that pivots on uncertainty, it is possible to integrate the social in the concept of democracy without falling prey to said dilemmas. Experiences of uncertainty can elicit calls for democratic reform and renewal.
The monograph carries the title Democracy and the Social Question: Sharing Uncertainty in Uncertain Times. It is currently under review with an international university press. It contains five substantial chapters
1. Introduction
This chapter introduces the main idea and structure of the book. It begins by recapitulating the debate on the social question in the twentieth century. To avoid the fate of “actually existing socialism”, many prominent political theorists render the social essential to the concept of democracy, yet not integral to it: prepolitical (a material precondition for democracy), too political (an ideological substance of democracy) or apolitical (a bureaucratic extension of democracy). The introduction presents these three positions, and anticipates how the book moves beyond them. It ends by clarifying why it is important to reconceptualise democracy in the way proposed.
2. Democracy and the Social Question in a New Key
Why bother with the social question? This chapter argues that uncertainty is the secret link between modern democracy and the social question, and ignoring this link does a disservice to both literatures. Both democracy and the social question address an uncertain future, and they seek to find institutional mechanisms to accommodate it. Accordingly, the aim of the first chapter is to show that anyone who cares for the rejuvenation of democracy has good reasons to include the social in the concept of democracy, irrespective of his or her ideological conviction.
3. Saving Political Freedom
This chapter revisits the debate on political freedom, and the attempt to exclude the social from the concept of democracy by rendering it “prepolitical”: i.e. into a material precondition for democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It shows that by defining democracy in this way, one does not merely limit the substance and scope of democratic critique. One opens the door to the allegation that there is a necessary tradeoff between freedom and bread. When the rubber meets the road, the argument goes, democracy has very little to offer ordinary people. “You can’t eat democracy”. So why support it? The conclusion is that to safeguard political freedom, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
4. Securing Civic Peace
This chapter revisits the debate on civic peace, and the attempt to exclude the social from the concept of democracy by rendering it “too political”, i.e. into the ideological substance of democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It argues that this position fails to consider what makes us into good losers and gracious winners in the first place. If too much is at stake in an election, existentially, socially or economically, a loss at the polls may be difficult to stomach, and if too little, the incentive to exercise self-restraint is wanting. The conclusion is that to secure civic peace, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
5. Sustaining Democratic Openness
This chapter revisits the debate on democratic openness, and the subsequent propensity to think of the social question as “apolitical”, i.e. as a bureaucratic extension of democracy. The chapter delineates this position, and assesses its hold under present conditions. It demonstrates that reducing democracy to discourse does not sustain democracy as an open-ended process of deliberation and contestation. It rather leaves the bureaucratic field open for other forces to nudge and promote undemocratic norms behind the scenes. The conclusion is that to sustain the openness of democracy, one must include the social in the concept of democracy.
6. Democracy as a Political Lifeform
Is it possible to integrate the social in the concept of democracy without crippling political freedom, jeopardizing civic peace or compromising the openness of democracy? This chapter argues that once we define democracy as a political lifeform that pivots on uncertainty, it is possible to move beyond these dilemmas, and rework their democratic significance. The chapter stresses that not only democrats, but also authoritarian forces pay attention to social grievances and anxieties. To separate democratic from undemocratic responses to the social question, the chapter develops a yardstick to distinguish the one from the other. It ends by making use of real-world examples to illustrate this point.
7. Conclusion
The conclusion, finally, takes stock by turning back to the initial question raised in the book, namely how to make present-day uncertainties about the future work for democracy rather than against it. It summarizes the central contribution of the book to this question.
The main part of this monograph was undertaken in Sweden during 2023, but I also spent four months in the fall that same year in Berlin with the Cluster of Excellence: Contestations of The Liberal Script. This is a collaboration between Humboldt University and Freie Universität, and it proved to be a vibrant research environment with scholars working on topics related to the one I address in the book.
In addition to the monograph, the project on democracy and the social question has resulted in new invitations to universities, workshops and conferences, including three keynotes. It has also resulted in new contacts and networks that I will draw on in future research, and collaboration with practitioners. I list the academic invitations I have received on the basis of this project below:
Invited keynotes:
Feb 2026 Conference at the Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University, Lithuania.
Sep 2023 International Congress on Political Theory in Uncertain Times. Convenor the political theory section of German Association of Political Science, Bremen, Germany.
Aug 2023 World Humanist Congress: “Building better democracies through humanist values”. Copenhagen, Denmark.
Invited talks:
May 2024 Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Austria.
Mar 2024 Conference, Barcelona Centre for Contemporary Culture, Barcelona, Spain. Panel with Craig Calhoun and Dilip Gaonkar.
Feb 2024 Center for Statecraft and Strategic Communication, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
Nov 2023 BIRT Colloquium, The Liberal Script, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany.
Nov 2023 Political Theory Colloquium, Hamburg University, Germany.
Nov 2023 Institute for Political Science, University of Darmstadt, Germany.
Oct 2023 Conference “Resentment and Utopia”, University of St Gallen, Switzerland.
Oct 2023 The Department of Political Philosophy and Globalization Research of the Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Science, Prague, Czech Republic.
June 2023 Theology Department, Uppsala universitet.
May 2023 General research seminar, Department of Political Science, Gothenburg University.
Feb 2023 Higher Research Seminar, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University.