Articles and Publications by Valerio Fabbrizi
Ethics & Global Politics, 2023
Over the last 30 years, scholarship has produced countless books, essays, and articles on populis... more Over the last 30 years, scholarship has produced countless books, essays, and articles on populism by investigating it from various perspectives and angles. This article seeks to contribute to this ongoing debate by offering a political-philosophical reconstruction of populism to define such a phenomenon from a multilateral perspective. The essay will proceed as follows: The first section will investigate populism from a purely political-philosophical position, while the second will discuss the constitutional effects of such a phenomenon, to define it mainly as a form of anti-liberal and anti-judicial redefinition of democracy. Moreover, the first section will expose the dichotomy between the so-called left-and right forms of the populist model and the populist threat to democracy, where the second will address populist constitutionalism and its antithetic relation to liberal constitutionalism.
Trauma and Memory, 2022
The article develops a discussion on how time influences the realm of politics and the structure ... more The article develops a discussion on how time influences the realm of politics and the structure of democratic constitutionalism. In the first section, a theoretical and political-philosophical of time will be provided; in the second, the attention will be focused on the consequences of time on constitutionalism and democracy. Here, a distinction between the two concepts of time of politics and time of constitutionalism will be addressed. The theory of time in politicalphilosophical terms can be defined in multiple directions: firstly, in terms of political and constitutional changes, two different matters will be distinguished: a "conservative" as opposed to a "progressive" approach to politics and constitutionalism. Hence, a twofold definition of constitutionalism can be traced: on the one hand, the idea that a constitution can be considered as the product of the daily political debate and, on the other hand, the idea of a constitution as a generational product.
The Persistence of Justice as Fairness Reflections on Rawls’s Legacy, 2022
This contribution deals with constitutional democracy within the nor-mative liberal-democratic pa... more This contribution deals with constitutional democracy within the nor-mative liberal-democratic paradigm. Against the background of Rawlsian political liberalism and its dualist definition of democracy, the chapter aims at providing an overview of some liberal-democratic models such as the Ackermanian and Dworkinian ones. In the same vein, the essay engages normative constitutionalism by widening the discussion to recall two important contemporary legal theorists such as the Italian scholar Luigi Ferrajoli and the American Professor Frank Michelman. Eventually, the chapter will suggest putting in dialogue these authors on fundamental matters of constitutionalism namely the meaning of constitutional democracy, the protection of rights, and the so-called structural entrenchment principle.
Ragion Pratica, 2021
This article critically discusses the normative definition of liberal-democratic constitutional t... more This article critically discusses the normative definition of liberal-democratic constitutional theory, by focusing on some of the most significant authors. After a brief introduction, the first section engages normative constitutional theory by recalling John Rawls' political liberalism and its fundamentals (liberal principle of legitimacy, public reason, the role of the Supreme Court). Rawlsian arguments will be confronted with two alternative liberal-democratic proposals: Bruce Ackerman's understanding of dualist democracy and Ronald Dworkin's foundationalist position. Moreover, the second section illustrates two different, albeit normative, liberal-democratic proposals: Frank Michelman's post-Rawlsian political liberalism and Luigi Ferrajoli's substantial defence of democracy. This section aims at highlighting similarities between these two models and the theoretical and philosophical-political points they have in common. Eventually, Ferrajoli's constitutionalism will be discussed, by articulating an analysis of the current crisis of the liberal-democratic model.
Etica&Politica/Ethics&Politics, 2021
This article engages liberal-democratic constitutionalism by focusing on its fundamental characte... more This article engages liberal-democratic constitutionalism by focusing on its fundamental characters and definitions; the implications of populism and illiberal turns will be investigated as well, especially in the second part of the essay. The first section of this paper addresses the critical and interpretative paradigms of contemporary constitutional theory, by illustrating the dichotomy between dualist and monist understandings of democracy. Conversely, the second section addresses the relationship between populism
and constitutionalism to illustrate the paradigm of the so-called populist constitutionalism as an illiberal form of constitutional democracy
Crisi e Trasformazioni. Filosofie e processi storico-sociali, 2020
Il presente contributo, pur nella sua brevità ed essenzialità, intende proporre una riflessione f... more Il presente contributo, pur nella sua brevità ed essenzialità, intende proporre una riflessione filosofico-politica – in special modo da una prospettiva costituzionale – sul tema di crisi politica e trasformazioni costituzionali per cercare di comprendere se tra questi due concetti sussista un rapporto di causa-effetto. Si cercherà quindi di comprendere se una crisi politica (al di là della sua natura e tipologia) porti con sé una trasformazione, tanto nella struttura politico-istituzionale quanto nel tessuto costituzio-nale. In tal senso, uno degli esempi più calzanti è certamente quello della Costituzione italiana, frutto di una radicale trasformazione guidata dall’Assemblea Costituente che ebbe inizio con la vittoria del fronte repubblicano nel referendum del 2 giugno 1946, convocato a seguito della tragedia della Seconda guerra mondiale culminata con una lacerante guerra civile.
La Società degli individui , 2019
This article deals with populism by addressing it under its constitutional connotations. Populism... more This article deals with populism by addressing it under its constitutional connotations. Populism is a timeless issue, but it has reached a new relevance in last times.
The first part of the paper addresses populism from a general perspective, by proposing a counterposition between populism and liberal democracy, whilst the last part aims at outlining the characteristics of a so-called ‘populist’ constitutionalism, as opposed to the liberal-democratic constitutionalism. Eventually, the article proposes a brief reflection about the risks of a populist drift in contexts of ‘pseudo-democracies’.
Diskurs I Politika - Discourse and Politics ISBN 978-86-7419-308-2, 2019
Reasonable disagreement is one of the most critical issues in contemporary political philosophy, ... more Reasonable disagreement is one of the most critical issues in contemporary political philosophy, especially within liberal-democratic constitutionalism.
In emphasising the role of disagreement in the relationship between discourse and politics, many scholars such as Jeremy Waldron and Richard Bellamy – against the background of the Rawlsian idea of “reasonable pluralism” – defend the thesis of
moral disagreement as the core of political deliberation.
By refusing the idea of neutrality, these authors maintain that political discourse cannot be established by simply removing our moral disagreement on political values. This essay engages the issue of “discourse and politics” by focusing on some relevant topics: the deliberative conception of democracy; the Rawlsian idea of public reason as a forum for deliberation and discourse; the fact of disagreement and its influence on the deliberative process.
In order to investigate such issues, the paper follows three ways. First, it aims at examining John Rawls’ idea of public reason, by presenting it as a tool to resolve reasonable disagreement in the context of constitutional essentials. The second section deals with reasonable disagreement from a liberal point of view, by trying to focus on some critical remarks which Bellamy raises against Rawlsian political liberalism.
The third section briefly analyses Waldron’s arguments in defence of reasonable disagreement, as a critique of the deliberative model of democracy.
From this perspective, Waldron presents deliberative democracy’s failure in considering political dissent and moral disagreement as two problematic aspects of democracy.
Politica & Società, 2019
This article deals with democratic constitutionalism in order to investigate the proper nature of... more This article deals with democratic constitutionalism in order to investigate the proper nature of constitutionalism, by wondering about its peculiarities and specific objects. Against this background, this essay aims at providing a paradigmatic definition of constitutional theory, for more specifically exploring its different undertones. For this reason, the first section of the article offers an analysis of the most relevant theoretical contributions within modern and contemporary constitutionalism. Thus, the first section explores Carl Schmitt's, Hans Kelsen's and Robert Dahl's definition of constitutional democracy. The second section then focuses with more attention on contemporary liberal-democratic constitutionalism, manly on one of the most debated issues: the dichotomy between legal and political models of constitutionalism, which goes hand in hand with a distinction between dualist and monistic accounts of democratic theory. The last section proposes an insight into the Italian constitutional system, by comparing it with the U.S. model, by especially focusing on the functioning and structure of the Constitutional Court compared to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 2019
Res Publica, 2019
This contribution aims at discussing constitutional democracy in the age of populisms, by explain... more This contribution aims at discussing constitutional democracy in the age of populisms, by explaining how populist movements oppose liberal-democratic constitutionalism and by presenting the thesis of a so-called 'populist constitutionalism', as proposed by Mark Tushnet.
In the first section, a general and analytic exploration of populist phenomena will be drawn, by focusing on the so-called thesis of a 'populist' constitutionalism. In the second part, Tushnet's arguments for a populist constitutionalism will be presented, through the analysis of his two main contributions: "Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts", in which Tushnet develops his critique of legal constitutionalism and judicial review as an undemocratic power by unelected justices, and "Authoritarian Constitutionalism", a recent article in which a distinction between 'authoritarian' and 'populist' definitions of consti-tutionalism is drawn.
In conclusion, such arguments will be discussed by proposing a critical response to Tushnet's positions and presenting some risks of a majoritarian and populist constitutional democracy.
Jura Gentium - Rivista di filosofia del diritto internazionale e della politica globale Journal of Philosophy of International Law and Global Politics, 2018
Within contemporary democratic constitutionalism, social rights are assumed as one of the most de... more Within contemporary democratic constitutionalism, social rights are assumed as one of the most debated issues. This article offers an insight into the question about a possible constitutionalization of social rights, by proposing an analysis of such an issue within the liberal-democratic constitutional theory.
The key question of this paper asks whether social rights should deserve a special constitutional protection or not. Thus, the purpose of this article is to give an answer to such a question, by comparing the Italian legal scholar Luigi Ferrajoli with Frank Michelman, two of the most distinguished contemporary constitutional theorists.
Philosophica Critica, 2018
The purpose of this article is to investigate one of the most interesting and debated issues with... more The purpose of this article is to investigate one of the most interesting and debated issues within the philosophical dis-cussion about politics: the metaphor of the body politic and its relation with the theory of sovereignty in contemporary political theory. After an opening section, which proposes a brief sketch about the origin of the body politic within phi-losophy (especially in Plato’s and Aristotle’s contributions), the article provides a theoretical insight of such a theory, by dealing with three of its definitions: Kantorowicz’s “king’s two bodies”; Hobbes’ Leviathan and Schmitt’s theory of sove-reignty. The article aims at presenting some arguments to define these three perspectives, by examining – in the last section – how this paradigm has evolved into the more complex and articulated theory of the rule of law in contemporary de-mocratic societies.
Philosophy & Social Criticism - First Published Online on April 15, 2018, 2018
The renewed interest on political realism can offer a new reading of the traditional dichotomy be... more The renewed interest on political realism can offer a new reading of the traditional dichotomy between normative and realist conception of constitutionalism. The purpose of this article is to analyse this renewed discussion, especially by focusing on the relationship between “political realism” and “political constitutionalism,” in the light of some theorists and authors—such as Richard Bellamy and Jeremy Waldron. After a brief introduction in which political realism will be discussed, especially through Bernard Williams’ reinterpretation, the article proposes a rereading of democratic constitutionalism from the classical dichotomy between normativism and realism in political theory. The focus will be set on three key issues: 1. Richard Bellamy’s constitutional theory in a realist perspective; 2. An insight of legal constitutionalism under a normative banner; 3. A brief conclusion in which the risks of a majoritarian and populist constitutionalism will be discussed.
Philosophy Kitchen, 2017
This article aims at proposing some reflections on
law, power and violence in contemporary polit... more This article aims at proposing some reflections on
law, power and violence in contemporary political
philosophy. My attention will be devoted to a critical
analysis of some relevant contribution on such
matters by eminent scholars and authors such
as Alessandro Ferrara, Christoph Menke, Walter
Benjamin, Hannah Arendt.
The first part offers a brief introduction
in which Alessandro Ferrara’s reading of
Menke’s "Law and Violence" will be presented. The
second part focuses its attention on the philosophical
backgrounds of violence, especially in its relation
to liberty, power and government. In this case,
the main focus is devoted to some of the classics
in political philosophy: Niccolò Machiavelli;
Thomas Hobbes; Hannah Arendt.
The last two sections are finally devoted
to a further reflection on law and violence. On the
one hand, giving a deeper description of Ferrara’s
remarks on Menke’s work, especially in its connection
to the Rawlsian political liberalism. The last section,
on the other hand, proposes afurther brief and final
reflections on the core issue of the whole paper.
A norma della legge sul diritto d'autore e del codice civile è vietata la riproduzione di questo ... more A norma della legge sul diritto d'autore e del codice civile è vietata la riproduzione di questo libro o di parte di esso con qualsiasi mezzo, elettronico, meccanico, per mezzo di fotocopie, microfilm, registratori o altro. Le fotocopie per uso personale del lettore possono tuttavia essere effettuate, ma solo nei limiti del 15% del volume e dietro pagamento alla SIAE del compenso previsto dall'art. 68, commi 4 e 5 della legge 22 aprile 1941 n. 633. Ogni riproduzione per finalità diverse da quelle per uso personale deve essere autorizzata specificatamente dagli autori o dall'editore.
Philosophica Critica vol. 2, no. 2, 2016, Dec 2016
The paper focuses on criticisms that theorists of political
constitutionalism raise against legal... more The paper focuses on criticisms that theorists of political
constitutionalism raise against legal constitutionalism, especially
with regard to the idea of representation and political sovereignty.
At the same time, the intention is to reconstruct the debate between
legal and political constitutionalism in contemporary liberalism,
starting from the so-called counter-majoritarian difficulty. This debate
concerns two different approaches: the political one rejects the
idea of judicial review by the Supreme Court because it may
establish a possible rule of the judges (Michelman; Dworkin). It
defends the role of Parliament in constitutional matters, in contrast
with the role of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as – according to them
– it is not open to political participation. Parliament is considered
the only place in which we can exercise our constitutional power
and in which our rights could be adequately protected (Bellamy;
Waldron; Tushnet; Goldoni). On the other hand, legal constitutionalism
upholds the idea of judicial review, defending the role of
the Supreme Court as “exemplar of public reason” (Rawls 1993).
This article tries to answer to three fundamental questions about
constitutional democracy under the banner of political liberalism: 1.
What do we mean by counter-majoritarian difficulty? 2. What is the
answer that legal and political model of constitutionalism give to
this question? 3. What is the role of constitutional courts in democratic
regimes and what is their authority within the State?
Conferences talks and presentations by Valerio Fabbrizi
In this paper, presented and discussed at the Conference "Philosophy and Social Sciences" held in... more In this paper, presented and discussed at the Conference "Philosophy and Social Sciences" held in Prague on May 20th 2015, i make an overview on the Rawlsian consensus theory, trying, in the second part, to propose a new interpretation of it, focusing overall on Constitutional consensus.
Books by Valerio Fabbrizi
UniversItalia - Collana Ricerca Continua 5, 2020
Questo libro affronta il tema della democrazia, che rimane centrale all’interno del pensiero filo... more Questo libro affronta il tema della democrazia, che rimane centrale all’interno del pensiero filosofico-politico contemporaneo da una prospettiva deliberativa che pone l’accento su alcuni aspetti chiave (sfera pubblica, opinione pubblica, libertà di espressione e di parola). In questo testo vengono quindi analizzati il ruolo, il senso e il significato della libertà di stampa, di espressione e di pensiero nelle democrazie contemporanee, tracciandone al contempo le origini, contestualizzandole in una prospettiva costituzionale.
Al contempo, questo lavoro ha l’obiettivo di esaminare l’impatto delle immagini particolarmente violente e impressionanti sull’opinione pubblica e su quella che Gustave Le Bon identificò come “folla”, senza però trascurare di definire approfonditamente i tratti fondamentali dell’opinione pubblica in quanto tale, tanto da una prospettiva più propriamente sociologica e filosofica quanto da una più storico-politica.
Il saggio non ha la pretesa di fornire un’analisi complessiva della democrazia deliberativa, ma più modestamente vuole contribuire alla riflessione su questo tema a partire dal rapporto tra democrazia e diritti individuali fondamentali: libertà di parola e di espressione; libertà di stampa e diritto di cronaca.
Il libro intende fornire una ricostruzione dettagliata del dibattito, oggi centrale all'interno d... more Il libro intende fornire una ricostruzione dettagliata del dibattito, oggi centrale all'interno della teoria politica e democratica, tra due modelli costituzionali speculari: da un lato il cosiddetto "modello Washington", che ricalca il sistema istituzionale degli Stati Uniti, dall'altro il "modello Westminster", che invece descrive l'ordinamento britannico. Il libro ricostruisce il panorama liberal-democratico, discutendo i temi chiave di alcuni tra i maggiori teorici del costituzionalismo contemporaneo, a cominciare da John Rawls, Bruce Ackerman e Richard Bellamy. Attraverso il confronto tra modello dualista e modello monista della democrazia costituzionale, il libro mira a gettare uno sguardo sulle interpretazioni, ma soprattutto sulle prospettive del costituzionalismo democratico contemporaneo, che si trova oggi a fronteggiare le sfide e i pericoli derivanti dal populismo.
Uploads
Articles and Publications by Valerio Fabbrizi
and constitutionalism to illustrate the paradigm of the so-called populist constitutionalism as an illiberal form of constitutional democracy
The first part of the paper addresses populism from a general perspective, by proposing a counterposition between populism and liberal democracy, whilst the last part aims at outlining the characteristics of a so-called ‘populist’ constitutionalism, as opposed to the liberal-democratic constitutionalism. Eventually, the article proposes a brief reflection about the risks of a populist drift in contexts of ‘pseudo-democracies’.
In emphasising the role of disagreement in the relationship between discourse and politics, many scholars such as Jeremy Waldron and Richard Bellamy – against the background of the Rawlsian idea of “reasonable pluralism” – defend the thesis of
moral disagreement as the core of political deliberation.
By refusing the idea of neutrality, these authors maintain that political discourse cannot be established by simply removing our moral disagreement on political values. This essay engages the issue of “discourse and politics” by focusing on some relevant topics: the deliberative conception of democracy; the Rawlsian idea of public reason as a forum for deliberation and discourse; the fact of disagreement and its influence on the deliberative process.
In order to investigate such issues, the paper follows three ways. First, it aims at examining John Rawls’ idea of public reason, by presenting it as a tool to resolve reasonable disagreement in the context of constitutional essentials. The second section deals with reasonable disagreement from a liberal point of view, by trying to focus on some critical remarks which Bellamy raises against Rawlsian political liberalism.
The third section briefly analyses Waldron’s arguments in defence of reasonable disagreement, as a critique of the deliberative model of democracy.
From this perspective, Waldron presents deliberative democracy’s failure in considering political dissent and moral disagreement as two problematic aspects of democracy.
In the first section, a general and analytic exploration of populist phenomena will be drawn, by focusing on the so-called thesis of a 'populist' constitutionalism. In the second part, Tushnet's arguments for a populist constitutionalism will be presented, through the analysis of his two main contributions: "Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts", in which Tushnet develops his critique of legal constitutionalism and judicial review as an undemocratic power by unelected justices, and "Authoritarian Constitutionalism", a recent article in which a distinction between 'authoritarian' and 'populist' definitions of consti-tutionalism is drawn.
In conclusion, such arguments will be discussed by proposing a critical response to Tushnet's positions and presenting some risks of a majoritarian and populist constitutional democracy.
The key question of this paper asks whether social rights should deserve a special constitutional protection or not. Thus, the purpose of this article is to give an answer to such a question, by comparing the Italian legal scholar Luigi Ferrajoli with Frank Michelman, two of the most distinguished contemporary constitutional theorists.
law, power and violence in contemporary political
philosophy. My attention will be devoted to a critical
analysis of some relevant contribution on such
matters by eminent scholars and authors such
as Alessandro Ferrara, Christoph Menke, Walter
Benjamin, Hannah Arendt.
The first part offers a brief introduction
in which Alessandro Ferrara’s reading of
Menke’s "Law and Violence" will be presented. The
second part focuses its attention on the philosophical
backgrounds of violence, especially in its relation
to liberty, power and government. In this case,
the main focus is devoted to some of the classics
in political philosophy: Niccolò Machiavelli;
Thomas Hobbes; Hannah Arendt.
The last two sections are finally devoted
to a further reflection on law and violence. On the
one hand, giving a deeper description of Ferrara’s
remarks on Menke’s work, especially in its connection
to the Rawlsian political liberalism. The last section,
on the other hand, proposes afurther brief and final
reflections on the core issue of the whole paper.
constitutionalism raise against legal constitutionalism, especially
with regard to the idea of representation and political sovereignty.
At the same time, the intention is to reconstruct the debate between
legal and political constitutionalism in contemporary liberalism,
starting from the so-called counter-majoritarian difficulty. This debate
concerns two different approaches: the political one rejects the
idea of judicial review by the Supreme Court because it may
establish a possible rule of the judges (Michelman; Dworkin). It
defends the role of Parliament in constitutional matters, in contrast
with the role of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as – according to them
– it is not open to political participation. Parliament is considered
the only place in which we can exercise our constitutional power
and in which our rights could be adequately protected (Bellamy;
Waldron; Tushnet; Goldoni). On the other hand, legal constitutionalism
upholds the idea of judicial review, defending the role of
the Supreme Court as “exemplar of public reason” (Rawls 1993).
This article tries to answer to three fundamental questions about
constitutional democracy under the banner of political liberalism: 1.
What do we mean by counter-majoritarian difficulty? 2. What is the
answer that legal and political model of constitutionalism give to
this question? 3. What is the role of constitutional courts in democratic
regimes and what is their authority within the State?
Conferences talks and presentations by Valerio Fabbrizi
Books by Valerio Fabbrizi
Al contempo, questo lavoro ha l’obiettivo di esaminare l’impatto delle immagini particolarmente violente e impressionanti sull’opinione pubblica e su quella che Gustave Le Bon identificò come “folla”, senza però trascurare di definire approfonditamente i tratti fondamentali dell’opinione pubblica in quanto tale, tanto da una prospettiva più propriamente sociologica e filosofica quanto da una più storico-politica.
Il saggio non ha la pretesa di fornire un’analisi complessiva della democrazia deliberativa, ma più modestamente vuole contribuire alla riflessione su questo tema a partire dal rapporto tra democrazia e diritti individuali fondamentali: libertà di parola e di espressione; libertà di stampa e diritto di cronaca.
and constitutionalism to illustrate the paradigm of the so-called populist constitutionalism as an illiberal form of constitutional democracy
The first part of the paper addresses populism from a general perspective, by proposing a counterposition between populism and liberal democracy, whilst the last part aims at outlining the characteristics of a so-called ‘populist’ constitutionalism, as opposed to the liberal-democratic constitutionalism. Eventually, the article proposes a brief reflection about the risks of a populist drift in contexts of ‘pseudo-democracies’.
In emphasising the role of disagreement in the relationship between discourse and politics, many scholars such as Jeremy Waldron and Richard Bellamy – against the background of the Rawlsian idea of “reasonable pluralism” – defend the thesis of
moral disagreement as the core of political deliberation.
By refusing the idea of neutrality, these authors maintain that political discourse cannot be established by simply removing our moral disagreement on political values. This essay engages the issue of “discourse and politics” by focusing on some relevant topics: the deliberative conception of democracy; the Rawlsian idea of public reason as a forum for deliberation and discourse; the fact of disagreement and its influence on the deliberative process.
In order to investigate such issues, the paper follows three ways. First, it aims at examining John Rawls’ idea of public reason, by presenting it as a tool to resolve reasonable disagreement in the context of constitutional essentials. The second section deals with reasonable disagreement from a liberal point of view, by trying to focus on some critical remarks which Bellamy raises against Rawlsian political liberalism.
The third section briefly analyses Waldron’s arguments in defence of reasonable disagreement, as a critique of the deliberative model of democracy.
From this perspective, Waldron presents deliberative democracy’s failure in considering political dissent and moral disagreement as two problematic aspects of democracy.
In the first section, a general and analytic exploration of populist phenomena will be drawn, by focusing on the so-called thesis of a 'populist' constitutionalism. In the second part, Tushnet's arguments for a populist constitutionalism will be presented, through the analysis of his two main contributions: "Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts", in which Tushnet develops his critique of legal constitutionalism and judicial review as an undemocratic power by unelected justices, and "Authoritarian Constitutionalism", a recent article in which a distinction between 'authoritarian' and 'populist' definitions of consti-tutionalism is drawn.
In conclusion, such arguments will be discussed by proposing a critical response to Tushnet's positions and presenting some risks of a majoritarian and populist constitutional democracy.
The key question of this paper asks whether social rights should deserve a special constitutional protection or not. Thus, the purpose of this article is to give an answer to such a question, by comparing the Italian legal scholar Luigi Ferrajoli with Frank Michelman, two of the most distinguished contemporary constitutional theorists.
law, power and violence in contemporary political
philosophy. My attention will be devoted to a critical
analysis of some relevant contribution on such
matters by eminent scholars and authors such
as Alessandro Ferrara, Christoph Menke, Walter
Benjamin, Hannah Arendt.
The first part offers a brief introduction
in which Alessandro Ferrara’s reading of
Menke’s "Law and Violence" will be presented. The
second part focuses its attention on the philosophical
backgrounds of violence, especially in its relation
to liberty, power and government. In this case,
the main focus is devoted to some of the classics
in political philosophy: Niccolò Machiavelli;
Thomas Hobbes; Hannah Arendt.
The last two sections are finally devoted
to a further reflection on law and violence. On the
one hand, giving a deeper description of Ferrara’s
remarks on Menke’s work, especially in its connection
to the Rawlsian political liberalism. The last section,
on the other hand, proposes afurther brief and final
reflections on the core issue of the whole paper.
constitutionalism raise against legal constitutionalism, especially
with regard to the idea of representation and political sovereignty.
At the same time, the intention is to reconstruct the debate between
legal and political constitutionalism in contemporary liberalism,
starting from the so-called counter-majoritarian difficulty. This debate
concerns two different approaches: the political one rejects the
idea of judicial review by the Supreme Court because it may
establish a possible rule of the judges (Michelman; Dworkin). It
defends the role of Parliament in constitutional matters, in contrast
with the role of the Supreme Court, inasmuch as – according to them
– it is not open to political participation. Parliament is considered
the only place in which we can exercise our constitutional power
and in which our rights could be adequately protected (Bellamy;
Waldron; Tushnet; Goldoni). On the other hand, legal constitutionalism
upholds the idea of judicial review, defending the role of
the Supreme Court as “exemplar of public reason” (Rawls 1993).
This article tries to answer to three fundamental questions about
constitutional democracy under the banner of political liberalism: 1.
What do we mean by counter-majoritarian difficulty? 2. What is the
answer that legal and political model of constitutionalism give to
this question? 3. What is the role of constitutional courts in democratic
regimes and what is their authority within the State?
Al contempo, questo lavoro ha l’obiettivo di esaminare l’impatto delle immagini particolarmente violente e impressionanti sull’opinione pubblica e su quella che Gustave Le Bon identificò come “folla”, senza però trascurare di definire approfonditamente i tratti fondamentali dell’opinione pubblica in quanto tale, tanto da una prospettiva più propriamente sociologica e filosofica quanto da una più storico-politica.
Il saggio non ha la pretesa di fornire un’analisi complessiva della democrazia deliberativa, ma più modestamente vuole contribuire alla riflessione su questo tema a partire dal rapporto tra democrazia e diritti individuali fondamentali: libertà di parola e di espressione; libertà di stampa e diritto di cronaca.