Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:29:22.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hegel, Liberalism and the Pitfalls of Representative Democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

Bernardo Ferro
Bernardo Ferro*
Affiliation:
New University of Lisbon, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Although Hegel is very critical of representative democracy, his views on political participation are in many ways richer and more sophisticated than the ones favoured today by most Western societies. The present paper aims to shed light on this apparent paradox by dispelling some of the misunderstandings still associated with Hegel’s ethical and political thought. I argue, on the one hand, that Hegel’s emphasis on the notion of freedom does not amount to an endorsement of political liberalism, but to a critique of its underlying principles. On the other hand, I show that the Hegelian theory of the modern state, albeit falling short of a fully democratic constitutional solution, is by no means opposed to social justice or political pluralism. Hegel views political freedom as the result of a global web of mutual recognition, embodied by social institutions destined to bridge the gap between private and communal interests. Despite the ambiguous and outdated elements of Hegel’s description, I believe his overall solution remains uniquely relevant, and an important source for the ongoing debate about the merits and limitations of contemporary democracies.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 2019 , pp. 215 - 236
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. (2003), Hegel. Zur Metakritik der Erkenntnistheorie. Drei Studien zu Hegel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Buchwalter, A. (2012), Dialectics, Politics, and the Contemporary Value of Hegel’s Practical Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buchwalter, A. (ed.) (2015), Hegel and Capitalism. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Cousin, V. (1866), ‘Souvenirs d’un voyage en Allemagne’, Revue des deux mondes, Aug.: 616f.Google Scholar
D’Hondt, J. (2011), Hegel en son temps. Paris: Delga.Google Scholar
Franco, P. (1997), ‘Hegel and Liberalism’, The Review of Politics 49:4: 831–860.Google Scholar
Gilbert, B. (2013), The Vitality of Contradiction. Hegel, Politics and the Dialectic of Liberal Capitalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Haym, R. (2007), Hegel und seine Zeit. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag (reprint).Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1968), Werke in zwanzig Bänden. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1977), Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1988), The Difference Between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy, trans. H. S. Harris and W. Cerf. Albany NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (1999), Political Writings, trans. H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. (2008), Outlines of the Philosophy of Right, trans. T. M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heiman, G. (1976), ‘The sources and significance of Hegel’s corporate doctrine’, in Z. A. Pelczynski (ed.), Hegel’s Political Philosophy. Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, T. (1998), Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ilting, K.-H. (1976), ‘The Structure of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’, in Z. A. Pelczynski (ed.), Hegel’s Political Philosophy. Problems and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1997), Die Metaphysik der Sitten (Werke, Band VIII). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Knox, T. M. (1940), ‘Hegel and Prussianism’, Philosophy 15:57: 51–63.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (2009), Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, trans. A. Jolin and J. O’Malley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nove, A. (1991), The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Patten, A. (1999), Hegel’s Idea of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pinson, J.-C. (1999), Hegel, le Droit et le Libéralisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (2013), The Open Society and its Enemies. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1996), Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (2000), Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. (1994), A Future for Socialism. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1954), Du Contrat Social, ou Principes du Droit Politique. Paris: Garnier Frères.Google Scholar
Schmidt am Busch, H.-C. (2002), Hegels Begriff der Arbeit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schweikart, D. (2011), After Capitalism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Stewart, J. (1996), The Hegel Myths and Legends. Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M. (1987), Interview for ‘Woman’s Own’, with journalist Douglas Keay. Available at http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=106689 (accessed 10 April 2007).Google Scholar
Wolff, R. D. (2012), Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism . Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
Wood, A. (1990), Hegel’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar