Hans Kelsen is widely recognized as one of the most important legal theorists of the 20th century. Surprisingly, however, his political writings are not nearly as widely known as his legal theory, especially in the English-speaking world. This book fills the void between what is and isn't known about Hans Kelsen's political philosophy, and the ways that philosophy has and will continue to shape political debates inherent to democracy in the future. For the first time in English, this classic book - with an introduction by political theorist Nadia Urbinati - provides an overview of Kelsen's career and his contributions to 20th century political thought.

This selection of the major works of constitutional theory during the Weimar period reflects the reactions of legal scholars to a state in permanent crisis, a society in which all bets were off. Yet the Weimar Republic's brief experiment in constitutionalism laid the groundwork for the postwar Federal Republic, and today its lessons can be of use to states throughout the world. Weimar legal theory is a key to understanding the experience of nations turning from traditional, religious, or command-and-control forms of legitimation to the rule of law. Only two of these authors, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt, have been published to any extent in English, but they and the others whose writings are translated here played key roles in the political and constitutional struggles of the Weimar Republic. Critical introductions to all the theorists and commentaries on their works have been provided by experts from Austria, Canada, Germany, and the United States. In their general introduction, the editors place the Weimar debate in the context of the history and politics of the Weimar Republic and the struggle for constitutionalism in Germany. This critical scrutiny of the Weimar jurisprudence of crisis offers an invaluable overview of the perils and promise of constitutional development in states that lack an entrenched tradition of constitutionalism.

Hans Kelsen is commonly associated with legal theory and philosophy of law. Democracy in Its Essence: Hans Kelsen as a Political Thinker instead investigates Kelsen’s democratic theory as it developed between the 1920s and 1950s, which challenged the existence of democracies in many different respects. Kelsen provided a critical reflection on the strengths and problems of living within a democratic system, while also defending it against a series of specific targets: from the Soviet regime and Bolshevism to European Fascisms, from religious-based conceptions of politics to those claiming a perfect identity between capitalism and classical liberal institutions, and chiefly against all those ideologies claiming to possess objective understanding of what true freedom and true democracy signify. By seeking what he defined as the “essence” and “value” of democracy, Kelsen elaborated a pluralist, relativist, constitutional, proceduralist, and liberal theory of representative democracy, characterized by a strong recall to the values of tolerance, responsibility, and respect toward “the other” as well as to the idea of politics as space for compromise. In this book, Sara Lagi reconstructs his political theory as a relevant contribution to the twentieth-century liberal-democratic tradition of thought, while representing a stimulating reflection on the meaning and implication of democracy both as a political system and as a form of co-existence.

What is politics about? At its core, politics is about resolving matters that are contested in a society or group. It exists not only within and between states, but also within religious institutions, sports organisations, commercial enterprises, schools and social organisations. Politics is driven by conflict, but also by cooperation. To understand politics, we must ask specific ('key') questions about the nature of political conflict, about persons, groups and institutions that are involved, about their resources, and about the wider context that both constrains and provides opportunities for all. It also requires an understanding of concepts such as power, influence and political community, and, of course, of the terms politics, conflict and cooperation. This book is about the 'essence' of politics, which is introduced by way of key questions and concepts that are indispensable for understanding politics in many different settings.

Asking how the citizens of modern democracy can reason with one another, this book carves out a controversial position between those who view religious voices as an anathema to democracy and those who believe democratic society is a moral wasteland because such voices are not heard.

Democracy does not deliver on the things we have assumed are its natural outcomes. This, coupled with a growing sense of malaise in both new and established democracies forms the basis to the assertion made by some, that these are not democracies at all. Through considerable, impressive empirical analysis of a variety of voting methods, across twenty different nations, Roslyn Fuller presents the data that makes this contention indisputable. Proving that the party which forms the government rarely receives the majority of the popular vote, that electoral systems regularly produce manufactured majorities and that the better funded side invariably wins such contests in both elections and referenda, Fuller's findings challenge the most fundamental elements of both national politics and broader society. Beast and Gods argues for a return to democracy as perceived by the ancient Athenians. Boldly arguing for the necessity of the Aristotelian assumption that citizens are agents whose wishes and aims can be attained through participation in politics, and through an examination of what “goods” are provided by democracy, Fuller offers a powerful challenge to the contemporary liberal view that there are no "goods" in politics, only individual citizens seeking to fulfil their particular interests.

Citizens around the world have become distrustful of politicians, skeptical about democratic institutions, and disillusioned about the capacity of democratic politics to resolve pressing social concerns. Many feel as if something has gone seriously wrong with democracy. Those sentiments are especially high in the U.S. as the 2012 election draws closer. In 2008, President Barack Obama ran--and won--on a promise of hope and change for a better country. Four years later, that dream for hope and change seems to be waning by the minute. Instead, disillusionment grows with the Obama adminstration's achievements, or depending where you fall on the spectrum, its lack thereof. Defending Politics meets this contemporary pessimism about the political process head on. In doing so, it aims to cultivate a shift from the negativity that appears to dominate public life towards a more buoyant and engaged "politics of optimism." Matthew Flinders makes an unfashionable but incredibly important argument of utmost simplicity: democratic politics delivers far more than most members of the public appear to acknowledge and understand. If more and more people are disappointed with what modern democratic politics delivers, is it possible that the fault lies with those who demand too much, fail to acknowledge the essence of democratic engagement, and ignore the complexities of governing in the twentieth century? Is it possible that the public in many advanced liberal democracies have become "democratically decadent," that they take what democratic politics delivers for granted? Would politics appear in a better light if we all spent less time emphasizing our individual rights and more time reflecting on our responsibilities to society and future generations? Democratic politics remains "a great and civilizing human activity...something to be valued almost as a pearl beyond price," Bernard Crick stressed in his classic In Defense of Politics fifty years ago. By returning to and updating Crick's arguments, this book provides an honest account of why democratic politics matters and why we need to reject the arguments of those who would turn their backs on "mere politics" in favor of more authoritarian, populist or technocratic forms of governing.