In 1942, the dictatorial regime of occupied France held a show trial that didn‘t work. In a society from which democratic checks and balances had been eliminated, under a regime that made its own laws to try its opponents, the government‘s signature legal initiative – a court packed with sympathetic magistrates and soldiers whose investigation of the defunct republic‘s leaders was supposed to demonstrate the superiority of the new regime – somehow not only failed to result in a conviction, but, in spite of the fact that only government-selected journalists were allowed to attend, turned into a podium for the regime‘s most bitter opponents. The public relations disaster was so great that the government was ultimately forced to cancel the trial. This catastrophic would-be show trial was not forced upon the regime by Germans unfamiliar with the state of domestic opinion; rather, it was a home-grown initiative whose results disgusted not only the French, but also the occupiers. This book offers a new explanation for the failure of the Riom Trial: that it was the result of ideas about the law that were deeply imbedded in the culture of the regime’s supporters. They genuinely believed that their opponents had been playing politics with the nation’s interests, whereas their own concerns were apolitical. The ultimate lesson of the Riom Trial is that the abnegation of politics can produce results almost as bad as a deliberate commitment to stamping out the beliefs of others. Today, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum denounce excessive polarization as the cause of political gridlock; but this may simply be what real democracy looks like when it seeks to express the wishes of a divided people.

Michael Oakeshott, the foremost British political philosopher of the twentieth century, died in 1990, leaving a substantial collection of unpublished material. Yale University Press is continuing to make available the best of these illuminating works. In this polished and hitherto unknown work, Oakeshott argues that modern politics was constituted out of a debate, persistent through centuries of European political experience down to our own day, over the question "What should governments do?" According to Oakeshott, two different answers have dominated our thought since the fifteenth century. One, exemplified by such thinkers as Rousseau and Marx, expresses a belief in the capacity of human beings to control, design, and monitor all aspects of social and political life, a belief fostered by the intoxicating increase in power available to governments in modern times. On the other hand, sceptics such as Montaigne, Pascal, and Hobbes argued that governments cannot, in principle, produce perfection and that we should prevent concentrations of power that may result in tyrannies that oppress the dignity of the human spirit. Oakeshott exposes the pitfalls of both positions and shows the value of a middle ground that incorporates scepticism with enough faith to avoid total quietism. Readers of Oakeshott will find here the thinking that lies behind his famous definition of politics as "the pursuit of intimations.".

Our age is celebrated as the triumph of liberal democracy. Yet it is also marked by a narrowing of party differences, a decline in voter participation, a rise in nationalist and religious fundamentalisms and an explosion of popular protests that challenge technocratic governance and the power of markets in the name of democracy itself. This book seeks to make sense of this situation by critically engaging with the influential theory of 'the post-political' developed by Chantal Mouffe, Jacques Ranciere, Slavoj ?i?ek and others. Through a multi-dimensional and fiercely contested assessment of contemporary depoliticization, 'The Post-Political and Its Discontents' urges us to confront the closure of our political horizons, and to re-imagine the possibility of emancipatory change.

This book analyses a key episode in the cultural Cold War - the formation of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Whilst the Congress was established to defend cultural values and freedom of expression in the Cold War Struggle, its close association with the CIA later undermined its claims to intellectual independence or non-political autonomy. By examining the formation of the Congress and its early years of existence in relation to broader issues of US-European relations, Giles Scott-Smith reveals a more complex interpretation of the story. The Politics of Apolitical Culture provides an in-depth picture of the various links between the political, economic and cultural realms which led to the Congress.

This inclusive study examines the extraordinarily high rates of political nonparticipation in the United States and the political, historical, institutional, and philosophical roots of such widespread apathy. To explain why individuals become committed to political apathy as a political role, Tom DeLuca begins by defining "the two faces of political apathy." The first, rooted in free will, properly places responsibility for nonparticipation in the political process on individuals. Political scientists and journalists, however, too often overlook a second, more insidious face of apathy--a condition created by institutional practices and social and cultural structures that limit participation and political awareness. The public blames our most disenfranchised citizens for their own disenfranchisement. Apathetic citizens blame themselves. DeLuca examines classic and representative explanations of non-participation by political analysts across a range of methodologies and schools of thought. Focusing on their views on the concepts of political power and political participation, he assesses current proposals for reform. He argues that overcoming the second face of apathy requires a strategy of "real political equality," which includes greater equality in the availability of political resources, in setting the political agenda, in clarifying political issues, and in developing a public sphere for more genuine democratic politics. Author note: Tom DeLuca is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Fordham College at Lincoln Center. He has been a long-time activist on local and national issues, especially nuclear arms control, and his op-ed pieces on politics have appeared in The New York Times, New York Newsday, The Nation, and The Progressive.

Chantal Mouffe presents a timely and stimulating account of the current state of democracy, exploring contemporary examples such as the Iraq war, racism and the rise of the far right.

An exploration of the inherent and often hidden logic of political conflict.