نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار علوم‌سیاسی دانشگاه پیام نور تهران، ایران.

چکیده

دموکراسی در جهان معاصر، چه به‌صورت ایده‌ای نظری و چه به‌منزله‌ نظامی سیاسی، جایگاهی تقریباً بی‌رقیب یافته و نقد آن در گفتمان علمی و سیاسی به امری دشوار بدل شده است. بااین‌حال، مرور پیشینه‌ تاریخی و نظری نشان می‌دهد که از پولیس آتن تا دوران سرمایه‌داری متأخر، تناقض‌های درونی این نظام همواره محل مناقشه بوده است. نظریه‌ «پسا دموکراسی» کالین کروچ با نقد کارکرد نهادهای دموکراتیک در جوامع سرمایه‌داری پیشرفته، بستری مناسب برای بازاندیشی در نسبت میان قدرت، نمایندگی و مشارکت فراهم می‌سازد. هدف پژوهش حاضر، واکاوی گفتمان‌های مسلط پیرامون دموکراسی غربی از منظر پسا دموکراسی و تحلیل پیوند آن با منطق سرمایه‌داری جهانی است. در این چارچوب، تلاش شده است نشان داده شود چگونه لیبرالیسم با حفظ ظاهر نهادهای دموکراتیک، محتوای آن را در خدمت منافع نخبگان اقتصادی و سیاسی بازتعریف می‌کند و ارزش‌های دموکراتیک را به ابزار مشروعیت بخشی سلطه و مداخلات فرامرزی بدل می‌سازد. روش پژوهش مبتنی بر تحلیل انتقادی و رویکرد مقایسه‌ای–نظری است و با تلفیق تحلیل اسنادی و داده‌های کمّیِ مرتبط با شاخص‌های دموکراسی و نابرابری، پیوند میان تحولات داخلی دموکراسی‌های لیبرال و منطق سرمایه‌داری جهانی را تبیین می‌کند. نتیجه‌ی نهایی پژوهش آن است که گذار از وضعیت پسا دموکراتیک، نیازمند بازاندیشی در الگوهای سیاسی غیر هژمونیک و منطبق با تجربه‌های بومی و غیر غربی جوامع است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Western Liberal States in the Post-Democratic Era: The Decline of Political Participation and the Logic of Power Reproduction in Global Capitalism

نویسنده [English]

  • Fariba Tarjoman

Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Introduction
Liberal democracy, despite the continued preservation of its formal institutions—such as elections, political parties, and the separation of powers—has in recent decades undergone an erosion of its participatory substance alongside a gradual displacement of power toward elite networks, lobbying actors, and large corporations. Colin Crouch’s theory of post-democracy provides a persuasive account of this condition, demonstrating that behind the democratic façade, effective decision-making is relocated from the public sphere to mechanisms that are largely insulated from accountability. In the same trajectory, neoliberal rationality and late capitalism—by attenuating citizens’ political agency and consolidating structural inequalities—have intensified the crisis of representation. At the global level, these dynamics are mirrored in asymmetric North–South relations, where “democracy” is increasingly mobilized as a legitimating discourse for political and economic interventions. Accordingly, the central problem addressed in this study is the widening gap between democracy’s institutional form and its substantive operation within the broader context of neoliberal power and global capitalism.
A review of the research literature suggests that a substantial strand of critical scholarship conceptualizes liberal democracy as marked by an expanding disjunction between its institutional form and its substantive content. Within this framework, Crouch’s post-democracy thesis explicates how decision-making authority has been progressively transferred from representative institutions to lobby groups, major corporations, and elite networks. Related contributions in neoliberalism studies and critical political economy further indicate that the weakening of citizens’ political role and the predominance of elite interests have exacerbated the representational crisis. Building on and synthesizing these perspectives, the present study examines the erosion of liberal democracy’s substantive content and its structural linkage to the reproduction of elite power.
Research Objective
The primary objective of this study is to offer a critical analysis of liberal democracy through the lens of post-democracy theory and to specify the mechanisms through which democracy is transformed from a participatory order into a managerial, elite-centered configuration. To this end, the study focuses on: (1) elucidating the theoretical foundations of post-democracy; (2) analyzing the institutional, economic, and discursive mechanisms through which elite dominance is consolidated; (3) examining the role of variables such as class, race, and political polarization in undermining democratic quality; and (4) analyzing the global articulation of this logic through the relationship between Western democracy, interventionism, and the reproduction of inequality in the Global South. Ultimately, the study seeks to provide a critical framework for accounting for the gap between the democratic appearance of institutions and the elite-centered realities of power.
Research Method
In terms of its analytical orientation, the study is situated within a critical-analytical approach. Drawing on concepts from critical political economy, post-democracy theory, and postcolonial studies, it examines the functioning of liberal democracy within the wider context of global capitalism. The emphasis is placed on analysing power relations, institutional mechanisms, and the structural logics through which inequality is reproduced, rather than on offering a purely normative appraisal of democratic institutions.
Methodologically, the research adopts a comparative–theoretical design based on a conceptual comparison of liberal democracy’s operation at two levels: first, within the domestic arena of Western liberal states; and second, in its projection into global politics and its relations with the Global South. The purpose of this comparison is to explicate the linkage between internal post-democratic dynamics and the international patterns of action associated with liberal states.
The unit of analysis is not states as discrete actors, but the institutional, discursive, and economic mechanisms that structure liberal democracies. Data are collected through document analysis and the use of credible quantitative indicators concerning democracy indices, inequality, lobbying, and the configuration of economic power. Data analysis proceeds through an interpretive–analytical strategy that synthesises theoretical and empirical evidence. The overarching aim is to produce a coherent, critical, and data-informed account of the dominant logics shaping contemporary liberal democracy at both national and global levels.
Results and discussion
The findings indicate that contemporary liberal democracy remains institutionally intact, yet its substantive and participatory content has been progressively hollowed out. Within the post-democratic condition, decision-making power has shifted from parliaments and political parties toward lobbying actors, major corporations, and elite networks, such that democratic institutions increasingly function in practice to reproduce elite interests. The analysis further underscores the role of global capitalism, deepening inequality, and the weakening of popular participation in accelerating this trajectory. At the transnational level, the same logic extends into global North–South relations, where democracy becomes an instrument for legitimising the political and economic interventions of Northern powers in the Global South.
The pivotal mechanism of this transition is the displacement of the locus of decision-making from accountable institutions toward lobbying structures, large corporations, and transnational capital—thereby diminishing the capacity of parties and parliaments to shape economic decisions and international policy. The findings emphasise the structural link between this transformation and global capitalism as well as neoliberal rationality, which recasts the citizen primarily as an economic actor and constrains political agency and popular participation. Beyond the domestic sphere, the study identifies the international extension of this logic, in which “democracy” is transformed from a normative ideal into a hegemonic mechanism capable of legitimising North-led political–economic interventions in the Global South and reproducing asymmetric relations.
Conclusion
The study concludes that, under post-democratic conditions, liberal democracy is preserved in institutional form while its participatory and representative substance is emptied out in favour of elite, corporate, and lobby-centred networks. In this process, decision-making authority is relocated from parliaments and parties to economic actors and unaccountable networks, and neoliberal rationality reduces the citizen from a political agent to a primarily economic actor. This pattern is also projected globally, where democracy is increasingly deployed to legitimise intervention and to reproduce North–South inequalities. Hence, the core problem is not the absence of democratic institutions, but the growing distance between democracy’s institutional form and its substantive functioning.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Post-democracy
  • Liberal democracy
  • Elites
  • Global South
  • Critical discourse

منابع

ایسمار، نیکولاس (۱۳۹۶). دموکراسی و امپراتوری: نقدی بر میراث یونان باستان. ترجمه سیمین نوربخش. تهران: نشر کرگدن.
بارت، رولان (۱۳۹۰). اسطوره‌شناسی‌ها. ترجمه پیام یحیی‌آباد. تهران: نشر نی.
بوبیو، نوریو (۱۳۵۱). نخبگان و دموکراسی. ترجمه احمد صائمی. تهران: امیرکبیر.
پولتی، مارک (۲۰۲۱). لیبرالیسم و امپراتوری. ترجمه علیرضا شریف. تهران: بیدگل.
پیور، شیلا (۱۳۸۴). فمینیسم و سیاست. ترجمه نیره توحیدی. تهران: روشنگران و مطالعات زنان.
حاتمی، محمد (۱۳۹۵). بازاندیشی مفهوم دموکراسی: نقد کارکردی نظام‌های لیبرال. تهران: نشر نی.
حاتمی، محمد (۱۳۹۵). دموکراسی و چالش‌های نوین. تهران: نشر نی.
دومهوف، جی. ویلیام (۱۳۹۳). چه کسی بر آمریکا حکومت می‌کند؟ پیروزی سرمایه‌داران بزرگ. ترجمه محمدرضا مرعشی‌پور. تهران: انتشارات ثالث.
راد کاو، یورگن (۱۳۹۰). ماکس وبر؛ زندگی‌نامه. ترجمه مرتضی مردیها. تهران: نشر مرکز.
زیم رمن، اندرو (۱۳۹۰). انسان‌شناسی و امپراتوری. ترجمه حسن فاضل. تهران: نشر نگاه.
سعدی، یوسف (۱۳۹۸). شهروندی در اسرائیل: حقوق اقلیت فلسطینی. تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های علمی.
سیترینی، آنتونیو (۱۳۹۷). نژاد، عدالت و دموکراسی در عصر سرمایه‌داری نو لیبرال. ترجمه بهرام مقصودمنش. تهران: نشر نی.
صادقی، حسین (۱۴۰۰). پسا دموکراسی و بحران‌های نمایندگی سیاسی در ایران و جهان. سیاست، ۵۰ (۲)، ۱–۲۴.
طاهری، احمد (۱۳۹۵). دولت و جامعه در عصر جهانی‌شدن. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
فمیا، جوزف (۱۳۹۴). نظریه‌های نخبگان. ترجمه حسن پویان. تهران: نشر نی.
فینلی، موزس (۱۳۴۸). برده‌داری در جهان باستان. ترجمه عبدالحسین زرین‌کوب. تهران: بنگاه ترجمه و نشر کتاب.
کروچ، کالین (۱۳۸۳). پسا دموکراسی. ترجمه محمدمهدی مجاهدی. تهران: نشر نی.
کنست اسرائیل (۱۴۰۱). قانون اساسی دولتملت مردم یهود (۲۰۱۸). تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های فلسطین. بازیابی شده در ۱۰ مهر ۱۴۰۲، از: http://exampleurl.ir
گیلنز، مارتین و پیج، بنجامین (۱۳۹۳). نابرابری و سیاست آمریکایی. ترجمه علی قاسمی. تهران: نشر نی.
لیون، دیوید (۱۳۹۴). جامعه نظارتی. ترجمه علی‌اکبر مهدیان. تهران: نشر ثالث.
مارکس، کارل و انگلس، فریدریش (۱۳۸۸). مانیفست کمونیست. ترجمه حسن مرتضوی. تهران: نشر آگه.
مدنی، علی (۱۴۰۱). سرمایه‌داری جهانی و فرسایش مشارکت مردمی. علوم سیاسی، ۱۶ (۴)، ۹۵–۱۱۸.
معتمدنژاد، کاظم (۱۳۹۸). دموکراسی، رسانه و قدرت: بازخوانی نقش رسانه‌ها در نظام‌های شبه دموکراتیک. تهران: دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی.
میلیبند، رالف (۱۳۷۰). دولت در جامعه سرمایه‌داری. ترجمه منصور وثوقی. تهران: نشر نی.
میل، جان استوارت (۱۳۶۴). درباره آزادی. ترجمه حمید عنایت. تهران: امیرکبیر.
هال، استوارت (۱۳۸۹). بازنمایی و هویت. ترجمه سرمد دهقانی. تهران: گفتا.
هی‌وود، اندرو (۱۳۷۶). مبانی سیاست. ترجمه منوچهر صبوری. تهران: نشر نی.
شْمیت، کارل (۱۳۸۴). نظریه وضعیت استثنایی. ترجمه محسن ظاهرنیا. تهران: هرمس.
شومپتر، یوزف (۱۳۹۲). سرمایه‌داری، سوسیالیسم و دموکراسی. ترجمه عزت‌الله فولادوند. تهران: نشر نی.
Translated References into English
Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2018). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Allen, P., & Kearney, C. (2017). The political class: Why it matters who our politicians are. Oxford University Press.
Askelinen, T. (2020). Democracy and the crisis of representation. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bartels, L. M. (2018). Unequal democracy: The political economy of the new gilded age (2nd Ed.). Princeton University Press.
Bartels, L. M. (2008). Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Barthes, R. (2000). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1957).
Bobbio, N. (1972). Elite theory and democracy. Einaudi.
Bremer, S. A. (1992). Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816–1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 309–355.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
Cadwalladr, C., & Harrison, E. G. (2018, March 17). Revealed: The great British Brexit campaign’s data operation. The Guardian.
Carothers, T. (2015). Democracy promotion under Obama: A new paradigm? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Congressional Research Service. (2022). Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798–2022. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Collier, D., & Levitsky, S. (1997). Democracy with adjectives: Conceptual innovation in comparative research. World Politics, 49(3), 430–451.
Crawford, N. (1994). A security paradox: The liberal peace and the limits of state capacity. International Relations, 13(2), 153–178.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.
Crouch, C. (2020). Post-democracy after the crisis. Polity Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2000). On democracy. Yale University Press.
Della Porta, D., Pizzorno, A., & Donaldson, S. (1996). Democracy and corruption in Europe. Pinter.
Doyle, M. W. (1983a). Kant, liberal legacies I. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3), 205–235.
Doyle, M. W. (1983b). Liberalism and world politics. American Political Science Review, 77(4), 1151–1169.
Doyle, M. W. (1996). Kant, liberal legacies revisited. In B. Nardin (Ed.), the ethics of war and peace (pp. 37–56). Princeton University Press.
Doyle, M. W. (2005). Three pillars of the liberal peace. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 463–466.
ESS (European Social Survey). (2023). European Social Survey (ESS), Round 10 Data. London: ESS ERIC.https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org
Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: The Mounting Damage of Flawed Elections and Armed Conflict. Washington, DC: Freedom House.
Finley, M. I. (1959). Slavery in antiquity. Cambridge University Press.
FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights). (2022). Being Black in the EU: Experiences of People of African Descent. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592714001595
Gartzke, E. (2007). The capitalist peace. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 166–191.
Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn: Beyond political-economy paradigms. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3), 211–223.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564–581.
Goldberg, D. T. (2002). The racial state. Blackwell.
Guelke, A. (2006). Politics in deeply divided societies. Polity.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2011). Winner take all politics: How Washington made the rich richer—and turned its back on the middle class. Simon & Schuster.
Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd Ed.). Polity Press.
Hajnal, Z. L., Lajevardi, N., & Nielson, L. (2017). Voter identification laws and the suppression of minority votes. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1086/688343
Hooks, B. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. South End Press.
Hutton, W. (2004). A declaration of interdependence: Why America should join the world. Vintage.
Ismard, N. (2017). Democracy and empire: The legacy of ancient Greece. Princeton University Press.
Jamal, A. (2019). The Arab public sphere in Israel: Media, culture, and power. Indiana University Press.
Kagan, R. (2015). The weight of geopolitics. Democracy Journal, 37(2), 18–27.
LaFrance, A. (2023, June). The new party tribes. The Atlantic, 41–58.
Levin, D. H. (2016). Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216661190
OECD. (2023). Global Value Chains and Multinational Enterprises: Implications for Trade and Investment Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Lake, D. A. (1992). Powerful pacifists: Democratic states and international conflict. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 24–37.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. Crown.
Levin, D. H. (2016). Partisan electoral interventions by the great powers: Introducing the PEIG dataset. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 36(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894216661190
OECD. (2023). Mair, P. (2006). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. New Left Review, (42), 25–46.
Owen, J. M. (2019). The Globalization of Liberalism: International Political Economy and the Liberal International Order. New York: Columbia University Press.
Maoz, Z., & Russett, B. (1992). Normative and structural causes of democratic peace, 1946–1986. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 624–638.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy, Vol. 1. (B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Harvard University Press.
Mill, J. S. (1989). On Liberty. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1859).
Ober, J. (2008). Democracy and knowledge: Innovation and learning in classical Athens. Princeton University Press.
Plattner, M. F. (2015). Global democracy promotion: A challenging new era. Journal of Democracy, 26(4), 38–52.
Pew Research Center. (2023). Voting Laws and Turnout in U.S. Elections: Trends After the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder Decision. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Politi, M. (2021). Liberal peace and imperial power: From Cold War to the 21st century. Global Society, 35(4), 581–600.
Provost, C., & Kennard, M. (2023). Silent coup: How corporations overthrew democracy. Bloomsbury.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2023). Prisoners in 2022 – Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.https://bjs.ojp.gov
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Radkau, J. (2011). Max Weber: A biography. Polity Press.
Ray, J. L., & Russett, B. (1996). The future as arbiter of the past: Liberalism, democracy, and the interdependence of peace. British Journal of Political Science, 26(4), 441–470.
Richmond, O. (2014). Failed statebuilding: Intervention, the postmodern state and the liberal peace. Routledge.
Rummel, R. J. (1983). Libertarianism and international violence. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 27(1), 27–50.
Rustbelt, J. (2015). Normative theories of democracy: A critical review. Political Studies Review, 13(3), 345–359.
Schmitt, C. (2005). Political theology: Four chapters on the concept of sovereignty. University of Chicago Press.
Schultz, W. (1999). Democracy and the public sphere: A critique of deliberative politics. MIT Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge. (Original work published 1942).
Sullivan, P. L., & Koch, M. T. (2021). The Military Intervention by Powerful States (MIPS) dataset, 1946–2017. Journal of Peace Research, 58(4), 688–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320916779
Sullivan, P. L., & Koch, M. T. (2021). The Military Intervention by Powerful States (MIPS) Dataset, 1946–2017. Journal of Peace Research, 58(4), 688–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343320916779
Swalick, J. (2019). Partisan rage and the decline of deliberation. Oxford University Press.
Scarrow, S. E. (2015).
Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tu, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Democracy’s role in subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 95(1), 21–35.
UNCTAD. (2024). World Investment Report 2024: Investment Facilitation and Sustainable Development. Geneva: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
V‑Dem Institute. (2024). Democracy Report 2024: Democracy Winning and Losing at the Ballot. Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy Institute, University of Gothenburg.
van Biezen, I., Mair, P., & Poguntke, T. (2012). Going, going, … gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51(1), 24–56.
VDem Institute. (2024).
Wood, E. M. (1995). Democracy Against Capitalism: Renewing Historical Materialism. Cambridge University Press.
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. (2023).Costs of War Project: Human and Budgetary Costs of the U.S. Post9/11 Wars. Providence: Brown University.
World Inequality Lab. (2023).Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
World Inequality Database (WID): Global Wealth and Income Inequality Data. Paris School of Economics. https://wid.world
WVS (World Values Survey). (2022).World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017–2022) Results. Vienna: World Values Survey Association.https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Zimmerman, A. (2006). Anthropology and empire: The science of an encounter. History and Anthropology, 17(4), 171–187.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Public Affairs.
Translated References into English
Barthes, R. (2011). Mythologies (P. Yahyanejad, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Bobbio, N. (1972). Elites and democracy (A. Saemi, Trans.). Amirkabir Publication. [In Persian]
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy (M. Majahidi, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Domehoff, G. W. (2014). Who rules America? The triumph of the great capitalists (M. Marashipour, Trans.). Sales Publication. [In Persian]
Femia, J. (2015). Elite theories (H. Pooyan, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Finley, M. I. (1969). Slavery in the ancient world (A. Zarrinkoub, Trans.). Bongah-e Tarjomeh va Nashr-e Ketab. [In Persian]
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Inequality and American politics (A. Ghasemi, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Hall, S. (2010). Representation and identity (S. Dehghani, Trans.). Gefta Publication. [In Persian]
Hatami, M. (2016a). Democracy and the new challenges. Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Hatami, M. (2016b). Rethinking the concept of democracy: A functional critique of liberal systems. Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Heywood, A. (1997). Foundations of politics (M. Sabouri, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Israel Knesset. (2022). Basic law: Israel – The nation state of the Jewish people (2018). Center for Palestinian Research. Retrieved October 2, 2023, from http://exampleurl.ir. [In Persian]
Ismard, N. (2017). Democracy and empire: A critique of the ancient Greek legacy (S. Nourbakhsh, Trans.). Kargadan Publication. [In Persian]
Lyon, D. (2015). The surveillance society (A. Mahdian, Trans.). Sales Publication. [In Persian]
Madani A. (2022). Global capitalism and the erosion of public participation. Journal of Political Sciences. 16(4): 95-118. [In Persian]
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2009). The communist manifesto (H. Mortazavi, Trans.). Agah Publication. [In Persian]
Mo’tamenjad, K. (2019). Democracy, media and power: Rereading the role of media in quasi-democratic systems. Allameh Tabataba’i University Publication. [In Persian]
Miliband, R. (1991). The state in capitalist society (M. Vosoughi, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Mill, J. S. (1985). On liberty (H. Enayat, Trans.). Amirkabir Publication. [In Persian]
Politi, M. (2021). Liberalism and empire (A. Sharif, Trans.). Bidgol Publication. [In Persian]
Provost, C., & Kennard, M. (2023). Silent coup: How corporations overthrew democracy (N. Hosseini, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Puar, J. (2005). Feminism and politics (N. Tohidi, Trans.). Roushangaran and Women Studies. [In Persian]
Radkau, J. (2011). Max Weber; a biography (M. Mardiha, Trans.). Markaz Publication. [In Persian]
Sadeghi H. (2021). Post-democracy and crises of political representation in Iran and the world. Policy Quarterly. 50(2): 1-24. [In Persian]
Saadi, Y. (2019). Citizenship in Israel: The rights of the Palestinian minority. Scientific Research Center. [In Persian]
Schmitt, C. (2005). Theory of the state of exception (M. Zahernia, Trans.). Hermes Publication. [In Persian]
Schumpeter, J. A. (2013). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (E. Fooladvand, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Sitrinni, A. (2018). Race, justice, and democracy in the era of neoliberal capitalism (B. Maghsoudmanesh, Trans.). Ney Publication. [In Persian]
Taheri, A. (2016). State and society in the age of globalization. University of Tehran Publication. [In Persian]
Zimmerman, A. (2011). Anthropology and empire (H. Fazel, Trans.). Negah Publication. [In Persian]