نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم
2 دانشیار دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم
3 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی دانشگاه قم
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
In recent years, populism was born of a theoretical paradox. On the one hand, the government is constituted by popular consent. On the other hand, to be effective, such a power must be restricted by recourse to concepts, such as the rule of law (constitutionalism paradox). explaining the relationship between populism with any of the concepts of the rule of law and judicial oversight helps shed light on this paradox and the populist interpretation of constitutionalism. Examining the relationship between these two notions suggests that merely explaining the relationship between populism and the rule of law is not particularly productive and fails to eliminate this ambiguity. Instead, one must investigate the association between different conceptions of the rule of law with populism to illuminate the matter wholly. From this perspective, populism and the rule of law are not necessarily at variance. Instead, populism is solely in contradiction with a substantive reading of the rule of law, and formal interpretation of the rule of law can be consistent with populism. Analyzing the relationship between populism and the substantive conception of the rule of law demonstrates that populism does not realize the right of popular sovereignty, unlike the prevalent claims. Instead, it leads to the rule of the majority, not the people. the article concludes that the superiority of the substantive conception of the rule of law over populism in the legal and political system without taking account of the rights-based models of judicial oversight will not be helpful.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)