Synthesizer of Constitutional Theory, 1958–1963 63
undecided.”^20 The waning of political ideologies and the tendency
toward social leveling stood at the center of sociological research at
mid-decade. Politicians noticed a loosening of party political affilia-
tion that corresponded with the greater flexibility of parties to form
coalitions with different partners.^21 Since voters could expect more
or less the same level of welfare-state provision from each of the lead-
ing parties, voters’ judgments were coming to turn more and more
on perceptions of a more personal or emotional type.^22 A 1960 elec-
tion study Habermas cited had concluded how best to exploit this
social phenomenon: “How advantageous it is for a party to have no
members, but rather to come to life only at election time with the
centralized freedom to maneuver that characterizes an advertising
firm existing [solely] for the purpose of the campaign.”^23 However,
Habermas was dismayed by the manufacture of temporary, ersatz
public spheres^24 because political parties merely
... “took hold” of the voters temporarily and moved them to
acclamation, without attempting to remedy their political imma-
turity.... For such parties the decisive issue is who has control over
the coercive and educational means for ostentatiously or manipula-
tively influencing the voting behavior of the population.^25
The state of democracy in the modern Western parliamentary
state was deficient and regressive: “This kind of consensus formation
would be more suited to the enlightened absolutism of an authori-
tarian welfare regime than to a democratic constitutional state com-
mitted to social rights: everything for the people, nothing by the
people – not accidentally a statement stemming from the Prussia
of Frederick II.”^26 Habermas paints a portrait of a rational public
sphere in eclipse: In the place of reasoning and decision-making,
propaganda and acclamation hold sway.
In “On the Concept of Political Participation,” Habermas came
to the conclusion that contemporary international political science
contained few valuable resources for countering this multifaceted
(^20) Habermas, Strukturwandel, 317–8; Transformation, 215.
(^21) Hennis, Öffentliche Meinung.
(^22) Ibid.
(^23) Kitzinger, German Electoral Politics, cited in Habermas, Strukturwandel, 312;
Transformation, 210.
(^24) Habermas, Strukturwandel, 312; Transformation, 210.
(^25) Habermas, Strukturwandel, 303; Transformation, 203.
(^26) Habermas, Strukturwandel, 323; Transformation, 219.