Steven Schäller – författare

This book provides the first systematic and comparative analysis of the German right-wing populist protest movement “PEGIDA”. It offers an in-depth reconstruction of the movement’s historical development, its organisational structure and its programmatic orientation. It depicts the protestors and their motivations, reactions in politics, media and society, and PEGIDA’s European network. The volume presents and compares the results of scientific surveys among PEGIDA-participants and brings them into the context of long-time studies on political culture in Germany, representing a comprehensive study of the emergence of contemporary right-wing populist movements. The book will be of interest to researchers, academics and students focusing on comparative politics, (right-wing) populism, protest movements in western democracies, and political culture in Germany, as well as journalists, political educators and policy makers.

This book provides the first systematic and comparative analysis of the German right-wing populist protest movement “PEGIDA”. It offers an in-depth reconstruction of the movement’s historical development, its organisational structure and its programmatic orientation. It depicts the protestors and their motivations, reactions in politics, media and society, and PEGIDA’s European network. The volume presents and compares the results of scientific surveys among PEGIDA-participants and brings them into the context of long-time studies on political culture in Germany, representing a comprehensive study of the emergence of contemporary right-wing populist movements. The book will be of interest to researchers, academics and students focusing on comparative politics, (right-wing) populism, protest movements in western democracies, and political culture in Germany, as well as journalists, political educators and policy makers.

Steven Schäller präsentiert eine umfassende Studiezum Problem der Bundesstaatlichkeit unter dem Grundgesetz. Zunächst werden diebeiden Begriffe ‚Föderalismus‘ und ‚Bundesstaat‘ als ideengeschichtlich weitzurückreichende und theoretisch-systematisch verankerte Topoi grundlegendaufgearbeitet. Daran schließt sich eine Analyse der Rechtsprechungspraxis desBundesverfassungsgerichts an. In seinen Entscheidungsgründen greift das Gerichtdie beiden Topoi auf, um bundesstaatliche Konfliktlagen zu befrieden. DieRekonstruktion der Entscheidungsbegründungen kann zeigen, dass dasBundesverfassungsgericht okkasionell auf verschiedene Föderalismusbegrifferekurriert, um die Dynamiken der Bundesstaatspraxis zwischen einer republikanischenund einer monarchischen Tradition der Bundesstaatlichkeit zu harmonisieren.