{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023293172690763052, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024096385542168677, 'mean_word_length': 5.357142857142857, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Jon Mandle and David A Reidy (eds), The Cambridge Rawls Lexicon

amounts to an antipolitics. He is particularly sceptical of protestors’ refusal to outline alternatives or reforms to contemporary modes of governance and their focus on repeated public rejections of the status quo. Yet, while Krastev opens the text by suggesting that he ‘does not strive to classify the protests or to figure out how to judge their success or failure’ (p. 2), he is unwilling to take seriously the possibility that the categories of democratic institutions may not be up to the task of explaining contemporary protest movements. His own reduction of protestors to a libertarian middle class requires the rejection of other ways of imagining political dissent. Krastev’s commitment to the power of elections to ‘mesmerize’ (p. 34) and construct political alternatives deeply informs his assessment of the protests, which he reads as merely disruptive and ultimately inconsequential. Nonetheless, the text offers a compelling, if not altogether convincing, assessment of the relationship between contemporary protests and democratic institutions that will be of interest to scholars of social movements, democratic theory and liberal institutionalism.