Postwar pillarized democracies gave separate milieus their own institutions

Evidence

These reflections by Gramsci and Schmitt were separated by months. Together, they mark the apogee of the “wild” mass politics of the 1930s. Notwithstanding Schmitt’s protestations, the party structures he identified expanded even further in the immediate postwar years, to the extent that contemporaries spoke of “organized democracies.” In Belgium and the Netherlands, separate Catholic, Protestant, socialist, and liberal milieus each had their own newspapers, youth clubs, even hospitals known as “pillars,” or zuilen. These institutions acted as fortified bastions, mediating the relationship between individuals and the state and enabling the population to exert a measure of influence over its government. — Anton Jäger, Hyperpolitics, 115

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘pillarization’ (zuilen) and ‘organized democracies’ — precisely the kind of technical term the reader wants to reproduce for the pre-hyperpolitics baseline.
• XREF: connects to: French neoliberalism fragmented after 1945 for lack of a coordinating institution — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 294