Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and Its Alternatives

Malkopoulou, Anthoula; Norman, Ludvig

doi:10.1177/0032321717723504

Cited by 78 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scholars have paid great attention to reactions to extremism by institutional actors (mainly state) and established political parties. The discussion centres on the way democratic rulers respond to political extremism – for example, the role of anti‐extremist legislation and the various forms of collaboration with populist parties (Widfeldt 2004; Capoccia 2005; Kaltwasser & Taggart 2016; Malkopoulou & Norman 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guardians of Democracy? On the Response of Civil Society Organisations to Right‐Wing Extremism

Lundberg

2021

Scand Pol Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article expands on the understanding of the role civil society organisations (CSOs) play in counteracting right-wing extremism. Drawing on central strands in the defending democracy literature, this article introduces a typology to classify the responses of CSOs to right-wing extremism. The typology takes into account the distinction between tolerance and intolerance on the one hand, and active and passive political participation on the other. What is more, it allows for a more fine-tuned analysis of a variety of CSO responses vis-à-vis extreme rightwing movements. This distinction is important as it allows for a better understanding of the democratic role of civil society in general and the responses of pro-democratic civil society to political extremism in particular. Using this typology as a point of departure, the article contributes empirically by exploring how local CSOs in the Swedish town of Ludvika responded to the foremost neo-Nazi movement in the Nordic countries, namely the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), prior to the 2018 Swedish election. Drawing primarily on the perspective of civil society leaders, the findings show that local CSOs are generally intolerant of the NRM and have engaged in opposition to the movement. Notably, responses tend to be more oriented towards promoting dialogue and the importance of public discussion in civil society rather than using confrontational tactics such as protests and civil disobedience. The article concludes that CSOs serve as bulwarks against right-wing extremism at least during politically charged situations; however, differences in tolerance and political participation indicate that CSOs respond differently to right-wing extremism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guardians of Democracy? On the Response of Civil Society Organisations to Right‐Wing Extremism

Lundberg

2021

Scand Pol Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This research speaks to more general questions which this article also seeks to explore; questions related to how mainstream political parties work to include, ostracize or even ban anti-system parties (Bourne, 2018;Cappoccia, 2013;Müller, 2016;Norman, 2017;Olsen, 2019;Van Spanje, 2010). As such it ties in with discussions on how democratic systems can (and should) handle actors that challenge the system's core values, and, crucially, how such responses may reshape the democratic quality of the system in which they are enacted (Invernizzi and Zuckerman, 2017;Malkopoulou and Norman, 2018).…”

Section: Democratizing Versus Protecting: Tensions In Eu Institutional Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If democratically minded actors fail to uphold democratic principles when faced with actors perceived to challenge democratic values this will introduce unmanageable tensions at the heart of democracy (Kelsen, 2006(Kelsen, [1932). Others have pointed to the harmful political effects brought on by the potential misuse of such measures (Invernizzi and Zuckerman, 2017) and to how democratic militancy work to introduce elitist elements that contradict non-domination as a core democratic value (Malkopoulou and Norman, 2018;Pettit, 1997).…”

Section: Two Logics To Study a Democratic Dilemmamentioning

confidence: 99%

To Democratize or to Protect? How the Response to Anti‐System Parties Reshapes the EU's Transnational Party System

Norman

2021

J of Common Market Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies how efforts to democratize the European Union's (EU) decision-making procedures are reshaped by the growing influence of anti-system parties in Europe. This new political landscape exacerbates a fundamental democratic dilemma for the EU: to either open up, and further democratize its institutions or to work to protect those institutions from the influence of anti-systemic actors. The article analyses how political elites engage with this dilemma by studying a process unfolding from 2010 to 2019 through which reforms to the EU's transnational party system were introduced. Building on extensive interview and debate data the analysis demonstrates that, while a democratizing logic informed early stages of the process, a protective logic gradually became dominant. The article goes on to discuss the possible implications of this shift for the continued democratization of the EU and identifies this dimension in EU politics as a pertinent field for further study.

show abstract

“…This situation raises the importance of democratic self-defense in new democracies, where the survival of democracy is often threatened by those who seek its demise (Kirshner 2014). Democracy needs to assert itself through various defensive measures against those anti-democratic forces for the selfdefense of democracy (Malkopoulou and Norman 2018). Those anti-democratic forces can exist not only in society as a form of political movement aiming to dismantle democratic institutions but also in state institutions as bureaucrats and judges protected by democratic laws and constitutions.…”

Section: Theories Of Democratization and Judicial Indepen-dence Desigmentioning

confidence: 99%

Democratic Constitutions Against Democratization : Law and Administrative Reforms in Weimar Germany and Implications for New Democracies

Choi¹

2019

kjis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study discusses the importance of bureaucracy in a state's initial period of democratization. By examining the case of the Weimar Republic, this study argues that democratic constitutions and judicial independence can create a paradoxical situation wherein democracy itself permits the development of anti-democratic sentiment and action within state institutions. The democratic constitution of the Weimar Republic restrained the regime's efforts to reform the undemocratic institutions of the state and eventually had a detrimental effect on the stability of the democratic regime and the consolidation of democracy. In the case of uneven democratization across the electoral, administrative and legal systems of the state-a situation quite common in newly democratic countries-democratic constitutions can actually function against democracy by guaranteeing the legal and political rights of anti-democratic forces within the state. This can further perpetuate the uneven democratization of state institutions and may eventually threaten the stability and viability of the newly established democratic regime itself. The German case provides current newly democratic states with the lesson that a democratic regime must protect itself against internal threats seeking to use the safeguards of the constitution to destroy the system itself.

show abstract

Three Models of Democratic Self-Defence: Militant Democracy and Its Alternatives

Cited by 78 publications

References 42 publications

Guardians of Democracy? On the Response of Civil Society Organisations to Right‐Wing Extremism

Guardians of Democracy? On the Response of Civil Society Organisations to Right‐Wing Extremism

To Democratize or to Protect? How the Response to Anti‐System Parties Reshapes the EU's Transnational Party System

Democratic Constitutions Against Democratization : Law and Administrative Reforms in Weimar Germany and Implications for New Democracies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About