How not to respond to populism
Malkopoulou, Anthoula LU
and Moffitt, Benjamin
(2023)
In Comparative European Politics
21(6).
p.848-865
- Abstract
- Although the nature and definition of populism are a source of considerable disagreement, there seems to be a minimal consensus by now that populism poses a number of threats to liberal democracy, and that public authorities should therefore act in defence of the latter. In searching for appropriate responses, however, most scholars draw from strategies for combatting anti-democratic or extremist parties, without considering the important differences between populist parties and these other political actors. We argue that the two central types of democratic defence—the ‘intolerant’ militant democratic defence and the ‘tolerant’ defence—do not offer satisfying responses to populist parties precisely because they were conceived and developed... (More)
- Although the nature and definition of populism are a source of considerable disagreement, there seems to be a minimal consensus by now that populism poses a number of threats to liberal democracy, and that public authorities should therefore act in defence of the latter. In searching for appropriate responses, however, most scholars draw from strategies for combatting anti-democratic or extremist parties, without considering the important differences between populist parties and these other political actors. We argue that the two central types of democratic defence—the ‘intolerant’ militant democratic defence and the ‘tolerant’ defence—do not offer satisfying responses to populist parties precisely because they were conceived and developed as responses to different phenomena. For public authorities to successfully address populism, responses need to contain its most egregious characteristics, yet salvage its productive side. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/666d3bff-ceb0-4fb8-b1a6-b6a36dfc02c9
- author
- Malkopoulou, Anthoula
LU
and Moffitt, Benjamin
- publishing date
- 2023-03-10
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- populism, democratic defence, militant democracy
- in
- Comparative European Politics
- volume
- 21
- issue
- 6
- pages
- 848 - 865
- publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85148249694
- ISSN
- 1472-4790
- DOI
- 10.1057/s41295-023-00341-9
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 666d3bff-ceb0-4fb8-b1a6-b6a36dfc02c9
- date added to LUP
- 2023-11-08 09:55:26
- date last changed
- 2024-01-09 15:45:12
@article{666d3bff-ceb0-4fb8-b1a6-b6a36dfc02c9,
abstract = {{Although the nature and definition of populism are a source of considerable disagreement, there seems to be a minimal consensus by now that populism poses a number of threats to liberal democracy, and that public authorities should therefore act in defence of the latter. In searching for appropriate responses, however, most scholars draw from strategies for combatting anti-democratic or extremist parties, without considering the important differences between populist parties and these other political actors. We argue that the two central types of democratic defence—the ‘intolerant’ militant democratic defence and the ‘tolerant’ defence—do not offer satisfying responses to populist parties precisely because they were conceived and developed as responses to different phenomena. For public authorities to successfully address populism, responses need to contain its most egregious characteristics, yet salvage its productive side.}},
author = {{Malkopoulou, Anthoula and Moffitt, Benjamin}},
issn = {{1472-4790}},
keywords = {{populism; democratic defence; militant democracy}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{03}},
number = {{6}},
pages = {{848--865}},
publisher = {{Palgrave Macmillan}},
series = {{Comparative European Politics}},
title = {{How not to respond to populism}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41295-023-00341-9}},
doi = {{10.1057/s41295-023-00341-9}},
volume = {{21}},
year = {{2023}},
}