Advanced

Demokratins gränser - Om ”militant demokrati” och svensk rätts förhållningssätt till förbud av rasistiska partier.

Roos, Anders LU (2017) LAGF03 20172
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
När nazistiska Nordiska motståndsrörelsen demonstrerade i Göteborg 30 september 2017 skapade det livlig debatt i media om rasistiska partiers rättigheter. Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att vidga perspektivet på diskussionen i Sverige genom att undersöka hur stater kan bekämpa rasistiska partier utifrån idén om militant demokrati. Uppsatsen redogör för konceptet militant demokrati och undersöker hur det har konkretiserats i Europadomstolens och Tysklands partiförbud. Sedan analyseras diskussionerna om organisationsförbud i svenska lagförarbeten mot bakgrund av detta.

Undersökningen visar att rättfärdigandegrunderna för partiförbud har förändrats, i takt med att hotbilden mot demokratin förändrats, och lyfter fram en kategorisering av... (More)
När nazistiska Nordiska motståndsrörelsen demonstrerade i Göteborg 30 september 2017 skapade det livlig debatt i media om rasistiska partiers rättigheter. Syftet med den här uppsatsen är att vidga perspektivet på diskussionen i Sverige genom att undersöka hur stater kan bekämpa rasistiska partier utifrån idén om militant demokrati. Uppsatsen redogör för konceptet militant demokrati och undersöker hur det har konkretiserats i Europadomstolens och Tysklands partiförbud. Sedan analyseras diskussionerna om organisationsförbud i svenska lagförarbeten mot bakgrund av detta.

Undersökningen visar att rättfärdigandegrunderna för partiförbud har förändrats, i takt med att hotbilden mot demokratin förändrats, och lyfter fram en kategorisering av partiförbud utifrån antingen Weimar- eller legitimitetsparadigmet. Dessa skiljer sig åt genom att främst inrikta sig på partier som vill avveckla demokratiskt styre respektive partier som hotar vissa centrala element av demokratin och vars existens har en legitimerande effekt på samhället.

Slutsatserna är att tillämpningarna av partiförbud i Europadomstolen och Tyskland skiljer sig åt. Europadomstolen utgår mer från den legitimerande effekten och Tyskland utifrån vilket reellt hot partiet utgör mot demokratin. I de svenska lagmotiven framgår det att argumenten för ett organisationsförbud fokuserar på den legitimerande effekten av rasistiska organisationer medan motargumenten snarare bygger på hur stora grupperna faktiskt är och hur stort hotet är. Uppsatsen visar på att diskussionen i lagmotiven är inriktad på rasism som ett kriminellt fenomen snarare än ett politiskt projekt som är farligt för demokratin. Tanken att demokratin borde försvara sig själv är frånvarande i motiven. (Less)
Abstract
On the 30th of September 2017 the Swedish Nazi party Nordiska motståndsrörelsen had a permit to demonstrate in the streets of Gothenburg. This was followed by a heated debate in the media on the rights of these kind of parties. The purpose of this essay is to add a wider perspective on the discussion in Sweden by examining how states can combat racist parties on the basis of militant democracy. The essay describes the concept of militant democracy and examines how this has materialized in the form of party bans in the European court and Germany. Subsequently the discussions on party ban in the legislative history in Sweden is analysed.

The study shows that the rationales for party bans have evolved as the threat against democracy has... (More)
On the 30th of September 2017 the Swedish Nazi party Nordiska motståndsrörelsen had a permit to demonstrate in the streets of Gothenburg. This was followed by a heated debate in the media on the rights of these kind of parties. The purpose of this essay is to add a wider perspective on the discussion in Sweden by examining how states can combat racist parties on the basis of militant democracy. The essay describes the concept of militant democracy and examines how this has materialized in the form of party bans in the European court and Germany. Subsequently the discussions on party ban in the legislative history in Sweden is analysed.

The study shows that the rationales for party bans have evolved as the threat against democracy has changed over time. The essay emphasises a classification of party bans based on either the Weimar or Legitimacy paradigm. Where the first focuses on parties that seek to abolish democracy in whole, the second concerns parties that threatens certain fundamental elements of democracy and which mere existence has a legitimating effect on society.

The conclusions are that the practices of party bans in the European court and Germany differ from one another. Decisions are based on the legitimating effect of the parties in the European court while the German constitutional court focuses on the actual threat of the parties to democracy. The legislative history in Sweden shows that the arguments for a party ban legislation focuses on the legitimating effect of the groups while the arguments against are based on the actual size of the groups and subsequently how large the threat actually is. The essay shows that the discussion in the legislative history of Sweden is concentrated on racism as a criminal phenomenon rather than racism as a political project that is dangerous to democracy. The idea that the democracy should defend itself is absent. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Roos, Anders LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20172
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Statsrätt, militant demokrati, rasism
language
Swedish
id
8930496
date added to LUP
2018-02-06 14:26:30
date last changed
2018-02-06 14:26:30
@misc{8930496,
  abstract     = {On the 30th of September 2017 the Swedish Nazi party Nordiska motståndsrörelsen had a permit to demonstrate in the streets of Gothenburg. This was followed by a heated debate in the media on the rights of these kind of parties. The purpose of this essay is to add a wider perspective on the discussion in Sweden by examining how states can combat racist parties on the basis of militant democracy. The essay describes the concept of militant democracy and examines how this has materialized in the form of party bans in the European court and Germany. Subsequently the discussions on party ban in the legislative history in Sweden is analysed.

The study shows that the rationales for party bans have evolved as the threat against democracy has changed over time. The essay emphasises a classification of party bans based on either the Weimar or Legitimacy paradigm. Where the first focuses on parties that seek to abolish democracy in whole, the second concerns parties that threatens certain fundamental elements of democracy and which mere existence has a legitimating effect on society.

The conclusions are that the practices of party bans in the European court and Germany differ from one another. Decisions are based on the legitimating effect of the parties in the European court while the German constitutional court focuses on the actual threat of the parties to democracy. The legislative history in Sweden shows that the arguments for a party ban legislation focuses on the legitimating effect of the groups while the arguments against are based on the actual size of the groups and subsequently how large the threat actually is. The essay shows that the discussion in the legislative history of Sweden is concentrated on racism as a criminal phenomenon rather than racism as a political project that is dangerous to democracy. The idea that the democracy should defend itself is absent.},
  author       = {Roos, Anders},
  keyword      = {Statsrätt,militant demokrati,rasism},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Demokratins gränser - Om ”militant demokrati” och svensk rätts förhållningssätt till förbud av rasistiska partier.},
  year         = {2017},
}