The pendulum swings back: New authoritarian threats to liberal democratic constitutionalism

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Global Constitutionalism Pub Date : 2022-02-22 DOI:10.1017/S2045381722000028
Jacob Eisler, Jonathan Havercroft, J. Shaw, A. Wiener, Susan Kang
{"title":"The pendulum swings back: New authoritarian threats to liberal democratic constitutionalism","authors":"Jacob Eisler, Jonathan Havercroft, J. Shaw, A. Wiener, Susan Kang","doi":"10.1017/S2045381722000028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction At the close of the twentieth century, for political elites it was reasonable to believe that liberal democratic constitutionalism (LDC) was the ascendant political arrangement in states of the ‘Global North’ and, through colonialism, relatedly for states of the ‘Global South’. LDC was presented as not only asserting a claim to superior normative validity – undergirded by human rights, democracy and the rule of law – but also a claim to inevitability as a mode of governance. In the words of perhaps the most (in)famous articulation of this hopeful claim from its heady heyday, ‘there is now no ideology with pretentions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy’, which stands as ‘the single universal standard’.1 While this sense of inevitably had its sceptics even at LDC’s zenith,2 for a time its continued spread and ultimate triumph were not only a defensible prediction of the future, but plausibly the most convincing one. Twenty-odd years later, LDC has not only failed to become a universal mode of political organization, but its traditional bastions have themselves suffered democratic backsliding. For the past decade, the most salient form of this has been internal crisis.3 As we observed following Trump, Brexit, and a general resurgence of far-right parties across the diverse polities, ‘far right populist authoritarianism’ poses an immediate threat to LDC.4 Yet, a year after Trump’s defeat andwith the EUhaving survived Brexit in part because states central to its integrity, such as France, have – so far – resisted far right populist leadership, the norms of constitutionalism have shown a measure of robustness.5 The possibility that LDCmight","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":"11 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Constitutionalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381722000028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction At the close of the twentieth century, for political elites it was reasonable to believe that liberal democratic constitutionalism (LDC) was the ascendant political arrangement in states of the ‘Global North’ and, through colonialism, relatedly for states of the ‘Global South’. LDC was presented as not only asserting a claim to superior normative validity – undergirded by human rights, democracy and the rule of law – but also a claim to inevitability as a mode of governance. In the words of perhaps the most (in)famous articulation of this hopeful claim from its heady heyday, ‘there is now no ideology with pretentions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy’, which stands as ‘the single universal standard’.1 While this sense of inevitably had its sceptics even at LDC’s zenith,2 for a time its continued spread and ultimate triumph were not only a defensible prediction of the future, but plausibly the most convincing one. Twenty-odd years later, LDC has not only failed to become a universal mode of political organization, but its traditional bastions have themselves suffered democratic backsliding. For the past decade, the most salient form of this has been internal crisis.3 As we observed following Trump, Brexit, and a general resurgence of far-right parties across the diverse polities, ‘far right populist authoritarianism’ poses an immediate threat to LDC.4 Yet, a year after Trump’s defeat andwith the EUhaving survived Brexit in part because states central to its integrity, such as France, have – so far – resisted far right populist leadership, the norms of constitutionalism have shown a measure of robustness.5 The possibility that LDCmight
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钟摆摆回来了:自由民主宪政面临新的威权主义威胁
在20世纪末,对于政治精英来说,有理由相信自由民主宪政(LDC)是“全球北方”国家的主导政治安排,并通过殖民主义相对地适用于“全球南方”国家。最不发达国家不仅主张以人权、民主和法治为基础的优越的规范有效性,而且主张作为一种治理模式的必然性。这一充满希望的主张在其令人兴奋的鼎盛时期可能是最著名的表述,“现在没有任何一种意识形态以普遍性为借口,能够挑战自由民主”,而自由民主是“唯一的普遍标准”尽管即使在最不发达国家的鼎盛时期,这种观念也不可避免地受到怀疑,但在一段时间内,它的持续传播和最终胜利不仅是对未来的一种站得住的预测,而且似乎是最令人信服的预测。20多年后,最不发达国家不仅未能成为一种普遍的政治组织模式,而且其传统堡垒本身也遭受了民主倒退。在过去的十年中,最突出的形式是内部危机正如我们在特朗普、英国脱欧和各种政治中极右翼政党的普遍复苏之后所观察到的那样,“极右翼民粹主义威权主义”对最不发达国家构成了直接威胁。然而,在特朗普失败一年后,欧盟在英国脱欧后幸存下来,部分原因是其完整性的核心国家,如法国,迄今为止一直抵制极右翼民粹主义领导,宪政规范已经显示出一定程度的强健性最不发达国家可能
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Global Constitutionalism
Global Constitutionalism Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Between militant democracy and citizen vigilantism: Using citizens’ assemblies to keep parties democratic Dead or alive? Global constitutionalism and international law after the start of the war in Ukraine Between (ir)responsibility and (in)appropriateness: Conceptualizing norm-related state behaviour in the Russian war against Ukraine How do constitution-making processes fail? The case of Chile’s Constitutional Convention (2021–22) Utopian constitutionalism in Chile
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1