This piece offers an introduction to US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds since the First World War by dividing that policy into seven discernible stages—from Wilson's Fourteen Points to the actions of the Trump administration. In doing so, I query whether the existence of US foreign policy toward the Kurds has been more active and supportive during Democratic Party administrations or Republican Party administrations. Are there any clear indications as to which party has been better for the Iraqi Kurds? Or is US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds unequivocally dependent on regional dynamics and US interests, not on which political party is governing or the values they espouse? The central argument is that American policy toward the Iraqi Kurds has mostly been dependent on changing regional dynamics, particularly on the changing nature of the United States relationships with Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and this does not seem to be affected strongly by which US party holds the presidency. Perhaps counter‐intuitively, there is no evidence to suggest the Democrats have been better for the Iraqi Kurds than the Republicans. While some of the most significant setbacks for the Kurds occurred during Republican administrations, their two most essential political achievements were also during Republican administrations.
{"title":"Are Democrats or Republicans better for the Iraqi Kurds?","authors":"Hawre Hasan Hama","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12008","url":null,"abstract":"This piece offers an introduction to US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds since the First World War by dividing that policy into seven discernible stages—from Wilson's Fourteen Points to the actions of the Trump administration. In doing so, I query whether the existence of US foreign policy toward the Kurds has been more active and supportive during Democratic Party administrations or Republican Party administrations. Are there any clear indications as to which party has been better for the Iraqi Kurds? Or is US foreign policy toward the Iraqi Kurds unequivocally dependent on regional dynamics and US interests, not on which political party is governing or the values they espouse? The central argument is that American policy toward the Iraqi Kurds has mostly been dependent on changing regional dynamics, particularly on the changing nature of the United States relationships with Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and this does not seem to be affected strongly by which US party holds the presidency. Perhaps counter‐intuitively, there is no evidence to suggest the Democrats have been better for the Iraqi Kurds than the Republicans. While some of the most significant setbacks for the Kurds occurred during Republican administrations, their two most essential political achievements were also during Republican administrations.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"117 34","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140678266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sri Lanka's postindependence history suggests that continuous efforts by the Sinhala‐Buddhist politicians to reject decentralization created anxiety and distrust among minorities. The state used both Sinhala language and Buddhism to accommodate Sinhala‐Buddhist interests and provide cultural security to Sinhala‐Buddhists who feared that the Sinhala race, Buddhism, and heritage would be threatened with destruction by the Tamil and Muslim separatists and extremists. The state forced the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which demanded a separate state for North and Eastern Tamils, to silence its guns in May 2009. The military defeat of the LTTE did not produce any democratization of the island. Sinhala‐Buddhist extremist forces turned their eyes on Sri Lankan Muslims, whose elites attached to major political parties supported the war against the LTTE. This study examines the politicization of the Sinhala language and Buddhism in Sri Lanka before and after the civil war between the LTTE and the state dominated by the Sinhala‐Buddhists. It argues that Sinhala political elites willingly took measures to centralize power. The major result of centralization is the birth of the state‐seeking, but authoritarian LTTE. It will also provide some useful analysis to examine post‐war tensions between the Muslims and the Sinhala‐Buddhist extremists. Finally, I discuss some solutions to fight the rising authoritarianism to help Sri Lanka enjoy the fruits of modernization and democracy.
{"title":"The Sinhala‐Buddhicization of the state and the rise of authoritarianism in Sri Lanka","authors":"A. Imtiyaz","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12020","url":null,"abstract":"Sri Lanka's postindependence history suggests that continuous efforts by the Sinhala‐Buddhist politicians to reject decentralization created anxiety and distrust among minorities. The state used both Sinhala language and Buddhism to accommodate Sinhala‐Buddhist interests and provide cultural security to Sinhala‐Buddhists who feared that the Sinhala race, Buddhism, and heritage would be threatened with destruction by the Tamil and Muslim separatists and extremists. The state forced the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which demanded a separate state for North and Eastern Tamils, to silence its guns in May 2009. The military defeat of the LTTE did not produce any democratization of the island. Sinhala‐Buddhist extremist forces turned their eyes on Sri Lankan Muslims, whose elites attached to major political parties supported the war against the LTTE. This study examines the politicization of the Sinhala language and Buddhism in Sri Lanka before and after the civil war between the LTTE and the state dominated by the Sinhala‐Buddhists. It argues that Sinhala political elites willingly took measures to centralize power. The major result of centralization is the birth of the state‐seeking, but authoritarian LTTE. It will also provide some useful analysis to examine post‐war tensions between the Muslims and the Sinhala‐Buddhist extremists. Finally, I discuss some solutions to fight the rising authoritarianism to help Sri Lanka enjoy the fruits of modernization and democracy.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":" 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140684459","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent decades, the relationships between religion and politics, particularly between religion and the state, have been widely discussed, yet relationships between authoritarian rulers and religion have not received their due attention. This fourth article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue addresses this lacuna and argues against the conventional wisdom that these two entities are always hostile to each other. The study contends that authoritarian rulers have used three strategies vis‐à‐vis religion as an ideology and religious actors as a political force. Autocrats have adopted repression and cooptation strategies to deal with religious actors and utilized religion as a tool of legitimation. The article offers a case study of Bangladesh which has witnessed the growing salience of religion in politics since 1976, although its 1972 constitution pledged secularism as a state principle. The article examines the strategies used during three phases of military and civilian authoritarianism—1976–1981, 1982–1990, and since 2011—and discusses the relationship between the authoritarian rulers and religion.
{"title":"Religion as a tool for authoritarian legitimation: The case of Bangladesh","authors":"Ali Riaz","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12016","url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, the relationships between religion and politics, particularly between religion and the state, have been widely discussed, yet relationships between authoritarian rulers and religion have not received their due attention. This fourth article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue addresses this lacuna and argues against the conventional wisdom that these two entities are always hostile to each other. The study contends that authoritarian rulers have used three strategies vis‐à‐vis religion as an ideology and religious actors as a political force. Autocrats have adopted repression and cooptation strategies to deal with religious actors and utilized religion as a tool of legitimation. The article offers a case study of Bangladesh which has witnessed the growing salience of religion in politics since 1976, although its 1972 constitution pledged secularism as a state principle. The article examines the strategies used during three phases of military and civilian authoritarianism—1976–1981, 1982–1990, and since 2011—and discusses the relationship between the authoritarian rulers and religion.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":" 50","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140692094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Maldives commenced its transition to democracy after its first multiparty elections in 2008. This was challenging due to the Maldives being a Muslim nation, its authoritarian legacy of monarchical rule before independence, and by dictatorship after independence. This article analyzes the postindependence rule periods of Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, which were akin to one‐man dictatorships. The third autocratic president postindependence, Abdulla Yameen, was an electoral authoritarian as he implemented authoritarian measures in a multi‐party context. I assess if religion provided political legitimacy to these authoritarian leaders or if religion was exploited by leaders to gain political support and civic spaces. Theories of authoritarianism, religious populism, electoral authoritarianism, as well as concepts of the ulema‐state alliance and the rentier state are utilized. In addition to their authoritarian legacy, democratic presidents like Mohamed Nasheed and Mohamed Solih had grappled with politicians' manipulation of religion through political Islam, Islamic nationalism, and fundamentalism to derail democracy by equating it to Westernization. These events resonate with Samuel Huntington's description of the conflict between the West and Islam as a clash of civilizations. Crimes against liberal thinkers by Islamic extremists are an added challenge. There is a real danger of another authoritarian reversal in the Maldives.
马尔代夫在 2008 年首次多党选举后开始向民主过渡。由于马尔代夫是一个穆斯林国家，独立前的君主专制统治和独立后的独裁统治是其独有的历史遗留问题，因此向民主过渡具有挑战性。本文分析了独立后易卜拉欣-纳西尔（Ibrahim Nasir）和穆穆姆姆-阿卜杜勒-加尧姆（Maumoom Abdul Gayoom）的统治时期，这两个时期类似于一人独裁。独立后的第三位专制总统阿卜杜拉-亚明是一位选举专制主义者，因为他在多党制背景下实施了专制措施。我将评估宗教是否为这些专制领导人提供了政治合法性，或者宗教是否被领导人利用来获得政治支持和公民空间。我运用了威权主义、宗教民粹主义、选举威权主义的理论，以及乌里玛-国家联盟和租界国家的概念。除了威权主义的遗产，穆罕默德-纳希德和穆罕默德-索利赫等民主派总统还努力应对政客通过政治伊斯兰教、伊斯兰民族主义和原教旨主义操纵宗教，将民主等同于西方化，从而破坏民主的问题。这些事件与塞缪尔-亨廷顿（Samuel Huntington）将西方与伊斯兰之间的冲突描述为文明冲突的观点不谋而合。伊斯兰极端分子对自由主义思想家的犯罪是一个额外的挑战。马尔代夫确实存在着另一次专制倒台的危险。
{"title":"Religion and authoritarianism in the Maldives: Is another authoritarian reversal in the Maldives imminent?","authors":"Mosmi Bhim","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12019","url":null,"abstract":"The Maldives commenced its transition to democracy after its first multiparty elections in 2008. This was challenging due to the Maldives being a Muslim nation, its authoritarian legacy of monarchical rule before independence, and by dictatorship after independence. This article analyzes the postindependence rule periods of Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoom Abdul Gayoom, which were akin to one‐man dictatorships. The third autocratic president postindependence, Abdulla Yameen, was an electoral authoritarian as he implemented authoritarian measures in a multi‐party context. I assess if religion provided political legitimacy to these authoritarian leaders or if religion was exploited by leaders to gain political support and civic spaces. Theories of authoritarianism, religious populism, electoral authoritarianism, as well as concepts of the ulema‐state alliance and the rentier state are utilized. In addition to their authoritarian legacy, democratic presidents like Mohamed Nasheed and Mohamed Solih had grappled with politicians' manipulation of religion through political Islam, Islamic nationalism, and fundamentalism to derail democracy by equating it to Westernization. These events resonate with Samuel Huntington's description of the conflict between the West and Islam as a clash of civilizations. Crimes against liberal thinkers by Islamic extremists are an added challenge. There is a real danger of another authoritarian reversal in the Maldives.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"4 s7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140693171","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This third article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue examines the intricate interplay between secularism, religious sentiment, and authoritarian politics in postindependence Bangladesh. Despite being founded on secular principles in 1971, the notion of Bangladesh as a strictly secular state is challenged. This article contends that while secularism was enshrined as a foundational state principle, its imposition occurred top‐down, diverging from prevailing societal ethos. The immediacy of the public backlash following its inclusion compelled ruling elites to adopt religion‐sensitive policies. I assert that the widespread religiosity among the populace steered subsequent political decisions. Notably, the shift from secularism to state‐sponsored Islam, the elevation of Islamic figures to cabinet roles, the recognition of Qawmi madrassa credentials, and the proliferation of Islamic rhetoric ensued. Analyzing a blend of archival data and field interviews, the article argues that the current authoritarian regime, emerging from an unconsolidated democratic framework, strategically exploits Islam as a political tool for legitimacy. By tapping into the prevailing Islamic sentiment, the regime aims to solidify its hold on power and navigate the complex political landscape of contemporary Bangladesh.
{"title":"Faith, politics, and power: The evolution of secularism and authoritarianism in Bangladesh","authors":"Shafi Md. Mostofa","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12015","url":null,"abstract":"This third article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue examines the intricate interplay between secularism, religious sentiment, and authoritarian politics in postindependence Bangladesh. Despite being founded on secular principles in 1971, the notion of Bangladesh as a strictly secular state is challenged. This article contends that while secularism was enshrined as a foundational state principle, its imposition occurred top‐down, diverging from prevailing societal ethos. The immediacy of the public backlash following its inclusion compelled ruling elites to adopt religion‐sensitive policies. I assert that the widespread religiosity among the populace steered subsequent political decisions. Notably, the shift from secularism to state‐sponsored Islam, the elevation of Islamic figures to cabinet roles, the recognition of Qawmi madrassa credentials, and the proliferation of Islamic rhetoric ensued. Analyzing a blend of archival data and field interviews, the article argues that the current authoritarian regime, emerging from an unconsolidated democratic framework, strategically exploits Islam as a political tool for legitimacy. By tapping into the prevailing Islamic sentiment, the regime aims to solidify its hold on power and navigate the complex political landscape of contemporary Bangladesh.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"52 24","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140701379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the implementation of progressive national policies and the adherence to numerous international conventions aimed at eradicating gender‐based violence and violence against women, incidents of violence against women in post‐war Sri Lanka are on the rise. This research delves into the intersection of post‐war populist politics supported by religious extremists and the resulting violence perpetrated against women, as well as its repercussions on women's well‐being. We are interested in locating the specific mechanisms through which religious extremism, authoritarian populism, and violence against women are connected. Our findings indicate that post‐war populist politics, backed by Buddhist religious extremists and the post‐war Sinhalese‐Buddhist hegemonic state's re‐building project, have generated dialectical relationships with Sri Lanka's minorities—Tamils and Muslims. These relationships are partially enacted through different forms of gender violence. This has consequences for all women. As successive confrontations deepen, the deterioration of these relationships exacerbates the likelihood of violence and reinforces a culture of impunity.
{"title":"Authoritarian populist politics, politico‐religious extremism, and violence against women in post‐war Sri Lanka","authors":"Shyamika Jayasundara-Smits, DB Subedi","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12017","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the implementation of progressive national policies and the adherence to numerous international conventions aimed at eradicating gender‐based violence and violence against women, incidents of violence against women in post‐war Sri Lanka are on the rise. This research delves into the intersection of post‐war populist politics supported by religious extremists and the resulting violence perpetrated against women, as well as its repercussions on women's well‐being. We are interested in locating the specific mechanisms through which religious extremism, authoritarian populism, and violence against women are connected. Our findings indicate that post‐war populist politics, backed by Buddhist religious extremists and the post‐war Sinhalese‐Buddhist hegemonic state's re‐building project, have generated dialectical relationships with Sri Lanka's minorities—Tamils and Muslims. These relationships are partially enacted through different forms of gender violence. This has consequences for all women. As successive confrontations deepen, the deterioration of these relationships exacerbates the likelihood of violence and reinforces a culture of impunity.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"321 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140703372","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This first article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue examines the Narendra Modi regime in India. Often acerbic political rhetoric is attached to official policies of the regime, creating fear and hopelessness within sections of the population. In this study, five sets of political activities of the government are evaluated. First, cultural authoritarianism became apparent with complicity toward “cow vigilantism,” slapping sedition charges against those showing political dissent, banning the history books of selected progressives, and stereotyping sections of the left and liberals as antinationals. Second, the demonetization policy was implemented without adequately following the economic protocols of the state. Third, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill indicates the thwarting of democratic and federalist ideas. Fourth, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens exercise in Assam demonstrate the communal‐fascist worldview of the regime in profiling population groups. Finally, the sloppy handling of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the new Information Technology rules show the government's callous approach toward science and privacy. By analyzing such political activities, the article points out that majoritarian religious nationalism, coupled with authoritarianism, has been the ideological expression of the Modi regime, coexisting with both state surveillance and electoral democracy.
{"title":"Authoritarianism and majoritarian religious nationalism in contemporary India","authors":"Maidul Islam","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12018","url":null,"abstract":"This first article in the 2024 World Affairs special issue examines the Narendra Modi regime in India. Often acerbic political rhetoric is attached to official policies of the regime, creating fear and hopelessness within sections of the population. In this study, five sets of political activities of the government are evaluated. First, cultural authoritarianism became apparent with complicity toward “cow vigilantism,” slapping sedition charges against those showing political dissent, banning the history books of selected progressives, and stereotyping sections of the left and liberals as antinationals. Second, the demonetization policy was implemented without adequately following the economic protocols of the state. Third, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Bill indicates the thwarting of democratic and federalist ideas. Fourth, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens exercise in Assam demonstrate the communal‐fascist worldview of the regime in profiling population groups. Finally, the sloppy handling of the COVID‐19 pandemic and the new Information Technology rules show the government's callous approach toward science and privacy. By analyzing such political activities, the article points out that majoritarian religious nationalism, coupled with authoritarianism, has been the ideological expression of the Modi regime, coexisting with both state surveillance and electoral democracy.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140714547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Simplice A. Asongu, Mushfiqur Rahman, Richard Adu-Gyamfi, Raufhon Salahodjaev
The purpose of this study is to assess how some governance dynamics, such as political stability and the rule of law, moderate the incidence of some macroeconomic factors (i.e., domestic investment and trade openness) on tourism development. The focus of this study is on 47 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa with data from 2002 to 2018, and the Generalized Method of Moments is employed as the empirical strategy. From the findings, synergy effects are apparent in the role of the rule of law in moderating domestic investment for tourism development in terms of tourism receipts. It follows that, for the sampled countries, promoting tourism development can be most effective if policies for enhancing domestic investment and promoting the rule of law are implemented simultaneously.
{"title":"Tourism management synergies in Sub‐Saharan Africa","authors":"Simplice A. Asongu, Mushfiqur Rahman, Richard Adu-Gyamfi, Raufhon Salahodjaev","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12011","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to assess how some governance dynamics, such as political stability and the rule of law, moderate the incidence of some macroeconomic factors (i.e., domestic investment and trade openness) on tourism development. The focus of this study is on 47 countries in sub‐Saharan Africa with data from 2002 to 2018, and the Generalized Method of Moments is employed as the empirical strategy. From the findings, synergy effects are apparent in the role of the rule of law in moderating domestic investment for tourism development in terms of tourism receipts. It follows that, for the sampled countries, promoting tourism development can be most effective if policies for enhancing domestic investment and promoting the rule of law are implemented simultaneously.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"118 31","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140079376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The United States is enduring an identity crisis characterized by a polarized political climate precipitating an American culture war. In this battle the Republican Party has been overtaken by “Anti‐wokeism” allied with antidemocratic “states' rights” beliefs claiming an exclusive, antipluralist definition of republic. The extremist right in America insists that America is not a democracy, but a “republic” built to respect the status of a minority characterized as white, nationalist and Christian. “Anti‐wokeism” is an extension of Trumpism and MAGA (Make America Great Again), gathering together antidemocratic forces, fueled by resentment and theories of racial displacement known as the Great Replacement Theory. These forces are overwhelming the modern Republican Party, inspiring homophobia, misogyny, racism, book bans, and violence. This essay addresses the following four elements of this crisis with an eye to a renewed vision of America: (1) the difference between an 18th Century and 21st Century definition of a republic; (2) the antidemocratic states' rights movement; (3) the nature of strongman populism in American politics; and (4) a vision of diversity as the core principle of the American Republic.
{"title":"Extended commentary—Keeping the republic: A vision for America","authors":"Anthony R. Brunello","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12006","url":null,"abstract":"The United States is enduring an identity crisis characterized by a polarized political climate precipitating an American culture war. In this battle the Republican Party has been overtaken by “Anti‐wokeism” allied with antidemocratic “states' rights” beliefs claiming an exclusive, antipluralist definition of republic. The extremist right in America insists that America is not a democracy, but a “republic” built to respect the status of a minority characterized as white, nationalist and Christian. “Anti‐wokeism” is an extension of Trumpism and MAGA (Make America Great Again), gathering together antidemocratic forces, fueled by resentment and theories of racial displacement known as the Great Replacement Theory. These forces are overwhelming the modern Republican Party, inspiring homophobia, misogyny, racism, book bans, and violence. This essay addresses the following four elements of this crisis with an eye to a renewed vision of America: (1) the difference between an 18th Century and 21st Century definition of a republic; (2) the antidemocratic states' rights movement; (3) the nature of strongman populism in American politics; and (4) a vision of diversity as the core principle of the American Republic.","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"23 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140432101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in massive refugee migration. In this article we consider how the European Union (EU) and the United States have so far managed this influx of people. For reasons explained in the article, the EU is more focused on humanitarian aid, while the United States is especially engaged through military aid. The EU and the United States have historically employed both overt and covert means of limiting refugee migration, and this has been especially the case with migrants of color. Ukrainian refugees have no problem entering EU countries and receiving help (work permits, housing, etc.), while the United States uses various ways that make entry into the United States fairly complicated and thus contain Ukrainian migration (e.g., difficulty filling out applications, finding a sponsor in the United States).
{"title":"Managing forced migration: Overt and covert policies to limit the influx of Ukrainian refugees","authors":"Alex M. Grosman, Jozef Raadschelders","doi":"10.1002/waf2.12005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12005","url":null,"abstract":"The Russian invasion of Ukraine has resulted in massive refugee migration. In this article we consider how the European Union (EU) and the United States have so far managed this influx of people. For reasons explained in the article, the EU is more focused on humanitarian aid, while the United States is especially engaged through military aid. The EU and the United States have historically employed both overt and covert means of limiting refugee migration, and this has been especially the case with migrants of color. Ukrainian refugees have no problem entering EU countries and receiving help (work permits, housing, etc.), while the United States uses various ways that make entry into the United States fairly complicated and thus contain Ukrainian migration (e.g., difficulty filling out applications, finding a sponsor in the United States).","PeriodicalId":35790,"journal":{"name":"World Affairs","volume":"8 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140432362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：