Pub Date : 2022-09-25DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2126155
Rodrigo Fracalossi de Moraes
ABSTRACT This article investigates whether Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro extended demagoguery and populism into his foreign policy discourse. An analysis of 673 tweets indicates that demagoguery was more common (observed in 94 tweets) than populism (observed in 14 tweets). Bolsonaro adopted a Red Scare tactic, distorted information about the 2019 Amazon wildfires, spread rumours about COVID-19, and portrayed relations with the US during Trump’s administration and Israel during Netanyahu’s as panaceas. Findings suggest that demagoguery can ramify into foreign policy discourse, with a leader fitting distorted interpretations of foreign topics and actors into stories made for domestic consumption. Bolsonaro was cautious concerning relations with China though, indicating that international power politics and expected gains or losses from trade and investment may condition the scope of demagogical discourses. This article shows a conceptual gap in literature on foreign policy discourse, which a framework using the concept of demagoguery can, in part, fill.
{"title":"Demagoguery, populism, and foreign policy rhetoric: evidence from Jair Bolsonaro’s tweets","authors":"Rodrigo Fracalossi de Moraes","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2126155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2126155","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article investigates whether Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro extended demagoguery and populism into his foreign policy discourse. An analysis of 673 tweets indicates that demagoguery was more common (observed in 94 tweets) than populism (observed in 14 tweets). Bolsonaro adopted a Red Scare tactic, distorted information about the 2019 Amazon wildfires, spread rumours about COVID-19, and portrayed relations with the US during Trump’s administration and Israel during Netanyahu’s as panaceas. Findings suggest that demagoguery can ramify into foreign policy discourse, with a leader fitting distorted interpretations of foreign topics and actors into stories made for domestic consumption. Bolsonaro was cautious concerning relations with China though, indicating that international power politics and expected gains or losses from trade and investment may condition the scope of demagogical discourses. This article shows a conceptual gap in literature on foreign policy discourse, which a framework using the concept of demagoguery can, in part, fill.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"249 - 275"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42675836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2118436
Y. Zhai
ABSTRACT Citizens in authoritarian regimes understand the concept of democracy under the influence of the state's manipulation and individual agency. This study examines Chinese citizens’ perception of three types of government – people relationships – government (1) of the people; (2) by the people; and (3) for the people – without directly using the term ‘democracy’. Citizens’ perceptions of these three principles of democracy can predict the level of their support for democracy, identifying variations among Chinese ‘democrats’. The principle of government by the people is most popular among the Chinese public. Citizens who understand democracy based on government of the people are dissatisfied with the country's level of democracy and criticize authoritarian politics. Public understanding of democracy based on government for the people has an anti-democratic orientation, and is compatible with support for authoritarian rule. This study unveils variations in the Chinese public's understanding of democracy and its impact on politics.
{"title":"Embracing the concept of democracy in China: citizens’ democratic perceptions and support","authors":"Y. Zhai","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2118436","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2118436","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Citizens in authoritarian regimes understand the concept of democracy under the influence of the state's manipulation and individual agency. This study examines Chinese citizens’ perception of three types of government – people relationships – government (1) of the people; (2) by the people; and (3) for the people – without directly using the term ‘democracy’. Citizens’ perceptions of these three principles of democracy can predict the level of their support for democracy, identifying variations among Chinese ‘democrats’. The principle of government by the people is most popular among the Chinese public. Citizens who understand democracy based on government of the people are dissatisfied with the country's level of democracy and criticize authoritarian politics. Public understanding of democracy based on government for the people has an anti-democratic orientation, and is compatible with support for authoritarian rule. This study unveils variations in the Chinese public's understanding of democracy and its impact on politics.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"228 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43699738","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2118426
Hai Yang
ABSTRACT This article makes a case for studying the legitimation of emergency politics from the vantage point of securitisation. To that end, it zooms in on politics during the COVID-19 pandemic – a many-sided crisis that generated a heightened insecurity environment. Based on a qualitative content analysis of the French official rhetoric on two COVID-19 emergency measures, it foregrounds how securitising speech acts construing a macro threat and notable shifts in hierarchical ordering of securitisations underpinned justifications for COVID-19 pandemic politics. Conceptually, this research bridges the literature on legitimation and securitisation by synthesising scattered securitising elements in typologies of legitimation and outlining the legitimating function of two securitisation dynamics – macrosecuritisation and securitising dilemma.
{"title":"‘We are at war’: securitisation, legitimation and COVID-19 pandemic politics in France","authors":"Hai Yang","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2118426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2118426","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article makes a case for studying the legitimation of emergency politics from the vantage point of securitisation. To that end, it zooms in on politics during the COVID-19 pandemic – a many-sided crisis that generated a heightened insecurity environment. Based on a qualitative content analysis of the French official rhetoric on two COVID-19 emergency measures, it foregrounds how securitising speech acts construing a macro threat and notable shifts in hierarchical ordering of securitisations underpinned justifications for COVID-19 pandemic politics. Conceptually, this research bridges the literature on legitimation and securitisation by synthesising scattered securitising elements in typologies of legitimation and outlining the legitimating function of two securitisation dynamics – macrosecuritisation and securitising dilemma.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"207 - 227"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46041496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-20DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2102320
Ánh Ngọc Vũ, Binh Quang Le
ABSTRACT The liberal-dominated civil society theory tends to obscure the dynamics and intricacy of state-society relations in authoritarian contexts. Existing accounts on Vietnam have not cast adequate light onto the struggles of ideology and positions between the state and civil society. Drawing on the most recent data from social media in Vietnam, the article contributes a new analytical approach to understanding state-society relations by offering granular insights into the contrasting but mutually reinforcing narratives adopted by the state and civil society actors. In particular, the article steers attention towards the opportunities that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have provided for ideological struggles and legitimacy building between these actors. The paper argues that rather than continuously pushing forward the rhetoric ‘civic space is shrinking’, these alternatives must be steeped within wider historical understanding, attuned to particularities of the social-political context, and ultimately reflective of the evolving intricate state-society relations.
{"title":"The politics of civil society narratives in contestation between liberalism and nationalism in authoritarian Vietnam","authors":"Ánh Ngọc Vũ, Binh Quang Le","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2102320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2102320","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The liberal-dominated civil society theory tends to obscure the dynamics and intricacy of state-society relations in authoritarian contexts. Existing accounts on Vietnam have not cast adequate light onto the struggles of ideology and positions between the state and civil society. Drawing on the most recent data from social media in Vietnam, the article contributes a new analytical approach to understanding state-society relations by offering granular insights into the contrasting but mutually reinforcing narratives adopted by the state and civil society actors. In particular, the article steers attention towards the opportunities that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic have provided for ideological struggles and legitimacy building between these actors. The paper argues that rather than continuously pushing forward the rhetoric ‘civic space is shrinking’, these alternatives must be steeped within wider historical understanding, attuned to particularities of the social-political context, and ultimately reflective of the evolving intricate state-society relations.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"182 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49543645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-07-06DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2096191
Jonas Wolff
ABSTRACT In recent years, democracy has been facing increasing challenges. How has comparative regime research responded? Focusing on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, this paper argues that the perception of serious threats to democracy in general and liberal norms in particular has given rise to a convergence around the liberal conception of democracy, reversing a previous turn towards recognising its conceptual contestability. In tracing V-Dem’s discursive turn from the contestation to the decontestation of democracy, the paper reconstructs two mechanisms that concern the ways in which academic research relates to the outside world and that have jointly pushed V-Dem scholars towards embracing unequivocally liberal conceptions of regime type and regime change. As a response to the crisis of democracy, this gradual abandonment of a pluralist conceptualisation of democracy is understandable but also deeply problematic as it contributes to downplaying the inherent limitations of liberal democracy.
{"title":"From the Varieties of Democracy to the defense of liberal democracy: V-Dem and the reconstitution of liberal hegemony under threat","authors":"Jonas Wolff","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2096191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2096191","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In recent years, democracy has been facing increasing challenges. How has comparative regime research responded? Focusing on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project, this paper argues that the perception of serious threats to democracy in general and liberal norms in particular has given rise to a convergence around the liberal conception of democracy, reversing a previous turn towards recognising its conceptual contestability. In tracing V-Dem’s discursive turn from the contestation to the decontestation of democracy, the paper reconstructs two mechanisms that concern the ways in which academic research relates to the outside world and that have jointly pushed V-Dem scholars towards embracing unequivocally liberal conceptions of regime type and regime change. As a response to the crisis of democracy, this gradual abandonment of a pluralist conceptualisation of democracy is understandable but also deeply problematic as it contributes to downplaying the inherent limitations of liberal democracy.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"161 - 181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46610217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-30DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2095762
Jessica Kirk
ABSTRACT This article examines how the securitisation of COVID-19 in the United States was publicly contested. Reviewing the wider securitisation scholarship, it outlines five different kinds of contestation: securitisation failure, contestation within, counter-securitisation, the securitisation of securitisation, and desecuritization. Considering these within a discourse analysis of how COVID-19 was securitised and contested by both key political figures and protestors between 1 January 2020 and 30 May 2020, the paper finds that the securitisation of COVID-19 took two forms. One used war metaphors to represent COVID-19 as a ‘foreign enemy’ to be (quickly) conquered, while the other represented normality – everyday economic and social activity – as dangerous. The former saw efforts to desecuritize and ‘close’ the threat, while the latter was securitised as a threat itself. Ultimately, COVID-19 was downgraded to a manageable risk, while measures that recognised its continuing threat were depicted as existential threats to American lives, jobs, prosperity, and freedoms.
{"title":"‘The cure cannot be worse than the problem’: securitising the securitisation of COVID-19 in the USA","authors":"Jessica Kirk","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2095762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2095762","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines how the securitisation of COVID-19 in the United States was publicly contested. Reviewing the wider securitisation scholarship, it outlines five different kinds of contestation: securitisation failure, contestation within, counter-securitisation, the securitisation of securitisation, and desecuritization. Considering these within a discourse analysis of how COVID-19 was securitised and contested by both key political figures and protestors between 1 January 2020 and 30 May 2020, the paper finds that the securitisation of COVID-19 took two forms. One used war metaphors to represent COVID-19 as a ‘foreign enemy’ to be (quickly) conquered, while the other represented normality – everyday economic and social activity – as dangerous. The former saw efforts to desecuritize and ‘close’ the threat, while the latter was securitised as a threat itself. Ultimately, COVID-19 was downgraded to a manageable risk, while measures that recognised its continuing threat were depicted as existential threats to American lives, jobs, prosperity, and freedoms.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"141 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49505373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-21DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2088090
Byung-Deuk Woo, Ki Eun Ryu
ABSTRACT Does the women’s descriptive representation have nonlinear impacts on women’s substantive representation? This article contributes to the literature on women in politics by opening the academic black box of the nonlinear impacts of women’s descriptive representation with the time-series cross-national data on the ratification of women’s international treaties of 117 countries from 1960 to 2016. Our study demonstrates that there is a nonlinear relationship between the improvement of women’s descriptive representation in parliaments and the number of women’s international treaties ratified. To be specific, we find that the increase in the percentage of women in parliaments leads countries to ratify women’s international treaties. Interestingly, the link between the percentage of female legislators and the number of women’s international treaties ratified turns into a negative relationship when the percentage reaches around 30%. We also find that the impact of women’s descriptive representation is only valid in democratic countries.
{"title":"The nonlinear impact of women’s descriptive representation: an empirical study on the ratification of women rights treaties","authors":"Byung-Deuk Woo, Ki Eun Ryu","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2088090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2088090","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Does the women’s descriptive representation have nonlinear impacts on women’s substantive representation? This article contributes to the literature on women in politics by opening the academic black box of the nonlinear impacts of women’s descriptive representation with the time-series cross-national data on the ratification of women’s international treaties of 117 countries from 1960 to 2016. Our study demonstrates that there is a nonlinear relationship between the improvement of women’s descriptive representation in parliaments and the number of women’s international treaties ratified. To be specific, we find that the increase in the percentage of women in parliaments leads countries to ratify women’s international treaties. Interestingly, the link between the percentage of female legislators and the number of women’s international treaties ratified turns into a negative relationship when the percentage reaches around 30%. We also find that the impact of women’s descriptive representation is only valid in democratic countries.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"114 - 140"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44290519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-02DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2080959
G. Abbondanza
ABSTRACT While Australian and Italian policies on irregular maritime migration are widely debated, they have seldom been examined together, a gap in the literature that this article addresses with a comprehensive comparative analysis. Informed by theories on irregular migrants' reception, it traces the two countries' policies between 2000 and early 2022, and examines their many convergences and few discrepancies through a framework comprising (i) domestic pressures, (ii) international pressures, and (iii) the choice between the moral imperative and national interest. It finds that contrasting socio-political characteristics domestically explain why Canberra and Rome have at times adopted opposite policies, whereas comparable international pressures clarify the implementation of similar ones. It also sheds light on the contradiction in Australia's middle power identity and ‘good international citizenship', and on Italy’s torn posture betwixt great power politics and humanitarian efforts. In 2020–2022, their policy continuity amidst the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of notice.
{"title":"A sea of difference? Australian and Italian approaches to irregular migration and seaborne asylum seekers","authors":"G. Abbondanza","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2080959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2080959","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While Australian and Italian policies on irregular maritime migration are widely debated, they have seldom been examined together, a gap in the literature that this article addresses with a comprehensive comparative analysis. Informed by theories on irregular migrants' reception, it traces the two countries' policies between 2000 and early 2022, and examines their many convergences and few discrepancies through a framework comprising (i) domestic pressures, (ii) international pressures, and (iii) the choice between the moral imperative and national interest. It finds that contrasting socio-political characteristics domestically explain why Canberra and Rome have at times adopted opposite policies, whereas comparable international pressures clarify the implementation of similar ones. It also sheds light on the contradiction in Australia's middle power identity and ‘good international citizenship', and on Italy’s torn posture betwixt great power politics and humanitarian efforts. In 2020–2022, their policy continuity amidst the COVID-19 pandemic is worthy of notice.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"93 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49493039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-29DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2069068
Loretta Dell’Aguzzo, E. Diodato
ABSTRACT In this paper, we explain how the international relations of authoritarian regimes shape their reaction to nonviolent popular mobilisation. We identify four main strategies of authoritarian survival and argue that – from the incumbents’ perspective – repression and democratic opening are riskier than informal and formal co-optation. Thus, we ask why some nondemocratic rulers select riskier rather than safer strategies. Although recent studies have devoted much attention to the relevance of international factors in shaping domestic politics, this proposition has not been thoroughly theorised nor scrutinised empirically. We focus on authoritarian regimes that have established patron–client relations with foreign powers and argue that patrons’ regimes influence the selection of specific survival strategies by threatened clients. We hypothesise that dictators with democratic patrons are induced to adopt riskier strategies of survival, whereas clients of autocracies are more likely to select safer strategies. We test our hypothesis on MENA countries.
{"title":"Patron-client state relations and the geopolitics of authoritarian survival and breakdown: evidence from the MENA countries","authors":"Loretta Dell’Aguzzo, E. Diodato","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2069068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2069068","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, we explain how the international relations of authoritarian regimes shape their reaction to nonviolent popular mobilisation. We identify four main strategies of authoritarian survival and argue that – from the incumbents’ perspective – repression and democratic opening are riskier than informal and formal co-optation. Thus, we ask why some nondemocratic rulers select riskier rather than safer strategies. Although recent studies have devoted much attention to the relevance of international factors in shaping domestic politics, this proposition has not been thoroughly theorised nor scrutinised empirically. We focus on authoritarian regimes that have established patron–client relations with foreign powers and argue that patrons’ regimes influence the selection of specific survival strategies by threatened clients. We hypothesise that dictators with democratic patrons are induced to adopt riskier strategies of survival, whereas clients of autocracies are more likely to select safer strategies. We test our hypothesis on MENA countries.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"43 - 67"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42376413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-28DOI: 10.1080/13569775.2022.2069312
Josh Holloway, R. Manwaring
ABSTRACT Scholars increasingly refer to ‘democratic resilience’ to understand the ways democracies respond to threats and challenges. Likewise, policymakers advocate democratic resilience as part of foreign and security strategies, and as an aim of internally strengthening democratic practices, amid changing threat environments. But what does ‘democratic resilience’ mean? Does it align with well-established resilience theorising across other disciplines, and does it provide anything distinct from existing means of understanding democratic perseverance? To answer these questions, we conduct a systematic review of literature discussing democratic resilience, and measure findings against a synthesis of multidisciplinary theorising on resilience. We find that democratic resilience is often under-theorised, used in a fashion that largely repackages existing democratisation concepts, or fails to incorporate advancements in broader resilience theorising. Recent contributions to both theoretical development and operationalisation of democratic resilience, however, indicate a potential turning point in the evolution of the concept.
{"title":"How well does ‘resilience’ apply to democracy? A systematic review","authors":"Josh Holloway, R. Manwaring","doi":"10.1080/13569775.2022.2069312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2022.2069312","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Scholars increasingly refer to ‘democratic resilience’ to understand the ways democracies respond to threats and challenges. Likewise, policymakers advocate democratic resilience as part of foreign and security strategies, and as an aim of internally strengthening democratic practices, amid changing threat environments. But what does ‘democratic resilience’ mean? Does it align with well-established resilience theorising across other disciplines, and does it provide anything distinct from existing means of understanding democratic perseverance? To answer these questions, we conduct a systematic review of literature discussing democratic resilience, and measure findings against a synthesis of multidisciplinary theorising on resilience. We find that democratic resilience is often under-theorised, used in a fashion that largely repackages existing democratisation concepts, or fails to incorporate advancements in broader resilience theorising. Recent contributions to both theoretical development and operationalisation of democratic resilience, however, indicate a potential turning point in the evolution of the concept.","PeriodicalId":51673,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics","volume":"29 1","pages":"68 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41674147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：