A lot of people seem to conflate ‘democracy’ with ‘status quo institutions and center-left parties’, but in many cases these are deeply illiberal and undemocratic. I think you would benefit from considering institutional / center-left threats to democracy, which quite glossed over in this essay.
When I think about threats to democracy, I think of things like:
None of these violations of individual rights or the ability of the people to affect policy through political change were enacted by populist or extremist parties—they were enacted by generally respected and left-wing incumbents.
I agree to the extent that measures like these can be harmful to democracy, that some of them are, and that this topic needs to be discussed seriously. At the same time, I think it’s too simplistic to say that all such measures are per se anti-democratic.
In the article, I mentioned Germany’s law against incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung) and noted that it is controversial for exactly this reason. The goal of the law is a “militant democracy” (wehrhafte Demokratie), a democratic system that can defend itself against extremist political movements. The reason for this approach lies in our historical experience with National Socialism. The same applies to Germany’s law that allows extremist parties to be banned under very specific conditions.
That said, the legitimacy of such laws is controversial for good reasons. They can be — and occasionally are — misused, including by center and center-left political actors. This might be a good topic for a follow-up article in the future.
A lot of people seem to conflate ‘democracy’ with ‘status quo institutions and center-left parties’, but in many cases these are deeply illiberal and undemocratic. I think you would benefit from considering institutional / center-left threats to democracy, which quite glossed over in this essay.
When I think about threats to democracy, I think of things like:
Cancelling or repeatedly delaying elections if your party is expected to lose.
Criminal convictions for satire of incumbent politicians.
Preventing opposition legislators from being allowed to vote.
Considering banning popular opposition parties.
Arresting over 10,000 people a year for ‘offensive’ speech.
Unprecedented and Illegal use of emergency powers to crack down on disruptive but non-violent protests.
None of these violations of individual rights or the ability of the people to affect policy through political change were enacted by populist or extremist parties—they were enacted by generally respected and left-wing incumbents.
I agree to the extent that measures like these can be harmful to democracy, that some of them are, and that this topic needs to be discussed seriously. At the same time, I think it’s too simplistic to say that all such measures are per se anti-democratic.
In the article, I mentioned Germany’s law against incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung) and noted that it is controversial for exactly this reason. The goal of the law is a “militant democracy” (wehrhafte Demokratie), a democratic system that can defend itself against extremist political movements. The reason for this approach lies in our historical experience with National Socialism. The same applies to Germany’s law that allows extremist parties to be banned under very specific conditions.
That said, the legitimacy of such laws is controversial for good reasons. They can be — and occasionally are — misused, including by center and center-left political actors. This might be a good topic for a follow-up article in the future.