scholarly journals Security and democratic equality

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Milstein
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liberty ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Community ◽  
Police Powers ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Equality ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Fear Mongering ◽  
American Cities

Abstract After a recent spate of terrorist attacks in European and American cities, liberal democracies are reintroducing emergency securitarian measures (ESMs) that curtail rights and/or expand police powers. Political theorists who study ESMs are familiar with how such measures become instruments of discrimination and abuse, but the fundamental conflict ESMs pose for not just civil liberty but also democratic equality still remains insufficiently explored. Such phenomena are usually explained as a function of public panic or fear-mongering in times of crisis, but I show that the tension between security and equality is in fact much deeper and more general. It follows a different logic than the more familiar tension between security and liberty, and it concerns not just the rule of law in protecting liberty but also the role of law in integrating new or previously subjected groups into a democratic community. As liberal-democratic societies become increasingly diverse and multicultural in the present era of mass immigration and global interconnectedness, this tension between security and equality is likely to become more pronounced.

Deterrence and Democracy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Falkenrath
Keyword(s):  
War On Terror ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Global War On Terror ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
The Us ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Global War ◽  
Taking Action ◽  
The Given

This chapter examines strategy and deterrence and traces the shift from deterrence by ‘punishment’ to deterrence by ‘denial’ in Washington’s conduct of the Global War on Terror. The former rested on an assumption that the consequences of an action would serve as deterrents. The latter may carry messages of possible consequences, but these are delivered by taking action that removes the capabilities available to opponents – in the given context, the Islamist terrorists challenging the US. Both approaches rest on credibility, but are more complex in the realm of counter-terrorism, where the US authorities have no obvious ‘return to sender’ address and threats to punish have questionable credibility. In this context, denial offers a more realistic way of preventing terrorist attacks. Yet, the advanced means available to the US are deeply ethically problematic in liberal democratic societies. However, there would likely be even bigger questions if governments failed to act.

Liberalism, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear

Politics ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Sparks
Keyword(s):  
Civil Society ◽  
The Political ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Politics Of Fear ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Political Health ◽  
The Impact

This article considers the impact of terror and fear on the political health of liberal democratic societies. It examines the strategic use of terror to produce a politics of fear through an exploration of current Western reactions to terrorism. The argument is developed through a presentation of a three-part map of the politics of fear constituted by the instigation of fear, the (attempted) eradication of fear and the management of fear. Central to this presentation is an analysis of the destabilising effects the introduction of terror has on civil society and government, and of the effective ways of responding to it. Running through the presentation is an analysis of the constitution of terror and fear, their relationship to each other and to the general insecurities which beset liberal democracies.

scholarly journals Editorial

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. v-vii
Author(s):  
Jean-Paul Gagnon ◽  
Mark Chou
Keyword(s):  
Democratic Theory ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Dominant Tendency

This issue begins with Peter Strandbrink’s argument that “standard liberal democratic theory should be pressed significantly harder to recognize the lexical and conceptual fact that civic political and cognitive participation in mass liberal democracies belong to different theoretical species.” It is by conflating both of these theoretical species, which Strandbrink sees as the dominant tendency in contemporary democratic theory, that we inhibit our ability to critically evaluate “epistocratic theoretical registers.” Further unsettling is Stranbrink’s view that, once separated from each other, neither the theories of civic political or cognitive participation offer much help in dealing with the rise of “alt-facts” or “post-truth” in liberal democratic societies today.

Interview

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Stanley ◽  
John B. Min
Keyword(s):  
Real Life ◽  
Mass Incarceration ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic Societies

Stanley and Min discuss how propaganda works in liberal democratic societies. Stanley observes that the inability to address the crisis of liberal democracies can be partially explained by contemporary political philosophy’s penchant for idealized theorizing about norms of justice over transitions from injustice to justice. Whereas ancient and modern political philosophers took seriously propaganda and demagoguery of the elites and populists, contemporary political philosophers have tended to theorize about the idealized structures of justice. This leads to a lack of theoretical constructs and explanatory tools by which we can theorize about real-life political problems, such as mass incarceration. Starting with this premise, Stanley provides an explanation of how propaganda works and the mechanisms that enable propaganda. Stanley further theorizes the pernicious effects that elitism, populism, authoritarianism, and “post-truth” have on democratic politics.

Group-Differentiated Rights and the Liberal Democratic State: Rethinking the Headscarf Controversy in Turkey

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 31-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeşim Arat
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
The Past ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Clifford Geertz ◽  
Ethnocultural Groups ◽  
Special Rights ◽  
The Relationship

The development of liberalism with both the courage and the capacity to engage itself with a different world, one in which its principles are neither well understood nor widely held, in which indeed it is, in most places, a minority creed, alien and suspect, is not only possible, it is necessary.-Clifford Geertz. 2000.Available Light.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, p. 258.Over the past two decades, the debate over multiculturalism challenged the justice of neutral, “difference blind” rules in liberal democracies. Allegedly neutral institutions were shown to be implicitly biased toward the priorities, experiences, or interests of the dominant groups in the society. Criticism of difference-blind rules and claims for justice to minority groups defined the relationship between government and opposition in many contexts. Arguments for special rights to protect minorities, women, or ethnocultural groups gained legitimacy (Young 1990, Jones 1990, Phillips 1991, Taylor 1994, Kymlicka 1995, Kymlicka and Norman 2000).

Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments

2002 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARASH ABIZADEH
Keyword(s):  
Social Integration ◽  
National Culture ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Public Culture ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Shared Norms

This paper subjects to critical analysis four common arguments in the sociopolitical theory literature supporting the cultural nationalist thesis that liberal democracy is viable only against the background of a single national public culture: the arguments that (1) social integration in a liberal democracy requires shared norms and beliefs (Schnapper); (2) the levels of trust that democratic politics requires can be attained only among conationals (Miller); (3) democratic deliberation requires communicational transparency, possible in turn only within a shared national public culture (Miller, Barry); and (4) the economic viability of specifically industrialized liberal democracies requires a single national culture (Gellner). I argue that all four arguments fail: At best, a shared cultural nation may reduce some of the costs liberal democratic societies must incur; at worst, cultural nationalist policies ironically undermine social integration. The failure of these cultural nationalist arguments clears the way for a normative theory of liberal democracy in multinational and postnational contexts.

scholarly journals Russian Cyber Information Warfare: International Distribution and Domestic Control

MCU Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-127
Author(s):  
Lev Topor ◽  
Alexander Tabachnik
Keyword(s):  
Information Warfare ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Informational Influence ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Foreign Influence ◽  
International Distribution ◽  
Democratic Societies ◽  
Hearts And Minds

Cyber information warfare (IW) is a double-edged sword. States use IW to shape the hearts and minds of foreign societies and policy makers. However, states are also prone to foreign influence through IW. This assumption applies mainly to liberal democratic societies. The question examined in this article is how Russia uses IW on other countries but protects itself from the same activities. The authors’ main argument is that while Russia executes influence operations and IW in cyberspace, it strives for uncompromising control over its domestic cyberspace, thus restricting undesirable informational influence over its population.

Liberal-Democratic Torture

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-34
Author(s):  
William L. d'Ambruoso
Keyword(s):  
Rational Choice ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Liberal Democracies ◽  
Standard Definition ◽  
Norm Violations ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Pattern Of Recurrence

This chapter gives a primer on liberal-democratic torture. A brief summary of the historical record shows that liberal democracies have repeatedly engaged in “stealth” coercive interrogation, which the chapter argues usually qualifies as torture by the UN Convention against Torture’s standard definition. What can explain the pattern of recurrence that emerges? Previous work is a useful starting point but leaves important questions unanswered. Lack of monitoring can invite norm violations, but torture is not always hidden. Racism and anger make states and individuals more likely to torture, but they do not tell us why torture often occurs in conjunction with demands for intelligence. Realist and rational choice arguments help to explain the frequent connection between torture and intelligence needs, but they fail to address critical lurking puzzles: Why do people believe torture works? And how do torturers justify these norm-breaking deeds to themselves and others?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document